Therapeutic Goods Act criminal non-compliance breach

[SOS]

For several years I've been trying to get professional diagnostic confirmation on my suspicions that I've been subjected to surgically intrusive implants classified undr the Therapeutic Goods Act as High Risk, Active implants (accessed via compliance with the Radiocommunications Act). Finally I have the radiology pictorial proof but the medical reports fail to note the presence of the implants despite that the CT scans and MRI scan images clearly identify their presence. I've complained many times to the SA radiology service providers, BENSON, PERRETT, Dr JONES & PARTNERS, SYMBION (in NSW), to Medicare who paid thousands of dollars for these fraudulent services, to the Medical Board who register the medical practitioners who provided the service, to the SA Health & Community Service Complaints Commissioner who are supposed to enforce proper Health Services in SA, to my State Member who happens to be the SA Health Minister John Hill MP, to my Federal Member Amanda Rishworth MP, to the Prime Minister Kevin Rudd MP in several registered Australia Post person to person letters, to the SA Ombudsman, to the Commonwealth Ombudsman, to the SA Premier Mike Rann MP via SA State Court, to the National Health Therapeutic Goods Act Administrators. The crux of it is they ALL refuse to honour their statutory obligations and refuse to allow me have the right to say what physically gets implanted inside my body. The pivotal point is that there is and was no medical or legal reason for anyone to surgically place any implant of any kind inside me. The TGA wrote on 12 May 2010 to tell me that as I'm unable to NAME the device/s criminally surgically inserted into me, then they are unable to investigate the criminal breach of the TheRAPEutic Goods Act. I now know why the word RAPE is included in the name of the Act, it's a tool to allow medical RAPE.

[crapservice]

What exactly are you talking about?
You involuntarily underwent surgery? You voluntarily underwent surgery and you claim the procedure was not explained adequately so you didn't understand whatever was implanted? Or something else entirely?
How could you look up the Act and decide the 'implant' was high risk if you do not know the name of the device?