Video yÃŒkleniyor...
Video YÃŒklenemedi
ðâš ððððš ðŸðð§ððšð©ð¢ððš ðððð¡ðš ððð©ð§ð ðšð¥ððððð¡âŠ ðœððððªðšð ðð©âðš ð€ðªð§ ððð§ðšð© ð€ð£ð ð©ð€ððð©ððð§ ð Celebrate the season with AzRalph in an online fan meet full of love, laughter, and surprises. ð ð âš ð ð¢ð«ð¬ð ðð¡ð«ð¢ð¬ððŠðð¬ ð°ð¢ðð¡ ðð³ððð¥ð©ð¡ ðð§ ðð§ð¥ð¢ð§ð ð ðð§ ðððð ð²ðšð® ð°ðšð§âð ð°ðð§ð ððš ðŠð¢ð¬ð¬ ðšð§ ðððððŠððð« ðð, ðððð. ðPre-selling:... show more
45,161 görÃŒntÃŒleme ⢠9 ay önce â¢via X (Twitter)
0 Yorum
Yorum bulunmuyor
Orijinal gönderinin yorumları burada görÌnecek
![The most epic 13 minute AI rant I've heard in 2026 PS: My parent's heard this when I was playing it in the car and thought Jason âšðŸSaaStr.Aiâš Lemkin went OFF like Stephen A Smith does on first take PPS: Full transcript below [17:00] Harry Stebbings: I I just wanted to ask Jason, if the people that we want are fundamentally different, the developers that we used to hire, we don't because AI writes the code for us. The marketers we don't want, the sales people we don't wantâwho who do we want genuinely? Like what is the attractive profile? Because your Anthropicâs and your OpenAIs are hiring, so so what are the people that we want in the companies of the future? [17:18] Jason Lemkin: Look, I know it sounds trite, but but the answer is simple. It's just the expression each year changes. We want folks that are genuinely AI fluent. It's pretty simple. Now you know, maybe last year we called them prompt engineers, right? That used to be a job. I don't know if you remember that actually used to be the hottest job on planet earth. Now no one needs a prompt engineer because it's pretty easy to prompt all these tools. That job died. Okay. Um and now we need go-to-market engineers. Um I think that job's going to die. We needâeveryone needs so many forward deployed engineers. Like you can't hire enough forward deployed engineers. But uh you know um but Palantir just announced in whatever their their big their big eventâthey've gotten their deployment times down over 90% with forward deployed engineers. So that may becomeâso the this wave of disruption for the titles and the specificity, it's also exhaustingly accelerating. But it's really simple. You meet anyone for any roleâsales, marketing, engineering, product, QAâthey're they're either they're either they can't keep all of the ways they use AI to accelerate their job from spewing out of their mouth, or they're staring at you. It's there's nowhere in the middle. Like, and the person that comes in and saysâit's it's it sounds Captain Obviousâbut like, you know, you just had the whatever from Lovable, the the marketing head that was super popular on the show, right? She's just spewing AI-native insights into Lovable, right? It's not that complicated. You hire her, Elena, or whatever it is. You just hire her. It doesn't matter whether she's still in college or a junior or a senior or a middler, a left or right. And honestly, if you interview people, I would say of all even of the best startups I've invested in, maybe 30% of the management team meets this standard at best. 30%. Maybe less. And of the interviews I do in general, it's single-digit percents. It's just and in in that sense, it's the same as ever. Like you either lower the bar in hiring or you hire someone that's actually great. And someone that's actually great is so far ahead of you in how to apply to to employ the efficiencies of AI in their role, your jaw falls on the table. The difference is we used to need warm bodies. That's what's changing. We used to need warm bodies to answer the call, to do QA, to do code review, to to get the blue pixel to go from the upper left to the lower right. You laugh, but you need you literally needed to brute force this with humans. With AI, every day that goes by, the AIâyou do not need brute force human beings on your team. And that's another reason they're shrinking. Why are all these new companies so efficient? They're just not brute forcing things with humans. They're just not. They're choosing not to. And so these teamâall the brute forcers out thereâeveryone talks about how bloated teams got in 2021. I don't agree with that. I think they got as big as they needed to be when growth was high and you needed humans to do everything. All you look at these teams that that doubledâwell if growth continued at 60% like the rate in early 2021 for 5 years or can help me do the math and every single thing a software company did required a human. You were understaffed by your 2021 headcount. You'd be sitting here in 2026. You every office in SoMa would be triple packed and you there wouldn't be enough humans to staff your company. It's just the world changed. [20:33] Harry Stebbings: Jason, you live on the bleeding edge. I think me and Rory see that and I think the world sees that when they hear you every week in terms of how you run SaaS. For all of the CEOs and execs who listen to the show, what would you advise them in terms of determining whether someone is AI fluent when they meet them for jobs, for talent? [20:51] Jason Lemkin: Here's I realized I was just asked this. I just did a review with a super fast startup growing just crossing 100 million and I was asked this question. And one of my favorite executives, I thought his answer was pretty dated and because he gave me an answer that was about 6 months old. The answer 6 months old is: "I look for folks in my team, I look for you know at what tools they play with." Okay, that was a great answer in like summer of 2025. Okay, I tried Lovable last week. Okay, the answer in 2026 is: "What commercial AI tool have you brought into your organization this month?" That's the test. Anyone that is on the bleeding edge that you would want to hireânow there are so many great products in the market. Okay, there is no excuse in any role to have not brought one tool a month into your organization. Okay, thereânow there's going to be better and better tools and better and better products as the year goes on. What's the one you did? And you will see folks with their deer in the headlights to this question. What what sales tool? What marketing tool? What product tool? What engineering tool? What did you bring in? Why did you pick it? How does it working? Because if you're at remotely at the cutting edge, you're all over this. You're looking for the next agentic tools that will radically improve how you do business. This isâyou think everyone thinks SaaS is at the bleeding edge, right? You know, you know, all we do is we're just looking for the tools and trying them. Okay? Okay, we're one year ahead of everybody else because we did the simplest thing in the world. Like we tried the tools early and we trained them. We trained them for a month. Okay, I'll give youâwant hear a horrible example from this week? Super hot AI company valued at 6 billion. Okay, I'm not going to name it. Um, this week yesterday told us we had to quadruple what we spent on their product. Okay, their agent told us, right? And why did this happen? Okay. Well, at this $6 billion company, no one had trained the agent on its pricing properly. No one had tested it. They said, "Well, well, we've been in beta." And we said, "Well, when did the beta launch? A year ago." Okay, these are people asleep at at the wheel. You want somebody who the instant this comes up, they exactly know what the issue is. And "Hey, when I was at Lovable Replit, we trained the agent. This is how we did it. I brought in this tool. I brought in this tool that that Rory invested in last week. It solved all these issues." That's what you want to hear. And if they haven't brought in a tool in the last 30 days, at least deeply evaluated it. I don't really care whether they bought it, but gone so far down the funnel they can tell youâpick whatever tool: Fixie, Regie, GC, AIGCâI don't care how you went through it, you looked at it, you can tell me the eight ways it would improve the productivity of your business and three you didn't. Just don't hire that person because they're going to run your company to the ground. This is the job today. The job today is not to screw around on ChatGPT and to be a prompt engineer. The job today is to bring the best AI and agentic products into your organization and leverage all the hard work that the engineers have done building those products. That's your job. You don't have to screw around. You don't have to be a prompt engineer anymore. You have to be an agent deployment expert. Aâthis is the new job we're making up today. An Agentic Deployment Expert. That's your job from C-level to junior. Agentic Deployment Expert. Don't hire anybody else. You're going to regret it. They're going to stare at the camera. He's good. Stare at the camera. He's honorable. We could probably just I could slip away, get a coffee, and come back. No. And I I sound exasperated, Rory. And Iâbut the reason I am is I can just see I can see my best companies doing it. And I can see some companies I've invested in not doing it. And I want to cry. I just want to cry when they have no ADs on their team. I justâlike you're flushing your years of your life down the toilet by not approaching your how you're building this company this way. [24:33] Rory: Yes. And at the risk of being positive, it's worth pointing out two things he didn't say. Well, something implicit why he saidâJason didn't do the only hire, you know, he didn't commit the um employment law, I think it's a civil penalty of saying only employ people below X who get the new new thing because he implicitly said anyone can do it provided you're willing to learn. And I think that's the big aha that's one of the positive statements to make here right? Look and I think it appliesâI'm always wary of being "Hey, coming across, hey this this is the things that you all have to do." I think it applies to everyone including investors right? I mean I will say I have found that unless you're willing to invest the time learning these tools you actually shouldn't be investing in them. One of my partners Andy had this expression: "You know, if you decide you want to stop learning new things you probably should retire within 6 to 12 months and never write another check again." Maybe that's down to 3 to 6 months at this stage, right? And I think, you know, it'sâ [25:27] Harry Stebbings: Yeah, I actually I actually had a meeting with mine and Jason's biggest investor the other day and Iâpretend he's not hereâI said I think he's the most equipped investor for this generation of investing because I don't think anyone quite sits at the bleeding edge like he does on the investor side. [25:42] Harry Stebbings: Why in terms of using the equip stuff? Yeah. Yeah. In terms of using the stuff, understanding understanding bottlenecks, constraints. For sure. [25:51] Jason Lemkin: But can I just add one point? We can just cuz it's so important if it helps people. Okay, we areâand thank you Harry. We're going through these phases. Okay, and when AI started to blow up for real for us, uh call it early 2024, right? Maybe late '23, I wasn't equipped. It was too technical. I wasn't going to go in and figure outâI wasn't smart enough to figure out how to deal with a massively hallucinating LLM API and turn that and turn that into something magical. Kudos to investors and others that that got it in early '23, '22. I mean I remember IâI guess it was maybe SaaStr Annual '23. I was with David Sacks and I did a Q&A and I said, "How you thinking about AI at Craft?" He's like, "Well we're all in. We want 80% of '23 of investments to be AI." I'm like, "Great but like show me the show me the great ones in market." He's like, "They're all prototypes. We're all they're all they're all proof of concepts but we're all in anyway." That's where you kind of had to be in '23 if you weren't investing at like the LLM level. Okay, I wasn't smart enough. Then we went through this weird-ass prompt engineer era where like you you could torture these products to do something good, right? But you had to torture them. You had to like craft these crazy things that made no sense. Now we are in the era where mere ordinarily smart generalists can make these tools do magical things. And literally I go to these meetings and people be like, "I don't know how to like this is so scary. I don't know how to do this." And we show them our backends. Do you know how to do a workflow generator? Do you know how to do a a decision tree? Like we've been building these since software in the '90s. Okay, if youâI can show you all of our agents. The how they work is novel. They do have to be trained. You can't be lazy and have these agents work. But honestly, the the UI, the UX, the way we interact with them, it's just software. And so my point is: Pick yourself off the ground. This is your time now. If you felt lost in AI era, if you felt like you're behind, you don't understand what all these people are saying on X and Twitter and their Claude and and their and talking about all the 4.6 point Nano point and it's overâlike you just it's not your world. This is your time. This is your time for the generalist that knows how to use software tools really really well. And Iâthis is my last point but it's so important. If ever in your recent lifeâand this is why you could be all you need to be is young at heart to Rory's pointâif in the last three to five years you have successfully deployed a piece of enterprise software of any sort you yourself, not some agency you hired, but if you have deployed it, you can deploy any agentic tool. Any. And you can become the hero in your company and you can become the hero in your functional area. But I watch folksâI'm literally helping a company now that they're adding hundreds of sales folks this year with a new pre-IPO COOâhe's not hasn't brought in a single tool, totally scared of it. Okay, it's not that hard. Did you use SalesLoft? Did you use Outreach? Did you use HubSpot? Do you know these tools? If you can deploy these tools, you can deploy a world-changing AI agent. And so this is the time for people like the folks that that were shut out of the AI revolution right now. The generalist folks that are not that know how to deploy software that don't even know how to build software. Like vibe coding for me was folks who knew how to build software, but you didn't have to be an engineer. Now, you just need to know how to deploy software to win with AI agents. That's all you need to know. So many people have these skills and they're petrified of AI. "How did you do that? How did you deploy an AI BDR?" Well, we bought a piece of software, we figured out how it worked for a day, we set it up in an afternoon, and then and then we did spend 30 months training it, which you didn't do with this old software because in the old days, we just had to manually upload all the data, right? And there was no training. The the only non-intuitive part is training these things. And it's it's it's just work. So that's why when I see folks on the management team not doing this, there's no excuse. You do not need to be technical to win with AI agents in Q2 of '26. You do not need to be even 1% technical. Not at all. So it's your time. Or you're going to get laid off. Or you're going to get laid off because you're not going to matter.](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2036795243681423518/amplify_video_thumb/2036794127560613888/img/52_cdbzzL6_foTSI.jpg)
!["[Gilbert] was led to the presence of an entity, over six feet tall, with very few features except for light emission from various parts of its âbodyâ" ~Vallée ð¥ Explosive: Vallée Says His Friend Claims He Was Taken Inside a Mountain to Communicate With an Alien ðœ "This is serious." - "I trust him." "The tests he was asked to do tend to indicate that the higher-level controllers are indeed full Aliens but the pilots they use are primitive hybrids." (This is one of the most amazing things Vallée has ever written, and said. IF TRUE, and IF it can be proven, it will change the world. But, obviously, we first need to hear from "Gilbert," judge his credibility, and go from there. Will that ever happen? I wrote JV to see if I could get a few more details about his relationship with Gilbert but have yet to hear back from him at the time I'm posting this. I've communicated with him in the past, via email, and my last exchange with him from January of 2026 is included at the very end of this KLAP (Kind of Long-Ass Post ð). I believe he will be on Reality Check with Ross Coulthart this week.) "The phenomenon, "appears to be an extraterrestrial phenomenon empowered by advanced artificial intelligence." ~Vallée ~~~From the latest Bigelow Podcast~~~ George Knapp: "Jacques, you recently said something to that effect on stage at a public event where you said that there are experiments, communication, underway in labs in an unclassified setting. Can you elaborate on that at all? And have they worked?" Jacques Vallée: "Well, I mentioned that in the book. I don't think I should go beyond what's in the book because the people involved have a project to disclose and to publish what they know." (I included all of what JV wrote in the FS V7 book, down below. A peer-reviewed paper being published by Gilbert and his associates would be amazing. But I'd take a white paper and book, as long as Gilbert goes public. We need to hear from him and anybody else who claims they were in the presence of this being. And, of course, video would be nice.) Vallée: "I've seen what they have. You know, it's much more detailed about the interaction that they were able to achieve. And the man I spoke to, that I called Gilbert, was in the presence of that entity in a very structured laboratory-style environment. He was brought in because he had certain psychic abilities himself that they wanted to add as a layer to the communication because they had trouble with the communication. "Now, I wasn't there. I cannot vouch for that. You know, I cannot, you know, stand before Congress or in a SCIF, you know, and talk about that because that's not my information. But I thought that was relevant, you know, to the whole discussion." ~End Bigelow Podcast Transcript~ ~~~Everything Claimed About Gilbert~~~ From: Forbidden Science 7 - Final Report Hummingbird. Saturday 9 October 2021. (Day 581) Another surprise: A long-lost (but not forgotten) friend of mine I will call âGilbert,â a discrete master remote viewer at the level of Uri Geller and Ingo Swann, has contacted me again, suggesting a meeting. He hinted at a fantastic experience of controlled personal exchange he performed, guided through official channels to a session with a supposed Alien. He needs help sorting out the results. This is serious. Heâs sending me the explosive data. Mabillon. Thursday 28 September 2023. I have new information from Gilbert,* as I call my trusted correspondent, in his long-time work with research teams. Iâve read the new statements heâs sent me (under some restrictions, since he has plans to publish the full story) about past contact experiences and experiments. Iâve requested more of the open data to confirm and extend it. Assuming we can find such validation, we can forget about the incremental experiments of Kona Blue, the proposed Department of Homeland Security special access program designed to investigate and exploit potential "non-human biologics" and retrieved advanced aerospace technology. The new data on my desk fills five closely typed pages. They detail Gilbertâs trip to a US lab sheltered within rock and only accessible under that project. Knowing our prior association, I recall that the psychic and I crossed paths in Central America and other sites over the years. I trust him but I need to know much more. Heâs agreed we need to find a way to meet again somewhere for a couple of days; thereâs more to share with me, including maps and charts, and heâll need advice. On my side, I will have to find a way to verify the data, including the location where the military guides exposed this long-term researcher to the presence of what they specifically told him was a live Alien entity. Was that fully veridical (truthful, accurate ~Joe) data? Hummingbird. Wednesday 18 December 2024. ...my latest exchange with discreet Gilbert, following up on our earlier conversations. He has now summarized his experiments with a captured entity into a well-organized table describing the interactions, and heâs agreed I could see it. For a few of the questions heâd been instructed to pose psychically, he did not get any clear answer. For others, he did receive an impression that he couldnât decipher, but he noted it for the record, very much in the manner Ingo Swann had taught me at SRI decades ago. The bulk of the new data from Gilbert, in contrast, is highly relevant and urgent. The tests he was asked to do tend to indicate that the higher-level controllers are indeed full Aliens but the pilots they use are primitive hybrids, as we see in Trinity, Socorro, Valensole, and now in Varginha, now a total of nine similar entities in my database: child-size, breathing air, adapted to our special gravity. "They could be human-derived, to serve only on this planet. They are the same kind of creatures that biologist Erwin Chargaff of Columbia University was asked to look for when he went to Moscow for a conference. The CIA wanted him to find out discreetly if the Russians had developed a race of dwarves to pilot their spaceships, saving space and energy on the way to orbit and the moon. Dr. Chargaff carefully avoided the issue, not eager to end up in a Soviet prison. Currently, there doesnât seem to be any hard test that will clearly discriminate between the two possible modes of control, psychic or physical. Personally, I donât believe any more that the occupants serve as pilots, and neither does Gilbert. What he learned about the goals of the UFO intrusion may be the most insightful, if and when he can reveal it fully. Austin. Tuesday 11 March 2025. Has an Alien linguistic connection been known and validated for years by groups of military scientists? None of the confusion in Austin relates to Gilbert, and my talented friendâs focused experiments with an apparently living Alien whose language and thought system he studies. That side of the problem is untouched. Since our conversation last December, I have seen the long list of technical questions Gilbert and the attending group had posed to the entity, together with Gilbertâs personal report on psychic impressions he carefully presents as âindications only.â Most results are solid and consistent, although for some questions there was no answer at all from the entity, or only an ambiguous answer. He promised to send me more details which, he said, didnât involve classified information. That surprised me, as the data about the origin and circumstances of the capture (when, where, who?) were indeed classified, and the exact location isnât revealed. Anyway, itâs the nature of the communication that interests me, not so much its background. Hummingbird. Wednesday 12 March 2025. Today I also reviewed more details from Gilbert, following up about his experiences. He made it clear he was never part of the formal program of investigation with the âentityâ and didnât know if other captured (or volunteer) beings existed, or where they were kept. He knew approximately where he was but couldnât see outside the car that was driving him there. He was taken inside a small mountain to an underground room, well-lit and cared for by men and women in uniform with no designation of rank or unit. The room was a big lab. This was serious and well-run. No drugs or medical items were involved. The uniforms had no apparent military features that would identify the unit. He was led to the presence of an entity, over six feet tall, with very few features except for light emission from various parts of its âbodyâ so that Gilbert thought what he saw might be covered by a test article, a wired uniform or a safety container for the being rather than the body of an actual Alien. At least, that was the general impression I received from what he said. That impression changed when Gilbert engaged the entity with question-and-answer sequences, where he was left to interpret answers that came in the form of light combinations. The trials, whose results I have in detail, are remarkable. Some were flagged as inconsistent and some were left incomplete when the response was too complex, but many of the tests matched earlier results, and Gilbert got permission to enquire about psychic functioning, also with success. I am purposely vague about that phase of the session, which took several hours of sustained attention. It will be Gilbertâs prerogative to say more when he can speak on the record. All of Vallée's books are worth the purchase. Link in replies. Vallée, Jacques. Forbidden Science 7: Final Report: The Journals of Jacques Vallée 2020-2025 (pp. 539-540). (Function). Kindle Edition. ~~~My Last Email Interaction with JV in January of 2026~~~ Murgia: "Today, during the James Fox-hosted Varginha press conference, you said: The phenomenon, 'appears to be an extraterrestrial phenomenon empowered by advanced artificial intelligence.' "Is that a change in your opinion on the origin of the phenomenon? Because, over the years, you've talked about other realities and dimensions and leaned away from the ETH." Vallée: "I don't think those are mutually exclusive. We have started to use AI quite actively, and we have to expect other species would as well -- and better. "To me, the creatures seen at Trinity, Socorro and Valensole, and now revealed quite clearly at Varginha, could be artificial biological 'robots', designed to withstand our gravity, breathe our air and look 'human-like' enough to interact with us -- or simply to learn about us. "When I was discussing this with Bill Powers circa 1966, right after Socorro he half-joked that they could be 'noticing machines.' "That could mean that any secret project designed to learn about their biology, although extremely interesting, will teach us nothing about the origin of UFOs, whose real controllers are somewhere else and have evolved like us. I've come to believe there are two levels involved -- at least."](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2099612964311769328/amplify_video_thumb/2099612920229593088/img/BLv8ezAC8Dzk4Qdi.jpg)
![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. Iâve 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? Letâs 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 canât address patient queries. Then started the defamation in the press â articles in the Jewish News, Jewish Chronicle and Telegraph followed by loss of contract with Medinet with whom Iâd worked since 2018 intermittently and had glowing reviews. The GMC now opens an investigation â 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 âinvestigatedâ. I had a trip abroad for my brotherâs assassination case and I had clinics. Patients who had waited 12-18 months to see a Neurologist. The GMC and MPTS didnât 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!) â instead of 20th December I had suggested 13th January 2025. Recall this was over the Christmas period â people going on holidays and yet I was expected to get legal advice when I was in clinic from 8am â 6pm. I told them patients came first â I stand by that. Hurt Jewish feelings arenât urgent and they donât 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 â including the one letter that contained my âdefencesâ. They would not budge â the Jewish lobbies were demanding action and the GMC wasnât 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 Iâd been suspended for 18 months. No other doctor had an 18-month suspension or got one since â 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 â 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 âcouldnât get purchase onâ how they came to that decision. In any case, after being misled by my indemnity body â 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 wouldnât attend. The indemnity body then reneged on the agreed High Court action. The GMC even send me the Rule 7 letter â the final âallegationsâ against me on 5 February 2025 which they then updated in March. Ordinarily this takes about 9 months to send â 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 investigationâŠ. 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 â 16th June 2025 afternoon was scheduled. I stated I wanted this in person and in public. I flew back from Kashmir on 9th June â itâs cheaper to live there - and found myself arrested at Holyhead under s12 of the Terrorism Act for âalleged support of proscribed groupsâ â apparently I was âon the wanted list. Iâm released 14 hours later. Theyâd seized my mobile phones and laptop and wait for it, all my GMC documents that Iâd carefully put together. Iâm still not sure why I couldnât get those back. I learn that the GMC is seeking information about this non-reportable arrest within 24 hours of it â they know. In any case, I go for the IOT hearing â 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 â they would have known. There were over 1000 pages in the bundle of nonsense â the only worthwhile part of that was my beautifully written 191-page response. I was quite proud of it if Iâm 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 â ordinarily submitted 7-14 days before â no doubt, to wrong foot me. They finally admit that the IOT panel made an âerror of lawâ in not properly applying the Article 10 rights but argue they got to the âright decision but by the wrong routeâ (!) I am self-representing in Court 1 at the Royal Courts of Justice â 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 â 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 â 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: âI 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. Itâs 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 panelâs 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.â I went through each ground in detail giving the relevant case law. I talked openly about the nature of that persecution: âAll of the complaints against me have been made by Jewish and pro-Israeli affiliated organisations and I think itâs necessary to list them â 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. Thereâs a Declassified article, incidentally, thatâs been written by a Jewish journalist, Matt Kennard. He has investigated Streetingâs 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 organisationâs 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 Chinnâs 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 âWes Streeting, our friend at the NUSâ. So, thereâs 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 âI expect employers and regulators to take actionâ. 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.â And I made clear the Jewish privilege at play âSo, from what Iâve just presented, itâs very clear that the red line concerns Israel. Tweets, thatâs 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 youâre 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.â I made clear that even the GMC referral to the MPTS explicitly stated âthat there was no evidence of [her] racially discriminating against anyone or discriminating against Jewish people.â I stated in the High Court âAnd I should point out that the Jewish people are not a race; Judaism is a religionâ and âIt 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.â I made sure that she understood that my patients and even Grok approved of me: âIn fact, Grok is positively glowing â âDr Rehiana Aliâs tweet carry a fiery, unapologetic tone blending sharp intellect with a raw defiance against injustice echoing the spirit of Malcolm X, mirrors Malcolmâs blend of moral clarity, confrontational rhetoric and distain for oppressive systems.â âI canât think of a better person to be compared to.â I further stated âI 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 thatâs 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.â I even quoted the Queen: âI 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?â At 1pm, the Judge wants a lunch-break â I havenât finished. We continue after lunch break â and I complete my submission dealing with the GMCâs arguments. âBefore I sum up, Iâll just briefly address the skeleton arguments that the defence submitted on 8 July. And obviously Iâve already raised disgruntlement about that but I think itâs 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 itselfâŠâ Then the GMC repeats their arguments and argues that the High Court have broad powers and should take original jurisdiction over the matter: âAnd that is an exercise that this Court can properly make, exercising its original jurisdictionâ In fact, the words âoriginal jurisdictionâ were repeated about 7-8 times. The GMC Counsel repeated to the Judge âWe accept that you have a free-er handâ and again âBecause, as I say, this Court is free-er to exercise the original jurisdictionâ and so on. Look at the tweets! She said âMossad did 9/11â and that âIsraelis shouldnât be allowed near humanityâ. She said âIsraelis are involved in organ traffickingâ. 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 wouldnât debate the merits of the covid vaccine â the issue was whether the conditions/suspension was legal according to rules and procedural fairness). I reply I have no issue but it wasnât necessary â 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 âWe 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.â She stated the following: âAnd 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.â Even the GMC Counsel admitted that the Courtâs decision was âof interestâ I didnât agree it was âacademicâ The Judge continued: âThere is too much material. It is too important.â And later that her decision was ânonetheless, an important exercise.â I emphasised in my response that I wanted the High Court to rectify that injustice done to me in December 2024 and that âthe overarching question is âwas my original suspension, was it correct or not?â McGowan replied : âI â 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...â and again,âUntil I have made my mind up about the procedural unfairness and all the other points you have raised, I have got to consider everything.â I again pointed out â..I would argue itâs an abuse of the system and Iâm actually paying the price for their deficiencies, or rather procedural irregularities. Iâm having to live with the consequences of being deprived of an incomeâŠâ In other words, there have been consequences for me â financially and professionally. And I ended with âI 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 weâre calling for the GMC to be dismantled. Iâm simply asking that the injustice that was done in December is rectifiedâŠâ The concluding remarks of McGowan? âWell, 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.â At no point did McGowan state there would be no Judgement. On 14 July 2025, my suspension was revoked. I self-represented and I didnât concede a single point or any tweet. What happened next was a shocking abuse of the judicial process. My registration was reinstated â 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 panelâs decision â 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 McGowanâs position in the High Court. The High Court had a full dayâs 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 â 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 theyâre relying uponâŠ.they quote this section and claim it is written in the present tense! âSection 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 â..â Yes â that is the best they could come up with it. Needless to say, the convention in UK legislative drafting is the simple present tense âŠbecause the law is âalways speakingâ. I call and even visit the Royal Courts of Justice. The Court staff chase the Clerk âŠIâm 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 â itâs 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 â over 5 months after the substantive hearing â I received an Order (not a Judgement). It was a bare order â simply stating âUpon 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.â 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 â 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 â the latter for both permission to appeal and the appeal itself concerning McGowanâs bare unreasoned order. McGowan now responds (miraculously) via the Court staff wanting a 30-minute hearing for permission to appeal â 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 wasnât expecting much. McGowan had shown she lacks the spine to address the issues â and has zero integrity. You donât 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 â the Claimant â and asked if âI understood what was being saidâ. I replied that I understood full well. English after all is my first language and Iâm a Cambridge graduate. I can understand basic English. She clearly has difficulties though â I later learnt that she dropped English at Manchester University for Law. At the expense of sounding very snobbish, I just knew she wasnât Oxbridge materialâŠ. I present my arguments â including case law. The GMC has no relevant case law â their arguments are âit is written in the present tenseâ (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 âis finalâ. Of course, I point out that finality is based on two aspects â 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 âa decisionâ. And secondly, if there were any errors of law, procedural irregularities âŠthey were always appealable. Appeal however was not automatic â 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 canât appeal it?! I point out that every issue remains live. I even simplify it for them â I point out that in the case of rape, and using GMC logic, weâd never prosecute the rapist â 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 thereâd been a hearing. She tried to claim she has âno powerâ!! She then had the audacity to say âYouâve had a success. Why arenât you satisfied with that?â I point out that I was suspended unlawfully â I had 20 years of an impeccable record and it states âmisconductâ 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 â a public body â should be held accountable not just for my sake but for other doctors and I remind her of her own words âfor the wider public interestâ. In fact, I quote liberally from the transcript and point out her contradictions. At no point did she ever state â because itâs not possible â that the High Court lost jurisdiction. Thatâs the legal principle: âOnce seized, always seized.â](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2014084863523991988/amplify_video_thumb/2014081102336438272/img/PO6AC1MzPmGnWRpm.jpg)
