Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

I keep seeing the same pattern. A safety concern is raised. Then the real fight moves away from the concern itself and into process, internal decisions, and closed regulatory circles. I wrote recently about Dr Chris Day Dr Chris Day and what happened after he raised patient safety concerns...

ArturNadol7566's profile picture

Artur Nadolny

6,924 subscribers

15,152 views • 4 months ago •via X (Twitter)

LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

The Royal High Courts are certainly a place of grandeur and perhaps some are intimidated by the surroundings. Well that impressive 19th century Gothic architecture is a sight to behold but the Judges less so. I’ve seen too many judges in the UK and Pakistan and by God, they leave a lot to be desired. Especially when one comes across McGowan the Mediocre. What should have been a straightforward win has turned into a cheating exercise by the very judiciary meant to uphold justice in this country. Why do I say straightforward? Let’s recap. After 3-4 failed complaints to the GMC, the Jewish lobbies upped the ante. First came my loss of contract at South Tyneside and Sunderland NHS Foundation Trust where I was doing some clinics. No investigation. Just blocked from the email and can’t address patient queries. Then started the defamation in the press – articles in the Jewish News, Jewish Chronicle and Telegraph followed by loss of contract with Medinet with whom I’d worked since 2018 intermittently and had glowing reviews. The GMC now opens an investigation – given the pressure from Wes Streeting, elected in July 2024. They wanted an Interim Orders Tribunal (IOT) to decide if any sanction should be imposed whilst I was being “investigated”. I had a trip abroad for my brother’s assassination case and I had clinics. Patients who had waited 12-18 months to see a Neurologist. The GMC and MPTS didn’t care. The Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) is allegedly an independent body to the GMC and runs the IOT panels. They would not move the IOT by 11 working days as the GMC had refused (so much for independence!) – instead of 20th December I had suggested 13th January 2025. Recall this was over the Christmas period – people going on holidays and yet I was expected to get legal advice when I was in clinic from 8am – 6pm. I told them patients came first – I stand by that. Hurt Jewish feelings aren’t urgent and they don’t come before my patient care. I requested deferment by 11 working days, told them I would defend every single tweet and indeed, looked forward to it. This was all via email. Multiple emails. All ignored – including the one letter that contained my “defences”. They would not budge – the Jewish lobbies were demanding action and the GMC wasn’t going to risk their ire again. Wes Streeting was breathing down their necks. On 20th December 2024, I saw my Neurology patients and on 23rdDecember, I found out that I’d been suspended for 18 months. No other doctor had an 18-month suspension or got one since – in their absence. My remaining clinics in December and January all cancelled. Some patients were cancelled as they were making their way to my clinic. I requested the transcript of the IOT hearing – the GMC had been demanding conditions on my license on public interest grounds yet 3 batty women decided I should be suspended for 18 months for public interest and patient protection! Later, the barrister for the indemnity body stated he “couldn’t get purchase on” how they came to that decision. In any case, after being misled by my indemnity body – who suggested that I first ask for an early review, delayed asking for it and then the GMC refused. They were refusing to allow me to be heard after claiming I wouldn’t attend. The indemnity body then reneged on the agreed High Court action. The GMC even send me the Rule 7 letter – the final “allegations” against me on 5 February 2025 which they then updated in March. Ordinarily this takes about 9 months to send – in my case, they managed to do it within 6 weeks! Yet one of the reasons they claimed I needed to be suspended for 18 months was because of the lengthy investigation…. I had to reply by 5 May 2025 which I did via a191-page response. The GMC usually respond within 3-4 weeks. As of 21 January 2026, I have yet to hear from them. I then took matters into my own hand. Let down by cowardly lawyers except one (Yasmin), I filed a High Court application under Section 41 A(10) of the Medical Act 1983 to challenge my unlawful suspension. I requested an urgent expedited hearing as I was being left with no way to earn a living. There were 10 grounds of appeal. The High Court date was set for 10th July 2025. Meanwhile, the MPTS is obliged to give a 6-month review – 16th June 2025 afternoon was scheduled. I stated I wanted this in person and in public. I flew back from Kashmir on 9th June – it’s cheaper to live there - and found myself arrested at Holyhead under s12 of the Terrorism Act for “alleged support of proscribed groups” – apparently I was “on the wanted list. I’m released 14 hours later. They’d seized my mobile phones and laptop and wait for it, all my GMC documents that I’d carefully put together. I’m still not sure why I couldn’t get those back. I learn that the GMC is seeking information about this non-reportable arrest within 24 hours of it – they know. In any case, I go for the IOT hearing – and the GMC Counsel attempts to utilise the arrest. I object. The panel agree that it will not be considered. However, the MPTS have set an insufficient amount of time for the hearing – they would have known. There were over 1000 pages in the bundle of nonsense – the only worthwhile part of that was my beautifully written 191-page response. I was quite proud of it if I’m honest. It could be considered my second PhD thesis. As I have to return to Pakistan for hearings and the High Court case was 10thJuly, the IOT hearing was re-scheduled for 14th July 2025. So, fast forward to 10th July 2025. Under 48 hours before the hearing is due, the GMC submit their skeleton arguments – ordinarily submitted 7-14 days before – no doubt, to wrong foot me. They finally admit that the IOT panel made an “error of law” in not properly applying the Article 10 rights but argue they got to the “right decision but by the wrong route” (!) I am self-representing in Court 1 at the Royal Courts of Justice – the GMC have their in-house lawyer, their GMC Counsel and her clerk. But I have the best lawyer (currently abroad) and an excellent McKenzie friend, Sean Naughton and my well wishers who attended to support me. We start at 10 30am – and I ask the Judge to review the admission of illegality. On that basis alone, my suspension should be revoked. She declines and wants to hear the case. I then detail the IOT powers and how the grounds to sanction me had not been met – they had not proven public interest or public protection. I discussed the GMC actions, the unfairness, disproportionality, the abuse of process, the outright lies by the GMC, the draconian 18-month suspension, the persecution by the Jewish lobbies and the breach of my rights under Articles 8, 9 and 10 of the ECHR. My opening lines: “I submit that the suspension was political in nature. It was subject to bias and external pressure was clearly evident. It was unlawful and demonstrated seriously flawed reasoning. It was manifestly wrong and the panel erred in law. It was completely unnecessary. It’s been tainted by marked procedural errors, unfairness and it has demonstrated gross abuse of process by the GMC and the MPTS and the IOT panel and those abuses have continued. The suspension is draconian and disproportionate and inconsistent with other decision makings of the IOT panels. It is a complete violation of my rights under Article 8, 9 and especially Article 10 of the European Court of Human Rights. And it is demonstrated also limitation of the panel’s expertise, both in terms of law, but also, importantly, the context of the rights of the Palestinian people and it brings into serious question whether the GMC should be policing speech of doctors. It should certainly not be policing or interfering in political speech.” I went through each ground in detail giving the relevant case law. I talked openly about the nature of that persecution: “All of the complaints against me have been made by Jewish and pro-Israeli affiliated organisations and I think it’s necessary to list them – Lawyers for Israel, in collaboration with Gnasherjew, the Jewish Medical Association twice; the unnamed Jewish Zionist doctor; the Jewish News who defamed me; the reporter is Michelle Rosenberg - who is Jewish and Zionist; the Daily Telegraph defamation - George Chesterton is married to a Jewish woman; Miranda Levy and Jacob Freedland are both Jewish and Zionist. I had the Jewish Chronicle defamation - Jane Prinsley is Jewish and has a home in Israel; Campaign Against Antisemitism by Stephen Silverman, who is Jewish and has submitted three similar tweets in March 2025 to the GMC which have been included in my Rule 7 letter without due process the GMC is obliged to follow on receipt of a new complaint. And then, twice in the Jerusalem Post - Mathilda Heller and Michael Starr are both Jewish Zionists. And despite the suspension, Sabrina Miller, a Jewish Zionist journalist at the Daily Mail attacked a number of pro-Palestinian doctors, including myself. So, these previous complaints that have been dismissed by the GMC included tweets of a similar nature. The tweets have not changed, but I would contend that the priorities of the GMC had and my complaint was clearly being handled by individuals who appeared conflicted. In my witness statement, I have detailed the behaviour of XXX, XXX, XXX who refused to respond to emails on where disclosures from the GMC themselves, since I submitted this appeal, have since revealed that XX XX had made false notes on my record claiming I had prior FTP history. In addition, in July 2024, Wes Streeting became the Health Secretary. I refer Your Honour to pages 327 to 337 of the bundle. There’s a Declassified article, incidentally, that’s been written by a Jewish journalist, Matt Kennard. He has investigated Streeting’s support of Israel since his days at the National Union of Students. It documents that he visited Israel in 2022 paid for by the Labour Friends of Israel. That organisation’s former chair was Joan Ryan, infamously found to be discussing her £1 million payment from Israel with Shai Masot, the Israeli diplomat. Streeting has taken over £20,000 from Israeli lobbyist, Trevor Chinn. Trevor Chinn’s father heads the Jewish National Fund which supports illegal Israeli settlements and from Lord Mendelsohn and David Menton. The Jewish Chronicle even ran a profile of him entitled “Wes Streeting, our friend at the NUS”. So, there’s little surprise that Wes Streeting made comments in The Telegraph stating he would urge medical regulators to discipline staff expressing views which he, as a pro-Israeli and Zionist, opposed. He stated that regulators had the power to set conditions that a healthcare professional must work under. Suspend them or strike them entirely from the medical register. He made similar comments to The Times. He then met with the Board of Deputies for Community Security Trust, which is also behind my complaint, the Jewish Leadership Council and the Jewish Medical Association, reiterating “I expect employers and regulators to take action”. The idea that this political pressure by the Health Secretary in November 2024 was irrelevant to my suspension is untenable in the face of this clear intervention, which actually represents political interference and undermines the alleged independence of the GMC.” And I made clear the Jewish privilege at play “So, from what I’ve just presented, it’s very clear that the red line concerns Israel. Tweets, that’s words. Criticising an entity, carrying out the mass slaughter against innocent civilians will be punished more severely than malpractice, blatant dishonesty, criminal convictions or even genuine Jew hatred, as long as you are not a Muslim. And if you’re Jewish and you belong to a powerful lobby group like the Jewish Medical Association, then the GMC gives you a clear pass as shown in the case of Liz Lightstone and Justin Stebbing.” I made clear that even the GMC referral to the MPTS explicitly stated “that there was no evidence of [her] racially discriminating against anyone or discriminating against Jewish people.” I stated in the High Court “And I should point out that the Jewish people are not a race; Judaism is a religion” and “It is my inalienable right to be able to disagree with the narrative from Israeli lobbies and express it. Their free speech does not trump mine.” I made sure that she understood that my patients and even Grok approved of me: “In fact, Grok is positively glowing – “Dr Rehiana Ali’s tweet carry a fiery, unapologetic tone blending sharp intellect with a raw defiance against injustice echoing the spirit of Malcolm X, mirrors Malcolm’s blend of moral clarity, confrontational rhetoric and distain for oppressive systems.” “I can’t think of a better person to be compared to.” I further stated “I do not believe that legal, that legitimate political commentary or reporting facts can be antisemitic. I do not believe that any groups, be they Jewish, Muslims or Christians, are exempt from criticism where the situation warrants it. I do not believe in hate speech, as that’s the very antithesis of free speech, but also, importantly, there is no tweet of mine that demonstrates hatred for any group simply by virtue of their religious identity and, indeed, none has been identified as such.” I even quoted the Queen: “I do not accept that stating facts becomes anti-Jewish simply because the majority of those committing the crimes are Jewish. If you take that to the logical conclusion, that would mean that no Jewish person could ever be criticised for their bad behaviour. That cannot be right. I would also point out that the late Queen, according to the Israeli press, and the ex-President of Israel Rivlin, was reported to have viewed every Israeli as a terrorist or the son of a terrorist. Who would have thought that the Monarch would have been so based?” At 1pm, the Judge wants a lunch-break – I haven’t finished. We continue after lunch break – and I complete my submission dealing with the GMC’s arguments. “Before I sum up, I’ll just briefly address the skeleton arguments that the defence submitted on 8 July. And obviously I’ve already raised disgruntlement about that but I think it’s important to note, that the GMC has finally conceded, after over two months since receiving my skeleton arguments, that the IOT erred in law. On that basis alone, that suspension should be quashed today. If the GMC was capable of self- reflection, it would have withdrawn its objections to my appeal gracefully but that is probably too optimistic an outcome to expect of this bureaucratic monster which has become a law unto itself…” Then the GMC repeats their arguments and argues that the High Court have broad powers and should take original jurisdiction over the matter: “And that is an exercise that this Court can properly make, exercising its original jurisdiction” In fact, the words “original jurisdiction” were repeated about 7-8 times. The GMC Counsel repeated to the Judge “We accept that you have a free-er hand” and again “Because, as I say, this Court is free-er to exercise the original jurisdiction” and so on. Look at the tweets! She said “Mossad did 9/11” and that “Israelis shouldn’t be allowed near humanity”. She said “Israelis are involved in organ trafficking”. All true. I was amused. Ordinarily the High Court usually looks at technical and legal aspects without going into the actual details of the issue itself (e.g. on covid, they wouldn’t debate the merits of the covid vaccine – the issue was whether the conditions/suspension was legal according to rules and procedural fairness). I reply I have no issue but it wasn’t necessary – the grounds did not require that. However, if the Judge wanted to look at the tweets she should acquaint herself with the facts that I presented in my 191-page response. I request a judgement that day or the next day. I had no faith in the MPTS and GMC. That review hearing was due a few days later on 14 July 2025. Judge McGowan was fully aware of that review IOT hearing. She stated “We need to finish this during the course of today. It cannot go part heard and I understand that your review hearing is listed on Monday next.” She stated the following: “And if there is not a decision from this Court today then, presumably, the review hearing will be made aware of these proceedings, but their decision is independent of this. If they decide to not lift the suspension, then my decision either does the same or lifts or terminates the suspension. If they terminate the suspension on Monday, then my decision probably becomes quite academic, but necessary, nonetheless.” Even the GMC Counsel admitted that the Court’s decision was “of interest” I didn’t agree it was “academic” The Judge continued: “There is too much material. It is too important.” And later that her decision was “nonetheless, an important exercise.” I emphasised in my response that I wanted the High Court to rectify that injustice done to me in December 2024 and that “the overarching question is “was my original suspension, was it correct or not?” McGowan replied : “I – I do understand that and in order to reach a decision about that I have to look at what you say are the procedural mistakes. I have to look at what you say are the errors of law. I have to look at what you say is unfair about the way the hearing was conducted...” and again,“Until I have made my mind up about the procedural unfairness and all the other points you have raised, I have got to consider everything.” I again pointed out “..I would argue it’s an abuse of the system and I’m actually paying the price for their deficiencies, or rather procedural irregularities. I’m having to live with the consequences of being deprived of an income…” In other words, there have been consequences for me – financially and professionally. And I ended with “I have no faith in the IOT. I have no faith in the MPTS, and I have no faith in the GMC, and I am not the only one to feel that way. The fact that we are calling for a different body and we’re calling for the GMC to be dismantled. I’m simply asking that the injustice that was done in December is rectified…” The concluding remarks of McGowan? “Well, I am certainly not going to give judgment in this case at 3.55pm. You raised an awful lot of important issues. The importance of a decision to you, personally, is obviously great. The importance of a decision to your potential patients is high and the importance of a decision to the public is equally important. So, all of those matters have to be considered and balanced and I will get to a decision early next week. I think that is probably the best way, which will be handed down in the usual way. All right, well thank you both very much. Thank you all very much for your attendance.” At no point did McGowan state there would be no Judgement. On 14 July 2025, my suspension was revoked. I self-represented and I didn’t concede a single point or any tweet. What happened next was a shocking abuse of the judicial process. My registration was reinstated – no conditions. But that 7 months suspension remains on my record visible to every employer. The very next day GMC emails the Court to state that the High Court no longer has jurisdiction over the matter as the suspension was revoked! The IOT panel has very limited powers so whilst it revoked my suspension, it will not deem it unlawful or indeed make any comment about the previous panel’s decision – and certainly not its legality. The MPTS admitted that only the High court could rule it was unlawful. I contacted the Court pointing this out and that I was expecting a judgement as per McGowan’s position in the High Court. The High Court had a full day’s hearing and the court was independent of the tribunal and had seized jurisdiction. All my grounds including the legality of the suspension were outstanding. The revocation was to some extent irrelevant to the Court issuing the Judgement – if anything, it rather supported my contention that the suspension imposed on me in December 2024 was unlawful. I ask the GMC to provide what law they’re relying upon….they quote this section and claim it is written in the present tense! “Section 41A(10 of the Medical Act 1983, Interim Orders, states Where an order has effect under any provision of this section, the relevant court may –..” Yes – that is the best they could come up with it. Needless to say, the convention in UK legislative drafting is the simple present tense …because the law is “always speaking”. I call and even visit the Royal Courts of Justice. The Court staff chase the Clerk …I’m asked to be patient and await the Judgement. Even up to 6th August 2025 I was told that the Judgement was coming. On 11th August 2025, I am informed by email that there will be no Judgement!! I spoke to a number of barristers and solicitors – it’s almost unheard of. They're all useless though. I get no replies to my emails to the High Court. So in November 2025, I requested the Hearing transcript. On 12th December 2025 – over 5 months after the substantive hearing – I received an Order (not a Judgement). It was a bare order – simply stating “Upon the Court hearing the substantive hearing on this matter on 10 July 2025 And upon following consideration of the documents lodged by Respondent on 15 July 2025 confirming revocation of the Interim Order pursuant to Section 41A of the Medical Act 1983, the application is dismissed.” No reasons whatsoever as to why the Judge had contradicted her own position in Court. I replied to the Court and file an application for permission to appeal – not just to McGowan (the system is so barmy that you have to ask the same judge for permission to appeal) but also to the Court of Appeal – the latter for both permission to appeal and the appeal itself concerning McGowan’s bare unreasoned order. McGowan now responds (miraculously) via the Court staff wanting a 30-minute hearing for permission to appeal – that is set for Tuesday 13 January 2026. So, yet again I am at the High Court now requesting permission to appeal. To be honest, I wasn’t expecting much. McGowan had shown she lacks the spine to address the issues – and has zero integrity. You don’t get a DBE in the UK for nothing. In fact, she started this hearing by asking the GMC to interpret the Section 41A of the Medical Act!!! Then she turned to me – the Claimant – and asked if “I understood what was being said”. I replied that I understood full well. English after all is my first language and I’m a Cambridge graduate. I can understand basic English. She clearly has difficulties though – I later learnt that she dropped English at Manchester University for Law. At the expense of sounding very snobbish, I just knew she wasn’t Oxbridge material…. I present my arguments – including case law. The GMC has no relevant case law – their arguments are “it is written in the present tense” (I did correct them that in actual fact, it was written in the simple present tense to be more precise) and that the decision of the High Court “is final”. Of course, I point out that finality is based on two aspects – firstly, getting a reasoned Judgement! I never got a judgement. I effectively got a blank piece of paper. On no grounds, could that be considered “a decision”. And secondly, if there were any errors of law, procedural irregularities …they were always appealable. Appeal however was not automatic – all that meant was that one had to request permission to appeal. Can you imagine a system where a Judge makes an error but you can’t appeal it?! I point out that every issue remains live. I even simplify it for them – I point out that in the case of rape, and using GMC logic, we’d never prosecute the rapist – after all, the rape was no longer in progess. That is not justice. The High Court seized jurisdiction by having a substantive hearing and had to produce a judgement. Of course, I understood that had I appealed after the revocation, the application would have been dismissed. McGowan sat there clearly not listening. This was merely an exercise to show there’d been a hearing. She tried to claim she has “no power”!! She then had the audacity to say “You’ve had a success. Why aren’t you satisfied with that?” I point out that I was suspended unlawfully – I had 20 years of an impeccable record and it states “misconduct” on my record. I have a right to get that unlawful suspension struck from my record and remedy with regards to the consequences I had suffered. The GMC – a public body – should be held accountable not just for my sake but for other doctors and I remind her of her own words “for the wider public interest”. In fact, I quote liberally from the transcript and point out her contradictions. At no point did she ever state – because it’s not possible – that the High Court lost jurisdiction. That’s the legal principle: “Once seized, always seized.”
2:26

The Royal High Courts are certainly a place of grandeur and perhaps some are intimidated by the surroundings. Well that impressive 19th century Gothic architecture is a sight to behold but the Judges less so. I’ve seen too many judges in the UK and Pakistan and by God, they leave a lot to be desired. Especially when one comes across McGowan the Mediocre. What should have been a straightforward win has turned into a cheating exercise by the very judiciary meant to uphold justice in this country. Why do I say straightforward? Let’s recap. After 3-4 failed complaints to the GMC, the Jewish lobbies upped the ante. First came my loss of contract at South Tyneside and Sunderland NHS Foundation Trust where I was doing some clinics. No investigation. Just blocked from the email and can’t address patient queries. Then started the defamation in the press – articles in the Jewish News, Jewish Chronicle and Telegraph followed by loss of contract with Medinet with whom I’d worked since 2018 intermittently and had glowing reviews. The GMC now opens an investigation – given the pressure from Wes Streeting, elected in July 2024. They wanted an Interim Orders Tribunal (IOT) to decide if any sanction should be imposed whilst I was being “investigated”. I had a trip abroad for my brother’s assassination case and I had clinics. Patients who had waited 12-18 months to see a Neurologist. The GMC and MPTS didn’t care. The Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) is allegedly an independent body to the GMC and runs the IOT panels. They would not move the IOT by 11 working days as the GMC had refused (so much for independence!) – instead of 20th December I had suggested 13th January 2025. Recall this was over the Christmas period – people going on holidays and yet I was expected to get legal advice when I was in clinic from 8am – 6pm. I told them patients came first – I stand by that. Hurt Jewish feelings aren’t urgent and they don’t come before my patient care. I requested deferment by 11 working days, told them I would defend every single tweet and indeed, looked forward to it. This was all via email. Multiple emails. All ignored – including the one letter that contained my “defences”. They would not budge – the Jewish lobbies were demanding action and the GMC wasn’t going to risk their ire again. Wes Streeting was breathing down their necks. On 20th December 2024, I saw my Neurology patients and on 23rdDecember, I found out that I’d been suspended for 18 months. No other doctor had an 18-month suspension or got one since – in their absence. My remaining clinics in December and January all cancelled. Some patients were cancelled as they were making their way to my clinic. I requested the transcript of the IOT hearing – the GMC had been demanding conditions on my license on public interest grounds yet 3 batty women decided I should be suspended for 18 months for public interest and patient protection! Later, the barrister for the indemnity body stated he “couldn’t get purchase on” how they came to that decision. In any case, after being misled by my indemnity body – who suggested that I first ask for an early review, delayed asking for it and then the GMC refused. They were refusing to allow me to be heard after claiming I wouldn’t attend. The indemnity body then reneged on the agreed High Court action. The GMC even send me the Rule 7 letter – the final “allegations” against me on 5 February 2025 which they then updated in March. Ordinarily this takes about 9 months to send – in my case, they managed to do it within 6 weeks! Yet one of the reasons they claimed I needed to be suspended for 18 months was because of the lengthy investigation…. I had to reply by 5 May 2025 which I did via a191-page response. The GMC usually respond within 3-4 weeks. As of 21 January 2026, I have yet to hear from them. I then took matters into my own hand. Let down by cowardly lawyers except one (Yasmin), I filed a High Court application under Section 41 A(10) of the Medical Act 1983 to challenge my unlawful suspension. I requested an urgent expedited hearing as I was being left with no way to earn a living. There were 10 grounds of appeal. The High Court date was set for 10th July 2025. Meanwhile, the MPTS is obliged to give a 6-month review – 16th June 2025 afternoon was scheduled. I stated I wanted this in person and in public. I flew back from Kashmir on 9th June – it’s cheaper to live there - and found myself arrested at Holyhead under s12 of the Terrorism Act for “alleged support of proscribed groups” – apparently I was “on the wanted list. I’m released 14 hours later. They’d seized my mobile phones and laptop and wait for it, all my GMC documents that I’d carefully put together. I’m still not sure why I couldn’t get those back. I learn that the GMC is seeking information about this non-reportable arrest within 24 hours of it – they know. In any case, I go for the IOT hearing – and the GMC Counsel attempts to utilise the arrest. I object. The panel agree that it will not be considered. However, the MPTS have set an insufficient amount of time for the hearing – they would have known. There were over 1000 pages in the bundle of nonsense – the only worthwhile part of that was my beautifully written 191-page response. I was quite proud of it if I’m honest. It could be considered my second PhD thesis. As I have to return to Pakistan for hearings and the High Court case was 10thJuly, the IOT hearing was re-scheduled for 14th July 2025. So, fast forward to 10th July 2025. Under 48 hours before the hearing is due, the GMC submit their skeleton arguments – ordinarily submitted 7-14 days before – no doubt, to wrong foot me. They finally admit that the IOT panel made an “error of law” in not properly applying the Article 10 rights but argue they got to the “right decision but by the wrong route” (!) I am self-representing in Court 1 at the Royal Courts of Justice – the GMC have their in-house lawyer, their GMC Counsel and her clerk. But I have the best lawyer (currently abroad) and an excellent McKenzie friend, Sean Naughton and my well wishers who attended to support me. We start at 10 30am – and I ask the Judge to review the admission of illegality. On that basis alone, my suspension should be revoked. She declines and wants to hear the case. I then detail the IOT powers and how the grounds to sanction me had not been met – they had not proven public interest or public protection. I discussed the GMC actions, the unfairness, disproportionality, the abuse of process, the outright lies by the GMC, the draconian 18-month suspension, the persecution by the Jewish lobbies and the breach of my rights under Articles 8, 9 and 10 of the ECHR. My opening lines: “I submit that the suspension was political in nature. It was subject to bias and external pressure was clearly evident. It was unlawful and demonstrated seriously flawed reasoning. It was manifestly wrong and the panel erred in law. It was completely unnecessary. It’s been tainted by marked procedural errors, unfairness and it has demonstrated gross abuse of process by the GMC and the MPTS and the IOT panel and those abuses have continued. The suspension is draconian and disproportionate and inconsistent with other decision makings of the IOT panels. It is a complete violation of my rights under Article 8, 9 and especially Article 10 of the European Court of Human Rights. And it is demonstrated also limitation of the panel’s expertise, both in terms of law, but also, importantly, the context of the rights of the Palestinian people and it brings into serious question whether the GMC should be policing speech of doctors. It should certainly not be policing or interfering in political speech.” I went through each ground in detail giving the relevant case law. I talked openly about the nature of that persecution: “All of the complaints against me have been made by Jewish and pro-Israeli affiliated organisations and I think it’s necessary to list them – Lawyers for Israel, in collaboration with Gnasherjew, the Jewish Medical Association twice; the unnamed Jewish Zionist doctor; the Jewish News who defamed me; the reporter is Michelle Rosenberg - who is Jewish and Zionist; the Daily Telegraph defamation - George Chesterton is married to a Jewish woman; Miranda Levy and Jacob Freedland are both Jewish and Zionist. I had the Jewish Chronicle defamation - Jane Prinsley is Jewish and has a home in Israel; Campaign Against Antisemitism by Stephen Silverman, who is Jewish and has submitted three similar tweets in March 2025 to the GMC which have been included in my Rule 7 letter without due process the GMC is obliged to follow on receipt of a new complaint. And then, twice in the Jerusalem Post - Mathilda Heller and Michael Starr are both Jewish Zionists. And despite the suspension, Sabrina Miller, a Jewish Zionist journalist at the Daily Mail attacked a number of pro-Palestinian doctors, including myself. So, these previous complaints that have been dismissed by the GMC included tweets of a similar nature. The tweets have not changed, but I would contend that the priorities of the GMC had and my complaint was clearly being handled by individuals who appeared conflicted. In my witness statement, I have detailed the behaviour of XXX, XXX, XXX who refused to respond to emails on where disclosures from the GMC themselves, since I submitted this appeal, have since revealed that XX XX had made false notes on my record claiming I had prior FTP history. In addition, in July 2024, Wes Streeting became the Health Secretary. I refer Your Honour to pages 327 to 337 of the bundle. There’s a Declassified article, incidentally, that’s been written by a Jewish journalist, Matt Kennard. He has investigated Streeting’s support of Israel since his days at the National Union of Students. It documents that he visited Israel in 2022 paid for by the Labour Friends of Israel. That organisation’s former chair was Joan Ryan, infamously found to be discussing her £1 million payment from Israel with Shai Masot, the Israeli diplomat. Streeting has taken over £20,000 from Israeli lobbyist, Trevor Chinn. Trevor Chinn’s father heads the Jewish National Fund which supports illegal Israeli settlements and from Lord Mendelsohn and David Menton. The Jewish Chronicle even ran a profile of him entitled “Wes Streeting, our friend at the NUS”. So, there’s little surprise that Wes Streeting made comments in The Telegraph stating he would urge medical regulators to discipline staff expressing views which he, as a pro-Israeli and Zionist, opposed. He stated that regulators had the power to set conditions that a healthcare professional must work under. Suspend them or strike them entirely from the medical register. He made similar comments to The Times. He then met with the Board of Deputies for Community Security Trust, which is also behind my complaint, the Jewish Leadership Council and the Jewish Medical Association, reiterating “I expect employers and regulators to take action”. The idea that this political pressure by the Health Secretary in November 2024 was irrelevant to my suspension is untenable in the face of this clear intervention, which actually represents political interference and undermines the alleged independence of the GMC.” And I made clear the Jewish privilege at play “So, from what I’ve just presented, it’s very clear that the red line concerns Israel. Tweets, that’s words. Criticising an entity, carrying out the mass slaughter against innocent civilians will be punished more severely than malpractice, blatant dishonesty, criminal convictions or even genuine Jew hatred, as long as you are not a Muslim. And if you’re Jewish and you belong to a powerful lobby group like the Jewish Medical Association, then the GMC gives you a clear pass as shown in the case of Liz Lightstone and Justin Stebbing.” I made clear that even the GMC referral to the MPTS explicitly stated “that there was no evidence of [her] racially discriminating against anyone or discriminating against Jewish people.” I stated in the High Court “And I should point out that the Jewish people are not a race; Judaism is a religion” and “It is my inalienable right to be able to disagree with the narrative from Israeli lobbies and express it. Their free speech does not trump mine.” I made sure that she understood that my patients and even Grok approved of me: “In fact, Grok is positively glowing – “Dr Rehiana Ali’s tweet carry a fiery, unapologetic tone blending sharp intellect with a raw defiance against injustice echoing the spirit of Malcolm X, mirrors Malcolm’s blend of moral clarity, confrontational rhetoric and distain for oppressive systems.” “I can’t think of a better person to be compared to.” I further stated “I do not believe that legal, that legitimate political commentary or reporting facts can be antisemitic. I do not believe that any groups, be they Jewish, Muslims or Christians, are exempt from criticism where the situation warrants it. I do not believe in hate speech, as that’s the very antithesis of free speech, but also, importantly, there is no tweet of mine that demonstrates hatred for any group simply by virtue of their religious identity and, indeed, none has been identified as such.” I even quoted the Queen: “I do not accept that stating facts becomes anti-Jewish simply because the majority of those committing the crimes are Jewish. If you take that to the logical conclusion, that would mean that no Jewish person could ever be criticised for their bad behaviour. That cannot be right. I would also point out that the late Queen, according to the Israeli press, and the ex-President of Israel Rivlin, was reported to have viewed every Israeli as a terrorist or the son of a terrorist. Who would have thought that the Monarch would have been so based?” At 1pm, the Judge wants a lunch-break – I haven’t finished. We continue after lunch break – and I complete my submission dealing with the GMC’s arguments. “Before I sum up, I’ll just briefly address the skeleton arguments that the defence submitted on 8 July. And obviously I’ve already raised disgruntlement about that but I think it’s important to note, that the GMC has finally conceded, after over two months since receiving my skeleton arguments, that the IOT erred in law. On that basis alone, that suspension should be quashed today. If the GMC was capable of self- reflection, it would have withdrawn its objections to my appeal gracefully but that is probably too optimistic an outcome to expect of this bureaucratic monster which has become a law unto itself…” Then the GMC repeats their arguments and argues that the High Court have broad powers and should take original jurisdiction over the matter: “And that is an exercise that this Court can properly make, exercising its original jurisdiction” In fact, the words “original jurisdiction” were repeated about 7-8 times. The GMC Counsel repeated to the Judge “We accept that you have a free-er hand” and again “Because, as I say, this Court is free-er to exercise the original jurisdiction” and so on. Look at the tweets! She said “Mossad did 9/11” and that “Israelis shouldn’t be allowed near humanity”. She said “Israelis are involved in organ trafficking”. All true. I was amused. Ordinarily the High Court usually looks at technical and legal aspects without going into the actual details of the issue itself (e.g. on covid, they wouldn’t debate the merits of the covid vaccine – the issue was whether the conditions/suspension was legal according to rules and procedural fairness). I reply I have no issue but it wasn’t necessary – the grounds did not require that. However, if the Judge wanted to look at the tweets she should acquaint herself with the facts that I presented in my 191-page response. I request a judgement that day or the next day. I had no faith in the MPTS and GMC. That review hearing was due a few days later on 14 July 2025. Judge McGowan was fully aware of that review IOT hearing. She stated “We need to finish this during the course of today. It cannot go part heard and I understand that your review hearing is listed on Monday next.” She stated the following: “And if there is not a decision from this Court today then, presumably, the review hearing will be made aware of these proceedings, but their decision is independent of this. If they decide to not lift the suspension, then my decision either does the same or lifts or terminates the suspension. If they terminate the suspension on Monday, then my decision probably becomes quite academic, but necessary, nonetheless.” Even the GMC Counsel admitted that the Court’s decision was “of interest” I didn’t agree it was “academic” The Judge continued: “There is too much material. It is too important.” And later that her decision was “nonetheless, an important exercise.” I emphasised in my response that I wanted the High Court to rectify that injustice done to me in December 2024 and that “the overarching question is “was my original suspension, was it correct or not?” McGowan replied : “I – I do understand that and in order to reach a decision about that I have to look at what you say are the procedural mistakes. I have to look at what you say are the errors of law. I have to look at what you say is unfair about the way the hearing was conducted...” and again,“Until I have made my mind up about the procedural unfairness and all the other points you have raised, I have got to consider everything.” I again pointed out “..I would argue it’s an abuse of the system and I’m actually paying the price for their deficiencies, or rather procedural irregularities. I’m having to live with the consequences of being deprived of an income…” In other words, there have been consequences for me – financially and professionally. And I ended with “I have no faith in the IOT. I have no faith in the MPTS, and I have no faith in the GMC, and I am not the only one to feel that way. The fact that we are calling for a different body and we’re calling for the GMC to be dismantled. I’m simply asking that the injustice that was done in December is rectified…” The concluding remarks of McGowan? “Well, I am certainly not going to give judgment in this case at 3.55pm. You raised an awful lot of important issues. The importance of a decision to you, personally, is obviously great. The importance of a decision to your potential patients is high and the importance of a decision to the public is equally important. So, all of those matters have to be considered and balanced and I will get to a decision early next week. I think that is probably the best way, which will be handed down in the usual way. All right, well thank you both very much. Thank you all very much for your attendance.” At no point did McGowan state there would be no Judgement. On 14 July 2025, my suspension was revoked. I self-represented and I didn’t concede a single point or any tweet. What happened next was a shocking abuse of the judicial process. My registration was reinstated – no conditions. But that 7 months suspension remains on my record visible to every employer. The very next day GMC emails the Court to state that the High Court no longer has jurisdiction over the matter as the suspension was revoked! The IOT panel has very limited powers so whilst it revoked my suspension, it will not deem it unlawful or indeed make any comment about the previous panel’s decision – and certainly not its legality. The MPTS admitted that only the High court could rule it was unlawful. I contacted the Court pointing this out and that I was expecting a judgement as per McGowan’s position in the High Court. The High Court had a full day’s hearing and the court was independent of the tribunal and had seized jurisdiction. All my grounds including the legality of the suspension were outstanding. The revocation was to some extent irrelevant to the Court issuing the Judgement – if anything, it rather supported my contention that the suspension imposed on me in December 2024 was unlawful. I ask the GMC to provide what law they’re relying upon….they quote this section and claim it is written in the present tense! “Section 41A(10 of the Medical Act 1983, Interim Orders, states Where an order has effect under any provision of this section, the relevant court may –..” Yes – that is the best they could come up with it. Needless to say, the convention in UK legislative drafting is the simple present tense …because the law is “always speaking”. I call and even visit the Royal Courts of Justice. The Court staff chase the Clerk …I’m asked to be patient and await the Judgement. Even up to 6th August 2025 I was told that the Judgement was coming. On 11th August 2025, I am informed by email that there will be no Judgement!! I spoke to a number of barristers and solicitors – it’s almost unheard of. They're all useless though. I get no replies to my emails to the High Court. So in November 2025, I requested the Hearing transcript. On 12th December 2025 – over 5 months after the substantive hearing – I received an Order (not a Judgement). It was a bare order – simply stating “Upon the Court hearing the substantive hearing on this matter on 10 July 2025 And upon following consideration of the documents lodged by Respondent on 15 July 2025 confirming revocation of the Interim Order pursuant to Section 41A of the Medical Act 1983, the application is dismissed.” No reasons whatsoever as to why the Judge had contradicted her own position in Court. I replied to the Court and file an application for permission to appeal – not just to McGowan (the system is so barmy that you have to ask the same judge for permission to appeal) but also to the Court of Appeal – the latter for both permission to appeal and the appeal itself concerning McGowan’s bare unreasoned order. McGowan now responds (miraculously) via the Court staff wanting a 30-minute hearing for permission to appeal – that is set for Tuesday 13 January 2026. So, yet again I am at the High Court now requesting permission to appeal. To be honest, I wasn’t expecting much. McGowan had shown she lacks the spine to address the issues – and has zero integrity. You don’t get a DBE in the UK for nothing. In fact, she started this hearing by asking the GMC to interpret the Section 41A of the Medical Act!!! Then she turned to me – the Claimant – and asked if “I understood what was being said”. I replied that I understood full well. English after all is my first language and I’m a Cambridge graduate. I can understand basic English. She clearly has difficulties though – I later learnt that she dropped English at Manchester University for Law. At the expense of sounding very snobbish, I just knew she wasn’t Oxbridge material…. I present my arguments – including case law. The GMC has no relevant case law – their arguments are “it is written in the present tense” (I did correct them that in actual fact, it was written in the simple present tense to be more precise) and that the decision of the High Court “is final”. Of course, I point out that finality is based on two aspects – firstly, getting a reasoned Judgement! I never got a judgement. I effectively got a blank piece of paper. On no grounds, could that be considered “a decision”. And secondly, if there were any errors of law, procedural irregularities …they were always appealable. Appeal however was not automatic – all that meant was that one had to request permission to appeal. Can you imagine a system where a Judge makes an error but you can’t appeal it?! I point out that every issue remains live. I even simplify it for them – I point out that in the case of rape, and using GMC logic, we’d never prosecute the rapist – after all, the rape was no longer in progess. That is not justice. The High Court seized jurisdiction by having a substantive hearing and had to produce a judgement. Of course, I understood that had I appealed after the revocation, the application would have been dismissed. McGowan sat there clearly not listening. This was merely an exercise to show there’d been a hearing. She tried to claim she has “no power”!! She then had the audacity to say “You’ve had a success. Why aren’t you satisfied with that?” I point out that I was suspended unlawfully – I had 20 years of an impeccable record and it states “misconduct” on my record. I have a right to get that unlawful suspension struck from my record and remedy with regards to the consequences I had suffered. The GMC – a public body – should be held accountable not just for my sake but for other doctors and I remind her of her own words “for the wider public interest”. In fact, I quote liberally from the transcript and point out her contradictions. At no point did she ever state – because it’s not possible – that the High Court lost jurisdiction. That’s the legal principle: “Once seized, always seized.”

DR REHIANA ALI BA MB BCHIR (Cantab) MA MRCP PhD

18,659 views • 6 months ago

FINANCIAL OMBUDSMAN SERVICE IS BEING INVESTIGATED. SHARE THIS NOW. Not all of you know this, but before I fought back against an insurer that tried to defraud me and is still trying, I spent six weeks reading roughly 300 published Financial Ombudsman Service Financial Ombudsman Service decisions. Every evening after work. I wanted to understand how they think, what language they respond to, what patterns repeat across cases. During those six weeks I had an idea. Classify individual Ombudsmen by decision pattern. Cross-reference with complaints data, Trustpilot reviews, everything publicly available. Build a picture of who was deciding fairly and who was not. I never did it. The scale was too great for one person working alone. Gary Smith Gary Smith is now doing exactly that. Not with 300 decisions. With thousands.. He is publishing what he finds, one episode at a time, every Wednesday. - Named investigators. - Named Ombudsmen. - Full career backgrounds. - Full case timelines. All on the record. This is not a blog. This is not a campaign page. This is a structured, legally-backed investigation run by the lawyer who already beat the Financial Ombudsman Service in the High Court, and who is preparing to do it again through the FOS Litigation Group judicial review. The FOS Files. The FLG. The judicial review. Three things running together. Each one making the others stronger. I want to ask everyone reading this to do one thing today. Share this post. Not for me. For your parents who were told their claim was out of time when it was not. For your neighbour who accepted a rejection letter because they did not know they could push back. For anyone who trusted a system that was never designed to work in their favour. Every share puts this in front of someone who may not know they have options. Every new case that reaches Gary strengthens the legal bundle going into the judicial review. Every person who speaks up makes it harder for this institution to keep operating in the dark. If you have had a complaint dismissed by the Financial Ombudsman Service, contact Gary Smith at Meridian Legal Services directly. 0121 516 0675 Meridian Legal Sevices This is how it changes. All of us. Together.
4:06

FINANCIAL OMBUDSMAN SERVICE IS BEING INVESTIGATED. SHARE THIS NOW. Not all of you know this, but before I fought back against an insurer that tried to defraud me and is still trying, I spent six weeks reading roughly 300 published Financial Ombudsman Service Financial Ombudsman Service decisions. Every evening after work. I wanted to understand how they think, what language they respond to, what patterns repeat across cases. During those six weeks I had an idea. Classify individual Ombudsmen by decision pattern. Cross-reference with complaints data, Trustpilot reviews, everything publicly available. Build a picture of who was deciding fairly and who was not. I never did it. The scale was too great for one person working alone. Gary Smith Gary Smith is now doing exactly that. Not with 300 decisions. With thousands.. He is publishing what he finds, one episode at a time, every Wednesday. - Named investigators. - Named Ombudsmen. - Full career backgrounds. - Full case timelines. All on the record. This is not a blog. This is not a campaign page. This is a structured, legally-backed investigation run by the lawyer who already beat the Financial Ombudsman Service in the High Court, and who is preparing to do it again through the FOS Litigation Group judicial review. The FOS Files. The FLG. The judicial review. Three things running together. Each one making the others stronger. I want to ask everyone reading this to do one thing today. Share this post. Not for me. For your parents who were told their claim was out of time when it was not. For your neighbour who accepted a rejection letter because they did not know they could push back. For anyone who trusted a system that was never designed to work in their favour. Every share puts this in front of someone who may not know they have options. Every new case that reaches Gary strengthens the legal bundle going into the judicial review. Every person who speaks up makes it harder for this institution to keep operating in the dark. If you have had a complaint dismissed by the Financial Ombudsman Service, contact Gary Smith at Meridian Legal Services directly. 0121 516 0675 Meridian Legal Sevices This is how it changes. All of us. Together.

Artur Nadolny

26,353 views • 3 months ago

So i was just watching Sam B and had similar thouggts, So, Colin is supposedly underage drinking and shot gunning beers all night, bouncing from Leonetti’s house to Fairview then comes home and goes into his mother’s bedroom to kiss her goodnight…And we are supposed to believe nobody had a problem with that?No concern about underage drinking? No questions about where he was? No concern about the timeline?No concern about who saw him, who picked him up, or what was actually happening inside that house?But somehow Chris Albert is upset with us for asking questions? How does Colin Allie Caitlin and Higgins not see the jeep or Higgins if the story is the jeep was at the end of the driveway. The same driveway that he was in before Brian and Nicole, and the same driveway Allie was in when Colin ran out of the house after bumping into Brian and Coco?????? That is the part I cannot get past. Because according to his own brother, “the system let them down at every turn.” Well, if the system let them down, then why is the anger aimed at citizens asking questions and not at the investigators who created the mess? If the investigation was clean, complete, and reliable, there would be nothing to question.But instead, we are told not to ask.Don’t ask about Colin. Don’t ask about the house.Don’t ask about the timeline. Don’t ask about the police work. Don’t ask why the adults’ stories make no sense. Sorry, but that is not how this works.The anger is misplaced. If this family truly believes the system failed them, then the questions should be directed at the people who ran the investigation not at the public still trying to figure out what actually happened. Here is a clip, and a link to her show.
2:29

So i was just watching Sam B and had similar thouggts, So, Colin is supposedly underage drinking and shot gunning beers all night, bouncing from Leonetti’s house to Fairview then comes home and goes into his mother’s bedroom to kiss her goodnight…And we are supposed to believe nobody had a problem with that?No concern about underage drinking? No questions about where he was? No concern about the timeline?No concern about who saw him, who picked him up, or what was actually happening inside that house?But somehow Chris Albert is upset with us for asking questions? How does Colin Allie Caitlin and Higgins not see the jeep or Higgins if the story is the jeep was at the end of the driveway. The same driveway that he was in before Brian and Nicole, and the same driveway Allie was in when Colin ran out of the house after bumping into Brian and Coco?????? That is the part I cannot get past. Because according to his own brother, “the system let them down at every turn.” Well, if the system let them down, then why is the anger aimed at citizens asking questions and not at the investigators who created the mess? If the investigation was clean, complete, and reliable, there would be nothing to question.But instead, we are told not to ask.Don’t ask about Colin. Don’t ask about the house.Don’t ask about the timeline. Don’t ask about the police work. Don’t ask why the adults’ stories make no sense. Sorry, but that is not how this works.The anger is misplaced. If this family truly believes the system failed them, then the questions should be directed at the people who ran the investigation not at the public still trying to figure out what actually happened. Here is a clip, and a link to her show.

Dixie Normus

26,394 views • 1 month ago

DR CHRIS DAY TOLD THE TRUTH. THE NHS DESTROYED 90,000 EMAILS. THE JUDGE CALLED HIM A LIAR. I have been following this case for some time. What you are about to read is not an allegation. It is a matter of documented public record. Dr Chris Day Dr Chris Day is a locum emergency medicine doctor who blew the whistle on unsafe ICU staffing and avoidable deaths at a South London NHS hospital. That was 2013. It is now 2026. The case is still running. The first four years were spent fighting a legal argument designed to strip all junior doctors in England of whistleblowing protection. Around 54,000 doctors. Chris privately funded that fight through the Court of Appeal, backed by 5,000 crowdfunders. The government did nothing. He won. Then, while he was giving evidence under oath, cost threats were made against him and his legal team. Because he was mid-testimony, he could not have frank discussions with his lawyers. The case settled in 2018. None of the substantive issues were ever heard. Around half a million pounds of public money spent, a similar amount from crowdfunders, and everything buried. The NHS then told the press and MPs that no cost threats had been made and that the case had nothing to do with ICU staffing. The Financial Times and the Telegraph both reported the cost threats in detail. Neither story was ever legally challenged. The case returned to court in 2022. Jeremy Hunt appeared as a supportive witness. During that hearing, a Trust director got up at 5am, went to a hospital, and deleted 90,000 emails before they were due to give evidence. They admitted it in an unsigned statement and then refused to be cross-examined on mental health grounds, without medical evidence. The judge accepted that. The NHS won. Multiple EAT judges declined to engage with the written evidence. One called Chris a liar in open court, despite his account being backed by his own barrister's written record, two MPs, and two national newspapers. Several judges volunteered unsolicited positive comments about the barristers involved. No recusals followed. Last August, Chris wrote formally to Lord Fairley, President of the Employment Appeal Tribunal, placing on record his view that the handling of his case meets the definition of institutional corruption from the Daniel Morgan Independent Panel Report. That definition is precise. Concealing or denying failings to protect an organisation's reputation is itself institutional corruption. The case is now before the Employment Appeal Tribunal again in 2026, this time on the wasted costs claim against Hill Dickinson LLP, the same firm that spent four years using public money to argue junior doctors out of whistleblowing protection, while withholding the very contracts that proved their argument wrong. Channel 4 News covered this case in March 2026. Two MPs have called for a public inquiry. The question Chris asks is simple. If there is not a single false sentence in his witness statement, and if the evidence behind his account has never been successfully challenged in court or in the press, what exactly is the basis for calling him a liar?
7:14

DR CHRIS DAY TOLD THE TRUTH. THE NHS DESTROYED 90,000 EMAILS. THE JUDGE CALLED HIM A LIAR. I have been following this case for some time. What you are about to read is not an allegation. It is a matter of documented public record. Dr Chris Day Dr Chris Day is a locum emergency medicine doctor who blew the whistle on unsafe ICU staffing and avoidable deaths at a South London NHS hospital. That was 2013. It is now 2026. The case is still running. The first four years were spent fighting a legal argument designed to strip all junior doctors in England of whistleblowing protection. Around 54,000 doctors. Chris privately funded that fight through the Court of Appeal, backed by 5,000 crowdfunders. The government did nothing. He won. Then, while he was giving evidence under oath, cost threats were made against him and his legal team. Because he was mid-testimony, he could not have frank discussions with his lawyers. The case settled in 2018. None of the substantive issues were ever heard. Around half a million pounds of public money spent, a similar amount from crowdfunders, and everything buried. The NHS then told the press and MPs that no cost threats had been made and that the case had nothing to do with ICU staffing. The Financial Times and the Telegraph both reported the cost threats in detail. Neither story was ever legally challenged. The case returned to court in 2022. Jeremy Hunt appeared as a supportive witness. During that hearing, a Trust director got up at 5am, went to a hospital, and deleted 90,000 emails before they were due to give evidence. They admitted it in an unsigned statement and then refused to be cross-examined on mental health grounds, without medical evidence. The judge accepted that. The NHS won. Multiple EAT judges declined to engage with the written evidence. One called Chris a liar in open court, despite his account being backed by his own barrister's written record, two MPs, and two national newspapers. Several judges volunteered unsolicited positive comments about the barristers involved. No recusals followed. Last August, Chris wrote formally to Lord Fairley, President of the Employment Appeal Tribunal, placing on record his view that the handling of his case meets the definition of institutional corruption from the Daniel Morgan Independent Panel Report. That definition is precise. Concealing or denying failings to protect an organisation's reputation is itself institutional corruption. The case is now before the Employment Appeal Tribunal again in 2026, this time on the wasted costs claim against Hill Dickinson LLP, the same firm that spent four years using public money to argue junior doctors out of whistleblowing protection, while withholding the very contracts that proved their argument wrong. Channel 4 News covered this case in March 2026. Two MPs have called for a public inquiry. The question Chris asks is simple. If there is not a single false sentence in his witness statement, and if the evidence behind his account has never been successfully challenged in court or in the press, what exactly is the basis for calling him a liar?

Artur Nadolny

46,440 views • 2 months ago

"Most cardiologists will not think or believe that it's possible to reverse heart disease" - Dr Aseem Malhotra Lifestyle Changes proved the mainstream medical belief system wrong, and found a stunning chronic stress connection to heart disease at the same time. Dr Aseem Malhotra found an astounding study from a Cardiologist in India who was using lifestyle changes for people that didn't consent to a heart bypass. "2 years later [they] published his data. They had repeat angiograms. And extraordinarily, and this is unheard of, and I had to go and see it to believe it. I went to India to see the patients, to see the angiograms." ◻️"The people who had adhered to the lifestyle change, there was an average reduction in their blockages of 20%" "The only independent factor that showed reversal of coronary artery disease was 40 minutes of Raja meditation a day".
2:28

"Most cardiologists will not think or believe that it's possible to reverse heart disease" - Dr Aseem Malhotra Lifestyle Changes proved the mainstream medical belief system wrong, and found a stunning chronic stress connection to heart disease at the same time. Dr Aseem Malhotra found an astounding study from a Cardiologist in India who was using lifestyle changes for people that didn't consent to a heart bypass. "2 years later [they] published his data. They had repeat angiograms. And extraordinarily, and this is unheard of, and I had to go and see it to believe it. I went to India to see the patients, to see the angiograms." ◻️"The people who had adhered to the lifestyle change, there was an average reduction in their blockages of 20%" "The only independent factor that showed reversal of coronary artery disease was 40 minutes of Raja meditation a day".

Humanspective

22,795 views • 9 months ago

Slavery Was Not Abolished In The US. It Was Rebranded The U.S. calls itself the land of the free and a defender of human rights, but its prison system tells a very different story. While America celebrates the 13th Amendment as the official end of slavery, what is happening inside its prisons shows that slavery did not actually end. It was repackaged and reshaped through a loophole in the same law that claims to abolish it. What you see in places like the so-called Angola prison makes that contradiction clear. The same country that speaks about global freedom and claims to police human rights abuses is still profiting from forced labor within its own system, backed and protected by its own laws. That is the reality. For Africans and people across the Global South, this is something to pay attention to. It shows that the image America presents to the world is not the full story, and it raises serious questions about how seriously its claims on human rights should be taken.
4:55

Slavery Was Not Abolished In The US. It Was Rebranded The U.S. calls itself the land of the free and a defender of human rights, but its prison system tells a very different story. While America celebrates the 13th Amendment as the official end of slavery, what is happening inside its prisons shows that slavery did not actually end. It was repackaged and reshaped through a loophole in the same law that claims to abolish it. What you see in places like the so-called Angola prison makes that contradiction clear. The same country that speaks about global freedom and claims to police human rights abuses is still profiting from forced labor within its own system, backed and protected by its own laws. That is the reality. For Africans and people across the Global South, this is something to pay attention to. It shows that the image America presents to the world is not the full story, and it raises serious questions about how seriously its claims on human rights should be taken.

The Spearhead

37,170 views • 3 months ago

The Hidden Crisis in Modern Medicine: A Call for Change Dr. Aseem Malhotra, a renowned cardiologist and outspoken advocate for medical transparency, has sounded the alarm on a deeply troubling crisis in modern medicine—one that claims countless lives and undermines the trust patients place in the healthcare system. Speaking with urgency and clarity, Dr. Malhotra reveals how the pharmaceutical industry’s influence has corrupted the integrity of medical practice, leaving millions of patients uninformed and at risk. His message is a wake-up call: the system is broken, and it’s time for the public to demand accountability. Dr. Malhotra highlights a staggering statistic: prescribed medications are the third leading cause of death globally, trailing only heart disease and cancer. This grim reality, which predates the COVID-19 pandemic, stems not from medical errors but from the side effects of drugs prescribed under a flawed system. Patients, he argues, are not receiving fully informed consent because the information they and their doctors rely on is tainted by bias and corruption. While doctors themselves are not to blame—they are conditioned by a system fed with manipulated data—the consequences are devastating. At the heart of this crisis lies the pharmaceutical industry’s stranglehold on regulatory bodies. Dr. Malhotra points to the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) in the UK, which receives 86% of its funding from the drug industry, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), funded 50-65% by Big Pharma. These agencies, tasked with protecting the public, often fail to independently evaluate the data provided by the very companies they regulate. The result? Drugs are approved and marketed based on incomplete or manipulated evidence, leaving patients vulnerable to harm. Dr. Malhotra doesn’t mince words when describing the pharmaceutical industry’s behavior. As legal entities, he argues, these corporations exhibit psychopathic traits: a callous disregard for safety, an incapacity for guilt, and a pattern of lying and manipulation for profit. He cites the chilling case of Vioxx, a blockbuster painkiller marketed by Merck in the late 1990s. Touted as a safer alternative to ibuprofen, Vioxx was linked to heart attacks and strokes—risks Merck’s executives knew about but concealed. Internal emails uncovered during litigation, as revealed by Dr. John Abramson, a former Harvard physician, showed Merck’s chief scientist acknowledging the cardiovascular risks while callously predicting the drug’s financial success. The toll? An estimated 60,000 deaths in the U.S. alone. Merck was fined nearly $1 billion for fraud, yet no executives faced personal consequences, and the company continued business as usual. Even more shocking, when the FDA instructed Merck to add a black box warning to Vioxx’s packaging to alert the public of its risks, Merck ignored the directive. Instead, they ramped up marketing, purchasing reprints of a New England Journal of Medicine article—initially suggesting the drug’s safety—for nearly $1 million. These reprints were used as marketing tools to mislead doctors and patients, doubling down on the false narrative of safety. Dr. Malhotra calls this behavior “nothing short of psychopathic.” This is not an isolated incident. Over decades, pharmaceutical companies have paid billions in fines for hiding data on harms, manipulating research, and engaging in fraudulent practices. The cumulative impact? Millions of lives lost to preventable drug-related harms. Yet, most doctors remain unaware of the extent of this misconduct, relying on guidelines and studies influenced by the same industry. Patients, in turn, are left in the dark, trusting a system that prioritizes profit over safety. Dr. Malhotra emphasizes that change is possible—and urgently needed. He points to the efforts of Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, and Dr. Marty Makary, the new head of the FDA, who are working to reform the system. Their mission is to restore integrity to medical research and regulation, ensuring that patients receive transparent, evidence-based care. But they cannot do it alone. Dr. Malhotra calls on the public to raise awareness, refuse to stay silent, and demand accountability from regulators, institutions, and the pharmaceutical industry. The path forward requires a collective awakening. By exposing these injustices and supporting leaders who prioritize public health over corporate interests, we can rebuild a medical system that truly serves patients. Dr. Malhotra’s message is clear: the time for complacency is over. Share this truth, make noise, and join the fight for a safer, more ethical future in medicine.
5:20

The Hidden Crisis in Modern Medicine: A Call for Change Dr. Aseem Malhotra, a renowned cardiologist and outspoken advocate for medical transparency, has sounded the alarm on a deeply troubling crisis in modern medicine—one that claims countless lives and undermines the trust patients place in the healthcare system. Speaking with urgency and clarity, Dr. Malhotra reveals how the pharmaceutical industry’s influence has corrupted the integrity of medical practice, leaving millions of patients uninformed and at risk. His message is a wake-up call: the system is broken, and it’s time for the public to demand accountability. Dr. Malhotra highlights a staggering statistic: prescribed medications are the third leading cause of death globally, trailing only heart disease and cancer. This grim reality, which predates the COVID-19 pandemic, stems not from medical errors but from the side effects of drugs prescribed under a flawed system. Patients, he argues, are not receiving fully informed consent because the information they and their doctors rely on is tainted by bias and corruption. While doctors themselves are not to blame—they are conditioned by a system fed with manipulated data—the consequences are devastating. At the heart of this crisis lies the pharmaceutical industry’s stranglehold on regulatory bodies. Dr. Malhotra points to the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) in the UK, which receives 86% of its funding from the drug industry, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), funded 50-65% by Big Pharma. These agencies, tasked with protecting the public, often fail to independently evaluate the data provided by the very companies they regulate. The result? Drugs are approved and marketed based on incomplete or manipulated evidence, leaving patients vulnerable to harm. Dr. Malhotra doesn’t mince words when describing the pharmaceutical industry’s behavior. As legal entities, he argues, these corporations exhibit psychopathic traits: a callous disregard for safety, an incapacity for guilt, and a pattern of lying and manipulation for profit. He cites the chilling case of Vioxx, a blockbuster painkiller marketed by Merck in the late 1990s. Touted as a safer alternative to ibuprofen, Vioxx was linked to heart attacks and strokes—risks Merck’s executives knew about but concealed. Internal emails uncovered during litigation, as revealed by Dr. John Abramson, a former Harvard physician, showed Merck’s chief scientist acknowledging the cardiovascular risks while callously predicting the drug’s financial success. The toll? An estimated 60,000 deaths in the U.S. alone. Merck was fined nearly $1 billion for fraud, yet no executives faced personal consequences, and the company continued business as usual. Even more shocking, when the FDA instructed Merck to add a black box warning to Vioxx’s packaging to alert the public of its risks, Merck ignored the directive. Instead, they ramped up marketing, purchasing reprints of a New England Journal of Medicine article—initially suggesting the drug’s safety—for nearly $1 million. These reprints were used as marketing tools to mislead doctors and patients, doubling down on the false narrative of safety. Dr. Malhotra calls this behavior “nothing short of psychopathic.” This is not an isolated incident. Over decades, pharmaceutical companies have paid billions in fines for hiding data on harms, manipulating research, and engaging in fraudulent practices. The cumulative impact? Millions of lives lost to preventable drug-related harms. Yet, most doctors remain unaware of the extent of this misconduct, relying on guidelines and studies influenced by the same industry. Patients, in turn, are left in the dark, trusting a system that prioritizes profit over safety. Dr. Malhotra emphasizes that change is possible—and urgently needed. He points to the efforts of Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, and Dr. Marty Makary, the new head of the FDA, who are working to reform the system. Their mission is to restore integrity to medical research and regulation, ensuring that patients receive transparent, evidence-based care. But they cannot do it alone. Dr. Malhotra calls on the public to raise awareness, refuse to stay silent, and demand accountability from regulators, institutions, and the pharmaceutical industry. The path forward requires a collective awakening. By exposing these injustices and supporting leaders who prioritize public health over corporate interests, we can rebuild a medical system that truly serves patients. Dr. Malhotra’s message is clear: the time for complacency is over. Share this truth, make noise, and join the fight for a safer, more ethical future in medicine.

Camus

112,631 views • 1 year ago

#WATCH | Delhi | 2017 Unnao rape case | Nirbhaya's mother, Asha Devi says, "This is a new rule that is being made... This should not happen... Whether you are 500 km away or at home, it doesn't matter. What matters is that you have committed a crime and you have been punished... The court should hold an impartial hearing on this, considering the victim and what happened to her. There should be no bail at all... That family is still in danger... It has happened many times that the lower court and the high court have punished the victim, but then they got relief in the Supreme Court... The court itself is making a joke of how such a decision can be made..." Delhi High Court suspends the sentence of the 2017 Unnao rape case accused, former MLA Kuldeep Singh Sengar. The High Court has directed that Sengar will not enter the 5-kilometre area where the victim resides in Delhi.
3:30

#WATCH | Delhi | 2017 Unnao rape case | Nirbhaya's mother, Asha Devi says, "This is a new rule that is being made... This should not happen... Whether you are 500 km away or at home, it doesn't matter. What matters is that you have committed a crime and you have been punished... The court should hold an impartial hearing on this, considering the victim and what happened to her. There should be no bail at all... That family is still in danger... It has happened many times that the lower court and the high court have punished the victim, but then they got relief in the Supreme Court... The court itself is making a joke of how such a decision can be made..." Delhi High Court suspends the sentence of the 2017 Unnao rape case accused, former MLA Kuldeep Singh Sengar. The High Court has directed that Sengar will not enter the 5-kilometre area where the victim resides in Delhi.

ANI

139,442 views • 7 months ago

🚨 Politico is upset that the Supreme Court might let doctors… talk to their patients. Read that again. Politico's actual concern (in print!!!) is that a Supreme Court ruling protecting physician free speech "could permit doctors to speak more freely with patients and to the public about approaches to health care that are outside the mainstream." Outside the mainstream. Let's talk about that for a second. Who decides what's "mainstream?" The same institutions that told us masks didn't work, then said they did? The same bodies that said COVID couldn't have come from a lab? The same establishment that assured us the vaccines would stop transmission? The same system that watched Dr. Paul Marik (the most published ICU doctor in the world) stand before a Senate hearing in tears, saying, "They took away the drugs that were working for me. They made me just watch my patients die." His ICU had the highest survival rate. And they stripped him of his ability to treat. Doctors who used hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin (and saved lives doing it) had their licenses threatened or revoked. Not for harming patients. For HELPING them. For thinking outside the box when the entire world admitted it didn't know how to treat this disease. The Supreme Court is now weighing whether licensing boards can punish doctors for speaking their truth. And Politico's position is that they should be able to. The patient comes first. That is the foundation of medicine. And what we did to doctors during COVID, and what Politico is defending, is the complete inversion of that principle.
1:34

🚨 Politico is upset that the Supreme Court might let doctors… talk to their patients. Read that again. Politico's actual concern (in print!!!) is that a Supreme Court ruling protecting physician free speech "could permit doctors to speak more freely with patients and to the public about approaches to health care that are outside the mainstream." Outside the mainstream. Let's talk about that for a second. Who decides what's "mainstream?" The same institutions that told us masks didn't work, then said they did? The same bodies that said COVID couldn't have come from a lab? The same establishment that assured us the vaccines would stop transmission? The same system that watched Dr. Paul Marik (the most published ICU doctor in the world) stand before a Senate hearing in tears, saying, "They took away the drugs that were working for me. They made me just watch my patients die." His ICU had the highest survival rate. And they stripped him of his ability to treat. Doctors who used hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin (and saved lives doing it) had their licenses threatened or revoked. Not for harming patients. For HELPING them. For thinking outside the box when the entire world admitted it didn't know how to treat this disease. The Supreme Court is now weighing whether licensing boards can punish doctors for speaking their truth. And Politico's position is that they should be able to. The patient comes first. That is the foundation of medicine. And what we did to doctors during COVID, and what Politico is defending, is the complete inversion of that principle.

The HighWire

67,235 views • 5 months ago

I’ve been asked about my updated thoughts now that now that newly released footage from January 13, 2026 shows Alex Pretti in a heated confrontation with immigration agents. In the video, he is seen yelling, spitting in their direction, and kicking a vehicle taillight until it breaks. Agents then bring him to the ground, and during the struggle his concealed firearm becomes visible. For reasons still unexplained, the agents leave the scene without arresting him or even removing the firearm. Which in my mind raises serious concerns & questions regarding the training of immigration agents. The footage shows Alex making poor criminal decisions that day. That should have been handled through the legal system like any other crime. Arrest, charges, court, due process. That is how accountability works in our country. What it does NOT do is justify what happened later. Nothing in that earlier incident changes the fact that Alex Pretti was killed by government agents after being disarmed. Nothing erases the reality that he was entitled to due process. Nothing makes street level, unilateral government use of lethal force an acceptable substitute for a courtroom, a defense attorney, and a jury. We are a nation of laws. Guilt is decided in court, not on asphalt. It is also deeply disturbing that the public was told Alex was a “would be assassin” and “domestic terrorist looking to massacre law enforcement.” Those are lies, meant to gaslight the American people. That should concern everyone, no matter your politics. You can believe he acted wrong on January 13 and still believe his killing was unjustified. Those two things can exist at the same time. Accountability for citizens and accountability for government must go hand in hand, or freedom collapses. This is not about left versus right. It is not about party, agency, or ideology. It is about whether we still believe in the Constitution, due process, and the rule of law. We need to stand united as Americans who believe that no one is above the law and no one is beneath its protection.
2:45

I’ve been asked about my updated thoughts now that now that newly released footage from January 13, 2026 shows Alex Pretti in a heated confrontation with immigration agents. In the video, he is seen yelling, spitting in their direction, and kicking a vehicle taillight until it breaks. Agents then bring him to the ground, and during the struggle his concealed firearm becomes visible. For reasons still unexplained, the agents leave the scene without arresting him or even removing the firearm. Which in my mind raises serious concerns & questions regarding the training of immigration agents. The footage shows Alex making poor criminal decisions that day. That should have been handled through the legal system like any other crime. Arrest, charges, court, due process. That is how accountability works in our country. What it does NOT do is justify what happened later. Nothing in that earlier incident changes the fact that Alex Pretti was killed by government agents after being disarmed. Nothing erases the reality that he was entitled to due process. Nothing makes street level, unilateral government use of lethal force an acceptable substitute for a courtroom, a defense attorney, and a jury. We are a nation of laws. Guilt is decided in court, not on asphalt. It is also deeply disturbing that the public was told Alex was a “would be assassin” and “domestic terrorist looking to massacre law enforcement.” Those are lies, meant to gaslight the American people. That should concern everyone, no matter your politics. You can believe he acted wrong on January 13 and still believe his killing was unjustified. Those two things can exist at the same time. Accountability for citizens and accountability for government must go hand in hand, or freedom collapses. This is not about left versus right. It is not about party, agency, or ideology. It is about whether we still believe in the Constitution, due process, and the rule of law. We need to stand united as Americans who believe that no one is above the law and no one is beneath its protection.

Long Island Audit

61,039 views • 6 months ago

Dr. Aseem Malhotra tells Joe Rogan that a reanalysis of Pfizer and Moderna's original clinical trial data shows that their COVID mRNA vaccines *INCREASE* your risks of serious adverse events, hospitalization, and death: "In my whole career, looking at all of the drugs and knowing about many different prescribed medications, I've never seen something that when you look at the data has such poor effectiveness and unprecedented harms. In the summer of last year, in the journal Vaccine, the highest-impact medical journal for vaccines, they published a reanalysis of Pfizer and Moderna's original double-blinded randomized controlled trial. This is the highest quality of scientific evidence. Joseph Fraiman is an ER doctor and clinical data scientist from Louisiana. Associate editor of the BMJ, Dr. Peter Doshi. Dr. Robert Kaplan from Stanford. Some real eminence of integrity published this reanalysis, and what they found was this. In the trials that led to the approval of regulators worldwide, you were more likely to suffer a severe adverse event from taking the vaccine, hospitalization, disability, or life-changing event than you were to be hospitalized with COVID. This mRNA vaccine should likely have never been approved for a single human in the first place, and that rate of serious adverse events is at least 1 in 800... 1 in 800 is a very, very high figure. We've pulled other vaccines for much less. The 1976 Swine Flu vaccine was pulled because it was found to cause a debilitating neurological condition called Guillan-Barre syndrome in about 1 in 100,000 people. The Rotavirus vaccine was suspended in 1999 because it was found to cause a form of bowel obstruction in kids in 1 of 10,000. This is at least 1 in 800. It's a no-brainer. So the question is, why have we not paused it?" Study: Dr Aseem Malhotra Joe Rogan
6:17

Dr. Aseem Malhotra tells Joe Rogan that a reanalysis of Pfizer and Moderna's original clinical trial data shows that their COVID mRNA vaccines *INCREASE* your risks of serious adverse events, hospitalization, and death: "In my whole career, looking at all of the drugs and knowing about many different prescribed medications, I've never seen something that when you look at the data has such poor effectiveness and unprecedented harms. In the summer of last year, in the journal Vaccine, the highest-impact medical journal for vaccines, they published a reanalysis of Pfizer and Moderna's original double-blinded randomized controlled trial. This is the highest quality of scientific evidence. Joseph Fraiman is an ER doctor and clinical data scientist from Louisiana. Associate editor of the BMJ, Dr. Peter Doshi. Dr. Robert Kaplan from Stanford. Some real eminence of integrity published this reanalysis, and what they found was this. In the trials that led to the approval of regulators worldwide, you were more likely to suffer a severe adverse event from taking the vaccine, hospitalization, disability, or life-changing event than you were to be hospitalized with COVID. This mRNA vaccine should likely have never been approved for a single human in the first place, and that rate of serious adverse events is at least 1 in 800... 1 in 800 is a very, very high figure. We've pulled other vaccines for much less. The 1976 Swine Flu vaccine was pulled because it was found to cause a debilitating neurological condition called Guillan-Barre syndrome in about 1 in 100,000 people. The Rotavirus vaccine was suspended in 1999 because it was found to cause a form of bowel obstruction in kids in 1 of 10,000. This is at least 1 in 800. It's a no-brainer. So the question is, why have we not paused it?" Study: Dr Aseem Malhotra Joe Rogan

KanekoaTheGreat

2,292,636 views • 3 years ago

"Most published research findings are false." Say that out loud in a hospital and you'd get laughed out of the room. That's the actual title of a paper by John Ioannidis at Stanford, whom Dr. Aseem Malhotra calls the most cited medical researcher alive. The greater the financial interest in a field, the less likely its research is to be true. Doctors treat the New England Journal of Medicine, JAMA, and The Lancet like biblical truth. They don't realize how much of it is corrupted by vested interests. Dr. Malhotra spent years treating those journals as gospel. Then he realized what he was actually reading: studies bought and shaped by the people who profit from them. He isn't saying doctors are bad. He's saying they're being manipulated and don't know it.
1:33

"Most published research findings are false." Say that out loud in a hospital and you'd get laughed out of the room. That's the actual title of a paper by John Ioannidis at Stanford, whom Dr. Aseem Malhotra calls the most cited medical researcher alive. The greater the financial interest in a field, the less likely its research is to be true. Doctors treat the New England Journal of Medicine, JAMA, and The Lancet like biblical truth. They don't realize how much of it is corrupted by vested interests. Dr. Malhotra spent years treating those journals as gospel. Then he realized what he was actually reading: studies bought and shaped by the people who profit from them. He isn't saying doctors are bad. He's saying they're being manipulated and don't know it.

Epoch Health

28,357 views • 1 month ago

The prosecutor, Tina Ansari, brought the case against me and reinvented HIPAA law to make it not about patient privacy but about protecting powerful institutions - TCH and BCM. These are the same institutions that were lying about mutilating and sterilizing young children in the service of the transgender ideology. She brought this case to send me to prison for a decade despite the fact that these were the same institutions that were enriching her family, the ones I was blowing the whistle on. Even though Tina was pulled from the case in complete and utter shame, the Southern District of Texas is nonetheless accelerating as if this never happened. It was corrupt from the beginning and its corrupt now. Every second this case goes on the corruption simply compounds itself.
5:36

The prosecutor, Tina Ansari, brought the case against me and reinvented HIPAA law to make it not about patient privacy but about protecting powerful institutions - TCH and BCM. These are the same institutions that were lying about mutilating and sterilizing young children in the service of the transgender ideology. She brought this case to send me to prison for a decade despite the fact that these were the same institutions that were enriching her family, the ones I was blowing the whistle on. Even though Tina was pulled from the case in complete and utter shame, the Southern District of Texas is nonetheless accelerating as if this never happened. It was corrupt from the beginning and its corrupt now. Every second this case goes on the corruption simply compounds itself.

Eithan Haim MD

43,770 views • 1 year ago

Dr. Malone reveals the name of the person he says is blocking COVID vaccine deaths in children from being shared with the public. CLAYTON MORRIS: “Who is blocking that?” MALONE: “The name is Marty.” MORRIS: “Marty Makary?” MALONE: “Yeah.” Going further, Dr. Malone said there were a handful of “incontrovertible” cases of vaccine deaths in children identified by Dr. Tracy Beth Høeg that passed peer review. Dr. Vinay Prasad previously confirmed this in an FDA memo, which said: “… at least 10 children have died after and because of receiving COVID-19 vaccination.” “But then suddenly there was silence about all of this because there was a decision not to disclose,” Dr. Malone explained. Why? Because “The leadership right now is not willing to allow that information to become public.”
2:10

Dr. Malone reveals the name of the person he says is blocking COVID vaccine deaths in children from being shared with the public. CLAYTON MORRIS: “Who is blocking that?” MALONE: “The name is Marty.” MORRIS: “Marty Makary?” MALONE: “Yeah.” Going further, Dr. Malone said there were a handful of “incontrovertible” cases of vaccine deaths in children identified by Dr. Tracy Beth Høeg that passed peer review. Dr. Vinay Prasad previously confirmed this in an FDA memo, which said: “… at least 10 children have died after and because of receiving COVID-19 vaccination.” “But then suddenly there was silence about all of this because there was a decision not to disclose,” Dr. Malone explained. Why? Because “The leadership right now is not willing to allow that information to become public.”

The Vigilant Fox 🦊

294,615 views • 3 months ago

Dr. Aseem Malhotra: “No One Should Have Ever Received a Single COVID Shot” Dr. Aseem Malhotra is sounding the alarm on what he calls one of the most consequential medical deceptions of our time. Citing a re-analysis of Pfizer and Moderna’s own trial data, published in Vaccine by independent scientists including BMJ associate editor Dr. Peter Doshi, the findings reveal a stunning reality: participants were up to four times more likely to suffer serious harm from the shot than to be hospitalized with COVID. Malhotra argues this data shows the mRNA injections were misrepresented from day one — products better described as gene therapy than as vaccines. “If this analysis is even close to accurate,” he warns, “then not a single person should have ever been injected.” A momentous statement — and one that demands the world’s attention.
0:48

Dr. Aseem Malhotra: “No One Should Have Ever Received a Single COVID Shot” Dr. Aseem Malhotra is sounding the alarm on what he calls one of the most consequential medical deceptions of our time. Citing a re-analysis of Pfizer and Moderna’s own trial data, published in Vaccine by independent scientists including BMJ associate editor Dr. Peter Doshi, the findings reveal a stunning reality: participants were up to four times more likely to suffer serious harm from the shot than to be hospitalized with COVID. Malhotra argues this data shows the mRNA injections were misrepresented from day one — products better described as gene therapy than as vaccines. “If this analysis is even close to accurate,” he warns, “then not a single person should have ever been injected.” A momentous statement — and one that demands the world’s attention.

Camus

83,203 views • 8 months ago

Then, Joe Rogan UNRAVELED Big Pharma’s entire vaccine narrative in 3 minutes. “I always thought … they’re the people that are providing the medication that’s keeping everyone alive.” “This is why our life expectancy is 100 years old now as opposed to just 20 years ago.” Dr. Bowden: “Life expectancy has gone down actually, despite all the vaccines.” Rogan: “I would have never questioned it.” “But after reading Suzanne Humphrey’s book and I had her on recently, I was like, wait a minute, what? This can’t be true.” “And then just look at the raw data of when the vaccines were introduced, and when hygiene was introduced and sanitation was introduced and then massive drop off of the disease.” “Then at the very end when it’s almost gone, vaccines are introduced—in almost every case.” “Yet we’re all thinking, thank God vaccines exist because otherwise we’d all have polio.” “The polio one blew me away when you find out that that was the same time where they were using DDT everywhere.” “The people that were getting polio first were people in rural farmland communities where they sprayed DDT everywhere.” “It wasn’t just affecting people, it was affecting horses. And it doesn’t cross species. So it wasn’t the same thing.” “And then … Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s journey from being a very respected and trusted environmental attorney who was applauded by the left to being some nutcase pariah who I thought was a nut case.” Dr Suzanne Humphries
2:54

Then, Joe Rogan UNRAVELED Big Pharma’s entire vaccine narrative in 3 minutes. “I always thought … they’re the people that are providing the medication that’s keeping everyone alive.” “This is why our life expectancy is 100 years old now as opposed to just 20 years ago.” Dr. Bowden: “Life expectancy has gone down actually, despite all the vaccines.” Rogan: “I would have never questioned it.” “But after reading Suzanne Humphrey’s book and I had her on recently, I was like, wait a minute, what? This can’t be true.” “And then just look at the raw data of when the vaccines were introduced, and when hygiene was introduced and sanitation was introduced and then massive drop off of the disease.” “Then at the very end when it’s almost gone, vaccines are introduced—in almost every case.” “Yet we’re all thinking, thank God vaccines exist because otherwise we’d all have polio.” “The polio one blew me away when you find out that that was the same time where they were using DDT everywhere.” “The people that were getting polio first were people in rural farmland communities where they sprayed DDT everywhere.” “It wasn’t just affecting people, it was affecting horses. And it doesn’t cross species. So it wasn’t the same thing.” “And then … Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s journey from being a very respected and trusted environmental attorney who was applauded by the left to being some nutcase pariah who I thought was a nut case.” Dr Suzanne Humphries

Holden Culotta

74,272 views • 1 year ago

For accuracy: Aidan’s affidavit was not impounded when it was first covered on online. This issue was expressly addressed during the hearing. The judge asked whether the affidavit was impounded, and defense counsel (Attorney Bradl) confirmed that it was not. The judge then stated that it was therefore a “public record.” The only remaining concern raised was whether the plaintiff’s address should have been removed. A temporary impoundment order was issued later in the hearing for the exhibits, at which point Bradl informed the court that some of the materials was already publicly available online. A public record is a public record. In Massachusetts, once a court record (like an affidavit) has already been lawfully made public—including be posted or shared on social media—impoundment of the official court record does not “unpublish” it or retroactively make the public version secret or inaccessible. The judge’s temporary impoundment order applies to the parties of record in the case. It is not surprising that Kate is so wrong on this point. She is doing exactly what the judge ordered must stop, and the judge certainly will not consider her meddling in his decision.
0:30

For accuracy: Aidan’s affidavit was not impounded when it was first covered on online. This issue was expressly addressed during the hearing. The judge asked whether the affidavit was impounded, and defense counsel (Attorney Bradl) confirmed that it was not. The judge then stated that it was therefore a “public record.” The only remaining concern raised was whether the plaintiff’s address should have been removed. A temporary impoundment order was issued later in the hearing for the exhibits, at which point Bradl informed the court that some of the materials was already publicly available online. A public record is a public record. In Massachusetts, once a court record (like an affidavit) has already been lawfully made public—including be posted or shared on social media—impoundment of the official court record does not “unpublish” it or retroactively make the public version secret or inaccessible. The judge’s temporary impoundment order applies to the parties of record in the case. It is not surprising that Kate is so wrong on this point. She is doing exactly what the judge ordered must stop, and the judge certainly will not consider her meddling in his decision.

KY Maverick

13,089 views • 3 months ago

Channel 4 Dispatches went undercover inside the Financial Ombudsman Service Financial Ombudsman Service. What they filmed should have shut the place down. Their own staff said this on camera: "I'm not proud to admit it but I've done it myself. Just taken a chance and just slung stuff through, with any old decision." "You're more likely to meet your targets if you're not upholding them." 11,000 cases fell into a black hole for two years. Some of those letters said "I am going to lose my house." UK Parliament demanded answers. Baroness Ros Altmann called it shocking. MPs threatened a full inquiry. FOS said the footage was "not representative." Nothing changed. Fast forward to today. My own complaint against RSA Insurance Group / Intact Insurance Canada is now being formally handled by Gary Smith Gary Smith of Meridian Legal Sevices. Gary is the lawyer leading the FOS Litigation Group, a group built on over 1,000 documented FOS failures. He is preparing a judicial review of the FOS. My case has been submitted by Meridian as my regulated representative because what happened to me fits the same pattern Channel 4 filmed. If you have had a complaint dismissed by the FOS and you believe it was handled without proper scrutiny, contact Gary directly at Meridian Legal Services. 0121 516 0675 Meridian Legal Sevices The full transcript of what Channel 4 Dispatches filmed inside the FOS is in the comments. Read it and tell me this is not exactly what is still happening today.
0:34

Channel 4 Dispatches went undercover inside the Financial Ombudsman Service Financial Ombudsman Service. What they filmed should have shut the place down. Their own staff said this on camera: "I'm not proud to admit it but I've done it myself. Just taken a chance and just slung stuff through, with any old decision." "You're more likely to meet your targets if you're not upholding them." 11,000 cases fell into a black hole for two years. Some of those letters said "I am going to lose my house." UK Parliament demanded answers. Baroness Ros Altmann called it shocking. MPs threatened a full inquiry. FOS said the footage was "not representative." Nothing changed. Fast forward to today. My own complaint against RSA Insurance Group / Intact Insurance Canada is now being formally handled by Gary Smith Gary Smith of Meridian Legal Sevices. Gary is the lawyer leading the FOS Litigation Group, a group built on over 1,000 documented FOS failures. He is preparing a judicial review of the FOS. My case has been submitted by Meridian as my regulated representative because what happened to me fits the same pattern Channel 4 filmed. If you have had a complaint dismissed by the FOS and you believe it was handled without proper scrutiny, contact Gary directly at Meridian Legal Services. 0121 516 0675 Meridian Legal Sevices The full transcript of what Channel 4 Dispatches filmed inside the FOS is in the comments. Read it and tell me this is not exactly what is still happening today.

Artur Nadolny

236,846 views • 3 months ago