Michael Susko, President


November 18th, 2007


Dear Michael Susko,

                                    Re: My listing on the CIRCARE web database.


From your position and experience, I feel sure that you will have encountered organizations and individuals who, to the public’s perception, are distinguished and upstanding, yet, when subjected to closer scrutiny, there may be revealed darker features of concern to the public. Presumably, no organization or individual in areas interested in medical development or practice can be above public interest and scrutiny, Medical Boards included.


Your organization, CIRCARE, sets out laudable aims and aspirations and, by listing the names of organizations or individuals on your web-site, provides a ready data-base that can be consulted by anyone around the world, - anyone who may wish to know who are of ill repute in human research. With such a database, you differ from those organizations that collect and distribute news. They simply make interesting items available for a short time and do not set themselves up as an authoritative reference database. This means that you, as operators of the site, take on a particularly onerous duty of care in accepting and displaying such information; a listing which names, shames, and may, in some cases, destroy those organizations or individuals listed.


Your organization is concerned, not only with the well-being of human research subjects, but also with good medicine generally. Fundamental to this are sound laws, regulations and ethical codes for good practice. There is also the need to implement and monitor the desirable forms of practice, for best results. In Australia, (and extending its influence into Australasia) there has developed an aberration in the conduct of Pathology. This perverted form separates the Pathologists (contained in the laboratories in Australia), from the clinicians in the clinics. It results in a breakdown of the nexus between those doctors with specific scientific training, from those with more clinical training. This breach may be expected to result in a diminished level of scientific ↔ clinical, practical dialogue and scientific application. Another aspect is that many of the Pathologists in Australia are now effectively employees with respect to the rendered pathology service, meaning that there are not such levels of clinical involvement and expectation to encourage higher standards of practice; they just have to hold a 9-5 job (or similar) and, in many cases, sit at a telephone awaiting a call from a clinician, so that they call themselves “clinical Pathologists.”.


How the Australian perversions came about in about 1989-1990, is dealt-with in the “Medical Pathology” Chapter in my website. Criminal elements forged the earlier changes, with collaboration from officers of the Health Insurance Commission which, having a special level of protection under law in Australia, was able to prevent investigation into crimes that involved its own officers, and also give “special protection” to those criminally inclined in the private area. Since then, the aberrations have become more general with, for Australians, large sums of money at stake. Accordingly, there are powerful interests in Australia who can be expected to be hostile towards me. That is because :

           i            I witnessed, knew about, and reported the crimes involved in 1989, and have continued to agitate to have investigations ever since (without success). I am a whistle-blower.

         ii            I understood how the Pathology scheme was supposed to work, and conducted my practice along those lines. That was not a pretty sight for the large laboratory interests, who would not want to see Pathologists involved in clinics (and vice versa). I was at risk of showing others how medical/clinical Pathology should be practised, which would not be at all popular in the Corporate world. There is also another major player that may be hostile –

        iii            The Pharmaceutical industry would not be expected to be positive about my interest in the non-psychiatric uses of Lithium. On the world stage, this group would have the greatest clout.


The Chapter on Medical Pathology deals with the Federal attempts to “get me out of the system.” Other Chapters deal with what has been done at the state level to eliminate me from practice, and particular note may be made of A Base Board, which deals with reasonably well documented corruption within the office of the Medical Practitioners Board of Victoria – almost certainly the point of origin of the referral that was sent to your organization about me.


Accordingly, I believe that your organization has not exercised that particularly onerous duty of care in order to be absolutely certain that the referral and its details are free of corruption and bias. I suggest that CIRCARE has unwittingly become a tool for criminal elements in Australia, and that your organization is little different from those that you set out to name and shame (possibly worse, because you did not check carefully).


At a more basic level, I believe that my name should not be on your site, because the only real “research” on patients was with Lithium.  This was examined by the Medical Practitioners Board in 1997-8, and I was not instructed to stop. The more recent UHF Cancer treatment used protocols established by Dr John Holt in Western Australia who, from advice supplied by the Victorian Board, had never been investigated after more than 25 years of “experimentation” (much of which is published). My patients contributed blood and urine on occasions for me to monitor and study the likely effects of the treatment. This was not real experimentation, in the sense of trying significantly different modes of treatment on human patients. There were certainly never any essentially normal subjects involved. Most of all this is exteriorized on my website. In this regard, I believe that the person making the referral was acting in a malicious and vindictive fashion.


Accordingly, I believe that my interests in medicine had either been examined by the Board in 1997-8 or lay outside your general sphere of interest. The cases against me could be classified as based on hate – over the 18 years, there was only one patient who complained to the Board and was involved in the Formal Hearings. I claim that she should have been assessed for perjury. The Panels fudged her history to make it appear (falsely) that I had disadvantaged her (read about her on the website).


I believe that the person who referred me to you was a significant party assisting the perversion of the Pathology scheme. He has been involved in the campaign that has been waged over the last 18 years, with the aim to denigrate, defame, and deregister me, allowing the perverted Pathology scheme to continue unmolested in Australasia, and prevent the investigation of criminal activity in 1989-90. Your organization has become a useful tool for corrupt and powerful corporate interests. CIRCARE has showed an accessibility of benefit for organized crime groups and those who want to eliminate any medical practitioner perceived as a threat.


I believe that you should have a good and hard look at the issue of your duty of care, particularly with respect to the validity, veracity and intentions of those referring names to you for world-wide public shaming.



                                                Yours sincerely




                                                            Malcolm A Traill


Copyright © MA Traill November 2007