Update October 2006

Mal's Musings

Malcolm A Traill

IN  THE  PUBLIC  INTEREST
Updated 3/10/2006

 

DEFAMATION

UNDER PRIVILEGE

 

 

Preamble: (a)  During the course of the Hearing, Associate Professor  GG and Mr O’Neill, in particular, introduced issues that did not relate to the Charges and their Particulars (as they stood) for the Hearing of 2006. Whilst there was objection made for some, for the most part, the speakers were allowed to address the issues, because there was some point in letting them have an uninterrupted address so that the Panel should be able to hear their views and assess their credibility, reasonableness, knowledge and bias. What was said under prompting by Mr O’Neill was essentially defamation under privilege. There was little point arguing the issues, because those espousing them were either too rigid and biased or, in the case of Professor Fox, he had the issues presented to him with him not being told much of the relevant clinical background and clinical significance for fruitful discussion to occur. There was no separate time provided for the Applicant to address these issues in defence. This section addresses most of the points.

                  (b) In the Submission of 15/2/2006 (Exhibit A) the Applicant noted that the Board had reported the outcome of the Hearing of 2005, that there was an appeal to the VCAT, and that there were conditions placed upon the Applicant by Orders of the VCAT. The Applicant was concerned at this public display whilst the application was sub judice. During the preparation of this Submission (July 2006) the Applicant obtained via the Board’s website[1], not only the summary given above, but the entire Findings and Determination of the Panel of 2005. Not only is this not restricted merely to the medical subscribers to the Board, but it is available to the entire public of the world, which includes all the witnesses. In a Review[2] that seems relevant (although dealing with criminal cases and juries), there is still the basic issue of adverse influences concerning an accused who is before an Hearing and the influence that the media reports may have (directly or indirectly) on all the other participants, such as witnesses. Reading or hearing of such reports can be expected to have had a profound firming of the views of Associate Professor GG and Professor Peters in particular. The Applicant is concerned that the Testimony given by Professor Fox and Dr Scarlett may have been influenced also. This could be at the subliminal level. Surprisingly, the author quotes from a reporter’s guide to the law drawn up by Minter Ellison, the Board’s current legal firm ! From this reference two matters that should not be published (out of nine) leap out of the page :

            i.          The (criminal*) record of the accused and,

ii.          Publications which may affect witnesses or potential witnesses or the evaluation by the jury* (the VCAT Judges*) of the evidence. (*Modified by MAT as indicated)

Reporters are the “watchdogs” of the public, gathering information and news as they can. They are (for the most part) not parties to the judicial processes. In the case of the Applicant, the Board, a party to the legal proceedings has acted as a publishing house, disseminating adverse accounts and the Panel’s biased views far and wide whilst the dispute is sub judice, apparently oblivious to law, the Minter Ellison reporters’ code and common decency.

The Applicant submits that the actions of the Board, in broadcasting such a mass of adverse information relating to the Applicant and to the Hearing of 2005 to the public and the medical profession whilst the legal process was/is sub judice, has prejudiced, to a significant degree, the ability of the Applicant to have a fair hearing. The Board has pursued a relentless course of defamation against the Applicant which, historically, may be unparalleled: and the President of the Board was excused from attending the VCAT Hearing and answering questions !

 

Associate Professor GG.

 

  1. “Had she been given good advice. . .” He maintained this at the Hearing 2005. The information upon which he based this came from Ms SO and differs from the accounts by the Applicant, David Spall (MAT.002.001-8) and Nurse F (MAT.002.010-015), all of whom were present and witnesses to what Ms SO was told and what occurred. She was advised to continue the cytotoxic chemotherapy as being the only treatment likely to give her a long term remission, (which some people may call a cure). In addition to the advice, there was the attempt to administer cytotoxic chemotherapy, which was refused against the Applicant’s advice of the day. Associate Professor GG’s account is false and misleading.
  2. The likely cytotoxic chemotherapeutic drugs. He had derogatory comments concerning the selection of drugs mentioned on the telephone (without the file, the Applicant could not remember the type of lung tumour.) They were Vincristine, Methotrexate, and 5-Fluorouracil (5-FU). Etoposide was the fourth. All bar Methotrexate were held in the clinic stock
  3.       In order to understand the issue, the reader needs to consider the philosophy    behind cytotoxic chemotherapy. There are two aims in medical oncology treatment (ie non-surgical and non-adjuvant) :

    a)      “Potentially curative” therapy, for conditions such as leukaemia, lymphoma, seminoma, Wilm’s tumour, small cell lung cancer and ovarian cancer. Leukaemia and lymphoma are relatively infrequent. Their treatments are intensive, with the aim to obtain the maximum benefit from the maximum doses that the body can stand before the mortality rate becomes excessive (>10%). The aim is to obtain a “cure” as may be defined.

    b)      “Palliative care” therapy (which is for most cancers that have metastasized), where the aim of the therapy is to induce the maximum benefit consistent with the minimum in side effects. That is because the quality of remaining life is the main consideration.

    Dr Roy Bean FRACP, a more recent mentor of the Applicant, was a medical Consultant Physician and Oncologist/Haematologist, who experienced the medical and scientific developments from about 1960 through to his death in 1990. He assumed a senior role in the Heidelberg Repatriation Hospital before his retirement, and was a keen observer of patients, their reactions and responses. He published and read papers, some prepared in collaboration with the Applicant, whose association went back to 1965. Roy studied patients with stomach cancer in particular, because (after surgery) there was no other treatment available, other doctors were happy to refer them and there was a quick turnover, of assistance in statistical assessments.

    He felt strongly about the use of “potentially curative” treatments (see above) in patients who were clearly in the incurable class, a view repeated recently by Dr Ron Bova (RB1, Tab 127; TRA.002.0230)It is important to temper overzealous enthusiasm to ‘cure’ the patient and to consider treatment aimed at achieving the best quality of life for the individual and his or her family.(Roy Bean referred to one Oncology unit of Melbourne as the “charnel house,” quipping “Killing patients is alright, provided you use standard protocols.” He would say, when any patient chose to attend that clinic, “You watch, he/she will be dead in x weeks” [x being a small number]. He was usually right !)

    In his private practice in Dandenong, where most of his patients were in the incurable category, he applied forms of cytotoxic chemotherapy that he had developed over the years for this purpose. One of these was his VMF regime, with Vincristine, Methotrexate and 5-FU. Whilst this may have been trialled initially on patients with stomach cancer, he applied it to virtually all patients with blood group “O” (he considered that the glycoprotein lectins of the cell membranes influenced the banding &/or access of drugs into the cancer cells, and accounted, in part, to the variability of responses between patients with the same types of tumours). When a patient had a cancer with small nuclei (based upon his own photomicrography and sub-classifications), he would add to the group etoposide, irrespective of whether the cancer was in the “small cell” (neuro-ectodermal) group or not.

    The major features of this regime are :

                i.          None of the agents is an alkylating agent (he used to use Cyclophosphamide in earlier years, but abandoned it because it was “too toxic” – it causes sterility and the hair falls out. It is the C in CAV- the “gold standard” regimen before carboplatin and etoposide for Small Cell Lung Cancer).

                ii.         Methotrexate and 5-FU are anti-metabolites, blocking metabolic pathways. They cause considerably less toxic symptoms, and are more appropriate in the “palliative care” setting. (Like GBA + UHF.)

                iii.         Vincristine augments the action of Methotrexate, and Methotrexate augments the action of 5-FU (see references)

    In the case of small cell lung cancer, not all the cancers are “pure” – some have large cell components, so that a drug such as 5-FU provides a broader spectrum.

    In choosing this regime for Ms SO, the Applicant considered the following points :

                i.            The overriding, primary and paramount aim, was to re-establish treatment with

                                                 cytotoxic chemotherapy,

               ii.            Assuming that the modern anti-emetic drug(s) had been used in Gippsland (and they were),

                                                 there needed to be another explanation for the (stated) intolerable side effects,

               iii.            Carboplatin was assumed to be the agent responsible for the (stated) side effects. (Before the

                                                 more modern anti-emetics, patients could be guaranteed to be vomiting within one hour

                                                 of the infusion). Accordingly, carboplatin was best eliminated in the planned

                                                 reintroduction of cytotoxic chemotherapy.

               iv.            Vincristine (the V in CAV) and etoposide were established effective treatments for small cell

                                                 lung cancer,

               v.            The other drugs have been used in the past, and are listed as second line agents (see

                                                 references),

              vi.            The combination is not first choice (the “first choice” – the combination she had just received,

                                                 seemed inappropriate in the circumstances), but there seemed a greater need to re-

                                                 establish some form of cytotoxic chemotherapy, than none at all.

              vii.            The aim was to re-introduce the Carboplatin later, assuming acceptance of the principle of

                                                cytotoxic chemotherapy treatment.

             viii.            Ms SO was blood group “O,” meaning that the regime fitted into Roy Bean’s tested application.

                                                With that blood group, the view of Roy Bean was that Doxorubicin (“Adriamycin” – the

                                                A in CAV) was less effective (and it also had symptomatic side effects, loss of hair etc.).

              ix.            This regime had been used by the Applicant on many occasions over the years, he was

                                                conversant with it, understood it, and it had been trouble-free.

               x.            The Applicant would have only one chance to “get it right” in trying to re-establish cytotoxic

                                                chemotherapy – any problem, and she would refuse to have more, which would seem to

                                                be an irretrievable situation.

              xi.            The cytotoxic chemotherapy had to be toxicity free, irrespective of all other considerations.

                                     Those, like Associate Professor GG, who choose to criticize this regimen :

                                    a.          Have not provided a satisfactory, low toxicity and effective alternative,

                                    b.          Have not realized that the regime was not a cocktail thrown together in a moment of

                                                    disorganized confusion and ignorance by the Applicant.

                                    c.          Seem to have forgotten that Methotrexate penetrates the brain better than many other

                                                    medications. This would have been relevant, given the almost certain presence of

                                                    micro-metastases there in October 2000.

                                    d.           Have criticized a low toxicity regime established for “palliative care” patients by Dr Roy Bean, who had expertise, experience, position and original work in the area far more extensive and sound than that of Associate Professor GG’s claimed expertise, experience, position and original work. The management of Ms SO at the Peter MacCallum Cancer Institute, under Associate Professor GG would seem to highlight the concerns of Dr Bova and Roy Bean. GG made her “as sick as a dog,” when she was clearly incurable. If Associate Professor GG has a problem with the VMF regimen, then he has a problem with Roy Bean’s qualifications, experience and status. Based upon the trenchant criticisms and defamation of the Applicant made under privilege, for a treatment the Applicant had only considered and not applied, Mr O’Neill was able to persuade Senior Member Davis to issue orders that the Applicant was not to administer chemotherapy to patients, an order which was then disbursed widely by a publication of the Board, when the matter was sub judice with the VCAT. This had the effect of maximizing throughout the body of medical practitioners of Victoria, including those who may have considered referring patients to the Applicant, Associate Professor GG’ defamatory claims, made when under privilege.

  4. “She tolerated the treatment at the Peter MacCallum Cancer Institute well.” This claim is simplistic and glib. Under the Applicant, Ms SO was promised less toxic cytotoxic chemotherapy and lower doses to be augmented by the whole body hyperthermia. She was assumed to have received the newer anti-emetic medication Ondansetron in Gippsland (later confirmed). Others in the same group are essentially similar in their mode of action, although the newer Dolasetron (used by the Peter MacCallum Cancer Institute in early 2001) can be given as a once daily treatment, as opposed to twice daily for Ondansetron. She tolerated the treatment in early 2001 because she had no documented problem in September 2000 (ie she never had the “intolerable reaction”; see The Dark Side, Tab 6), and because she now had symptoms that needed treatment. The issue is a smoke screen created by Associate Professor GG. His use of this as an “explanation” is contrived and illogical – unless his involvement in the deception is assumed.
  5. “She was told that she should cut her ties with Dr Scarlett ‘for ethical reasons’” This garbled account came from Ms SO and was embellished by Associate Professor GG. The account from David Spall (MAT.002.003) supports the Applicant’s contention that, if there was to be another actively treating doctor involved, both doctors should know what the other is doing, and the senior Oncologist should have overriding control. The account of this issue, as related and presented by Associate Professor GG is false and misleading. As has been related, Ms SO made her views (as stated) quite clear, that she did not want to be managed by Dr Scarlett, describing him as “Dr Doom.” (But see the conflicting account gathered by the Board’s Investigating Officer, when Ms SO wanted sympathy from the Board and her un-sworn evidence to be accepted.)
  6. “The interruption of the planned chemotherapy course encouraged the emergence of multiply drug resistant cancer cells” (“MDR”). Associate Professor quotes no reference for this claim, and he is not a recognized medical Oncologist in Australia. His views seem to be at odds with the account found in DeVita, 6th Edition, 2001, p1008 (lower left; RB2, Tab 127; TRA.002.0234); “. . . sensitive relapse is often, and somewhat arbitrarily, defined as a chemotherapy-free interval of greater than or equal to 3 months. In patients in sensitive relapse, response rates to second-line therapy often exceeds 50%, and any chemotherapy regimen active in SCLC appears to be effective, including the drug regimen that was initially used for induction.” (MAT’s emphasis.) In other words, when Ms SO arrived at the Peter MacCallum Cancer Institute in relapse in 2001 (over 4 months since the initial cytotoxic chemotherapy treatment), the sensitivity of the tumour would be expected to be essentially unchanged from the initial state. The views and claims by Associate Professor GG, in describing the treatment break (patient induced) as “catastrophic” and “the worst way” would seem to be false and misleading, but spoken with the confidence typical of an academic on the rise and not really answerable to anyone.
  7. “She had no money – she had spent all on the treatment.” Associate Professor GG has tried to present the Applicant as a rapacious medical deceiver, stripping poor, dying patients of their life’s savings. His basis for these assertions would seem to be what Ms SO told him and what she did (eg “borrow” money for a parking fee and seek help from charity). Her Commonwealth Bank statements obtained under Summons[3] tell a different story :

                                i.            The final payout from ComSuper was $13,379-59. It was deposited into her account on

                                     17/10/2000.

                               ii.            She withdrew $12,000 on 20/10/2000. David Spall was in the Bank in Fairfield, apparently by

                                     chance (witnessed by Nurse F) at the same time, so she handed the $6,750 as per quote over to

                                     him. That left her with $5,250 in cash. She withdrew $500 the same day in Endeavour Hills. She

                                     withdrew $100 on 23/10/2000, and $750 on 24/10/2000.

                              iii.            She had moved $6,600 out of her account over 5 days. Where it went is, of course, unknown,

                                     but it was in her possession or under her control after the Applicant had been paid.

                             iv.            She and her daughter went for a holiday in Tasmania in December, before she attended Dr

                                     Worboys 20/1/2001 for the referral to the Peter MacCallum Cancer Institute.

On this basis, Ms SO cannot be seen to have been stripped of her life’s savings” by the Applicant. A more likely explanation was that she moved the funds to areas not easily tracked, so she could act the pauper and that Associate Professor GG was to claim she was. Associate Professor GG was either deceived by Ms SO or, more likely, a collaborator in the deception.

(“The lady doth protest too much, methinks” a trans-gender reference to Associate Professor GG.)

  1. “Lithium is not used in the treatment of cancer.” This claim was never in the initial complaints, but was introduced later by Ms SO when interviewed by Dr Sally Middleton for the Office of the Board (supervised by Mr John smith) TB1, Tab 16; RESP.001.232-2, (Ms SO made no explanation as to why it was administered) and then into the Notice and Charges by the Office of the Board, apparently without approval by the Board (probably introduced by Mr John Smith). In the Hearing of 2005, Mr O’Neill tried to beat the issue up, in order to justify the inclusion into the Hearing of 2005, the (probably) faked Minutes of the Informal Hearing in December 1997. The claim that it is a treatment of cancer and the appearance of the Minutes have surfaced again. The Applicant has never claimed that Lithium is a treatment of cancer – it is a treatment of patients with cancer. This issue, and the distortions involved in the beat-up are outlined in Exhibit A, p31-4. (When trying to explain the role of Lithium at the Hearing in 2005, the Applicant made mention of its action on the bone marrow, whereupon Mr O’Neill interjected, claiming that we were not talking about bone cancer !!) The graphs of a patient with (presumed) lung cancer, illustrating the probable actions of cytokines, are given in Exhibit B, (Tab 18, MAT.002.105-6.) Associate Professor GG has no recognized expertise in medical Oncology or Immunology in Australia, was a hostile, prosecuting complainant, who objected, not only to everything that the Applicant did or said, but, with perverse determination, objected to anything expert witnesses, such as Professor Fox said which may support the Applicant (eg 2005 TS396:19-21, regarding Professor Fox “And in any case he is wrong. The patient had very responsive disease, Ibid. TS397:1, “Yes, he is absolutely wrong,” Ibid. TS397:25-27So she had very sensitive disease, and I can’t understand why Professor Fox gave that opinion, but he is dead wrong. TS399:24-5He is absolutely wrong. This is an excellent response.”) Mr O’Neill raised this issue with the intention of provoking public defamation under privilege. Associate Professor GG did not have the expertise, knowledge, experience nor the impartial status to be able to provide acceptable opinion for the VCAT. Mr O’Neill was mischievous.
  2. “(The GBA/UHF) There is no proof any of these things work.” Associate Professor GG was/is not a recognized expert in any relevant specialty field to be able to provide an impartial, expert opinion. Yet Mr O’Neill sought his opinions !  There is more proof that the GBA/UHF worked than that it did not. (cf Review into Microwave, Exhibit C, RB Tab 99; Exhibit B, MAT.002.098 – now amended, with Professor Fox’s “guestimates.”  See the Applicant’s own studies in the Submission RB2, Tab 128; TRA.002.0348-0415) Again, Mr O’Neill was mischievous and provoking public defamation under privilege.
  3.  “Uric acid graphs don’t tell you anything of the cancer and its outcome.” Again, Associate Professor GG persisted with this perverse approach to the testing, which was to seek any favourable effect of UHF upon cancer – did the UHF really have an effect ? The Applicant’s reasons had/have been explained on numerous occasions, but Mr O’Neill, with dogged, stodgy endurance, persisted in presenting the use of the uric acid measurements as a method of monitoring the tumour, as a cancer marker. Interestingly, in his original complaint letter (TB1, Tab 3; RESP.001.107-8), Associate Professor GG states “She said that Dr Traill said that there is no ‘marker’ for her disease in the blood but that he measured her uric acid and creatinine in the blood and did some calculations that he said proved that she was responding* to the treatment.” (*MAT’s highlights) This somewhat garbled account does not appreciate that urine tests were done (the reason for the creatinine) and is in ignorance of the neuron-specific enolase tumour marker, which is more expensive. The report notes that the tests were not of a tumour marker type, but there was claimed a responding to the treatment based upon the results (ie the UHF was having what seemed to be an objective effect – the purpose of the tests). This is much the same as the Applicant’s explanation for his use of the tests. However, in the “Substance of Complaint against Dr Traill” summary “The method of ‘monitoring* the effect’ of the treatment with uric acid levels is absurd non-specific and totally without support in the small cell lung cancer literature[4].” By a slide, he has introduced the “monitoring,” with later slides to have it presented as like a “tumour marker.” The account from Dr Middleton 7/11/2001 (supervised by Mr John Smith in the office of the Board) (RESP.001.233) marks a further change “Dr Traill did perform blood tests every week. He said that he was looking for markers* which were specific for the tumour*. Involved in this was a measure of creatinine, tumour necrosis factor; he applied an equation to these to arrive at an outcome.” (Note that there is no mention of uric acid, serum or urine. At this stage, she had been coached.) - So, somewhere between the initial GG account and the Particulars 1.(a)(x) “You failed to adequately monitor* your patient during your Treatment in so far as you monitored* the effect of your Treatment by testing the patient’s uric acid levels, such methodology having no support in the small lung cell (sic) literature.”, the interpretation that the testing was to monitor* the cancer using the test results like a tumour marker, became the reason for the tests. In the transcript of the Hearing 2005, he stated (regarding measuring uric acid) “I’d say that that’s pseudo-science, its . . . .pseudo-science, there’s no, its not a useful marker*  and its not used by anybody who - its not used by oncologists to monitor* the treatment of cancer because uric acid is a by-product of metabolism and everybody has got it in their blood and people who with [indistinct (?gout)] may have elevated levels of uric acid but it doesn’t mean they’ve got a cancer*.” (TS303:8-16) Now he has mentioned it in connection with it having been considered as a possible diagnostic indicator for cancer ! (See the evolutionary flow diagram on the next page.)

Whilst the banal uric acid issue is irritating in the extreme, it brings some important points, especially because :

i.                    The Particular containing it was not made out by the Panel of 2005, meaning that it is simply not an issue in the current Hearing, so why is there the emphasis and repeated presentations ?

ii.                   As a medical issue, it is ridiculously trivial and banal

iii.                  It represents one of the aspects that can be regarded as clinical pathology, where pathology testing is being determined and the results applied in the clinic by a pathologist.

iv.                 It is reasonably well documented, from the alleged account by Ms SO which slipped through, to the final version where the possibility that it could be used as a test for cancer was dismissed because we all have levels of uric acid.

Throughout the last 16 years there have been repeated attempts to present the Applicant, as he practises as a clinical pathologist in the clinics, as a blithering idiot, whose only place should be in the laboratory: by this thinking, pathologists have no place in the clinics (recall Professor Peters’ fiat). Here we have all parties (except Ms SO initially – until she was coached better) ridiculing the use of the uric acid tests, distorting the reason for doing them and the interpretations to be drawn from them in the clinical setting. The hit team were all performing according to plan ! The agent for the team (Minter Ellison) has been doing its bit too – by repeatedly bringing to the Panels’ attention the reminders that the Applicant in the clinic was clearly incompetent and should crawl back into his laboratory cave and return to being a good little troglodyte, leaving clinical medicine to clinicians and the laboratories to be served by laboratory lackeys (him, rightfully, being one).

The most important aspect of this shameful hounding and hassling by the Board, Minter Ellison and Associate Professor GG, is that it demonstrates, using a most trivial medical pathology issue, just how the team has manipulated statements, meanings, justifications and interpretations in order to achieve its ends. There is then the logical question: if this demonstrates what can be done with a trivial issue that, fortunately, has been well documented, how many times, and to what degree has the team done these sorts of distortions with all the other points, Charges and Particulars ?

 

                           The Evolution of the Uric Acid Account

 

                                                          The giant slide

 

SO's account as                                   Response

Alleged by GG

 

GG Summary                                        Monitor

in complaint to Board 

 

SO’s account                                  Tumour Marker

According to Dr Middleton

(for the Board)

 

GG under cross-                                 ? Cancer ?

Examination 2005                                 (diagnostic)

 

This issue would seem to have involved the Office of the Board, now known to be corrupted by Mr John Smith, Exhibit B, TB2, Tab 128; TRA.002.0344, and also the input of Minter Ellison (Ibid.), with a track record of deceptions. Associate Professor GG, in his inexpert state, suggested that a recent meal of Soy bean or fish could be responsible. (Soy bean contains protein, but not much purine. Shell-fish may contain purines, but given the cost and that Ms SO was a vegetarian, would make these desperation guesses unlikely. His earlier guesses in 2005 included gout, and a recent meal of meat. During the Hearing in 2005, the Applicant tested the issue on himself by buying 1 kg of Herr Aldi’s mince steak, boiling up 250 g and removing 35 g of (dry) fat, leaving 215 g of lean meat and juice. He consumed only that – meat and juice - for breakfast and measured his blood and serum uric acid during the day. The rise in the serum uric acid was in the first 4 h, and was so slight that the specimens had to be run in triplicate to obtain a reasonable average level showing a change (Exhibit D, RB2, Tab 127; TRA.002.0204.). The urine output peaked at about 4.5 h. When the high/low urine levels were presented on the graph from Ms SO (Ibid., TRA.002.0205) the relative increase shown by her’s across the high/low lines, can be seen.)  Associate Professor GG’s “explanations” might be applicable for a single outlier point on the graphs. However, the graphs showed steady rising points after the start of UHF treatment, meaning that, if Ms SO had an exogenous source of purines, she was consuming it at a progressively increasing level over the relevant time, to a level which would have occupied most of her eating during the day. Also, the pattern shown can be explained by the initial disappointing response to the chemotherapy, followed then by the steady rise when receiving the UHF, which fitted-in with the X-ray evidence of ~stable disease (cell multiplication and apoptosis were increasingly active, but in approximate balance). The suggestions by Associate Professor GG are, in context, without sound medical and scientific basis. Naturally, Mr O’Neill provoked those he asked, like Associate Professor GG, into defamatory comments under privilege. Once again Mr O’Neill was mischievous.

(On 13/9/2006, both Channel 2 and Channel 9 presented a report on a trial of the use of  PET scans for assessing the responses to cancer treatments, conducted at the Peter MacCallum Cancer Institute over the last five years. No-one would want cheap and simple measures of responses, such as measuring uric acid, as suggested by a Pathologist to undermine the major research project run by Radiotherapists !)

  1.  “Calculations showed no evidence of any beneficial effect of UHF treatment.”  There is some uncertainty as to which calculations he is referring. In any event, he did not provide any reasoned argument. As usual he made his perverse, sweeping negative comments (similar to Mr O’Neill’s), like all those he has made about anything and everything the Applicant did or said. Once again, he was provoked to defamation under privilege.

The Applicant is grateful for the Board and Minter Ellison calling Associate Professor GG to the witness stand. This has enabled the Panel of the VCAT not only to hear his views and opinions, (which have been examined above), but allowed the Panel to assess those less easily described and quantified attributes which may affect credibility (if relevant), such as intransigence, arrogance, unreasonableness, rudeness, falsehood and intrigue.

The Panel of the VCAT should now be in a better position to understand how difficult it was for the Applicant to explain to Associate Professor GG, after he had made his hostile telephone call on 8/12/2001, that the heating involved bringing the organelles of tumours to about 42oC and that the means of delivery of the UHF was general, and did not require beaming, as is used in radiotherapy. (The Applicant notes the account given by David Spall [Exhibit G; RB2, Tab 128; TRA.002.0416-7] of the German engineer who volunteered to be a normal control, but showed the resonance effect. An X-ray of his chest shortly afterwards revealed a mediastinal mass ! This illustrates the ability of the UHF to penetrate deep into the chest at least.)

 

Professor Richard Fox.

 

1.      The choice of cytotoxic chemotherapy. When Mr O’Neill asked professor Fox about the choice of cytotoxic chemotherapy, and what could replace Carboplatin, Professor Fox, without being fully informed of the clinical problem, suggested Doxorubicin (“Adriamycin”). This would be natural, because Doxorubicin was the A in the CAV regime used before the Carboplatin and Etoposide combination became the “gold standard.”. However, examination of the responses to monotherapy with this agent as presented [in DeVita p989] 25% and [Holland & Frei p1274] 27%, shows little difference compared to Methotrexate, in [Holland & Frei] 27%. 5-FU is also reported to have a response in previously treated patients of 12%. Roy Bean concluded that the results of Doxorubicin use for patients with blood group “O” was disappointing (p86, Table 9.3), and felt that the toxicities may well outweigh the benefits. In the circumstances, there were sound reasons for not choosing Doxorubicin. Once again, Mr O’Neill has been mischievous.

2.      The use of Uric Acid determinations to monitor the tumour as a marker. Again, Professor Fox was not fully informed of the background. This issue, in fact a non-issue, but dragged into prominence by Mr O’Neill to prompt a defamatory statement from Professor Fox, should never have been raised (see above, in relation to Associate Professor GG). Once again, Mr O’Neill has been mischievous.

 

Professor Peters

1.   Uric acid is not a marker. Who said it was ? The same myth again ! Mr O’Neill could not leave it out ! See under Professor Peters elsewhere

2.   Lithium as an anticancer medication. This myth recurred frequently, as though the observer might forget what had been said, despite various explanations debunking it by the Applicant. The Applicant suspects a prior understanding.

3.   Whole Body Hyperthermia. The myth of the heating episode being called treatment.

4.   She had a 20% chance of a cure and was potentially curable. This issue was dropped from the Charges and Particulars. Accordingly, the re-introduction of it represents Defamation under Privilege. The Applicant concludes that the Board has received advice that she was not “potentially curable” and that this claim is yet another myth (as the Applicant had claimed). This issue was the big emotive point for the Civil Court action – “a 44 year old single mother robbed of her life and her life’s savings . . . etc.” UMP ran for cover and was happy to pay up (especially with assistance from the Federal Government). (The validity of the Civil Settlement may now be questioned.)

The Board, Minter Ellison and the Lithium Saga (See: The Dark Side, for details - Above)

 

The Lithium Issue

  1. There can be little doubt that this issue was contrived and malicious
  2. The whole point of chasing the Lithium issue was to bring the Minutes of the Informal Hearing(s) before the Hearing of 2005 and currently (see Tab 1).
  3. The purpose is to attempt to damage the Applicant’s credibility and standing by introducing an issue not related to the Notice, Charges or Particulars, but which may be damaging in the event of an adverse Finding, leading to the Determination.
  4. As such, it is defamation under privilege, and is the most blatant and brazen of the Minter Ellison dirty tricks, and is thoroughly offensive. The Law Institute and the Police should be advised of the legal impropriety and breaches pursued as part of a much wider campaign.

 


[1] www.medicalboardvic.org.au

[2] Clarke, Ceri. “Can the media affect an individual’s right to a fair and unbiased trial ?” (2003)

[3] Held by the VCAT. See attached photocopy

[4] A PubMed search of “Small Cell Lung Cancer” AND Uric acid produced some 16 “hits.” These do not count the Text Book accounts of the Tumour Lysis Syndrome. Associate Professor GG was wrong.

 

Copyright © MA Traill 2006

 

Press "Back" to Return