Fit Test Australia: Smoke & Mirrors
- Crystal Polson
- 6 days ago
- 24 min read
I was going back and forth about whether or not I should write this post. I was torn between not expending more time and energy vs getting the facts laid out in one place.
My decision was made for me on 26 May 2025 when I received an email from Michal Morgan of Fit Test Australia. You'll see that email later in this post.
But for now, let's start at the beginning.
This is an extensive account of my experiences with Rebekah McCutcheon and Michal Morgan of Fit Test Australia (FTA).
Mark Reggers, Chair of RESP-FIT, recently publicly called out Fit Test Australia on LinkedIn for being “misleading and irresponsible."
Mark wasn’t wrong. However, in my view, he barely scratched the surface of just how misleading and irresponsible FTA, and its owners, can be and have been.
Over the past two years, I’ve tracked a consistent pattern of questionable conduct involving Rebekah McCutcheon and Michal Morgan. Behaviours that raise serious concerns about their personal and professional integrity and competence.
These two have relentlessly tried to undermine my business, Fit Test Victoria. They even tried to sue me to get me to close up shop and pay them thousands of dollars in "damages."
Their tactics have included:
Misappropriation of my intellectual property;
Attempting to sue me for thousands of dollars in "damages," claiming that I was pretending to be affiliated with Fit Test Australia and that's the reason Fit Test Victoria is successful;
Demanding that I cease doing business and turn over all of Fit Test Victoria's marketing and promotional materials to their lawyer;
Demanding that I never use the words 'fit test' in any business that I start;
Falsely accusing me of being in cahoots with a marketing company to create a smear campaign against them;
Making false allegations and complaints about me to the AIOH and RESP-FIT;
Using my business name in their Google ads to garner more clicks;
Publicly and prolifically claiming that Fit Test Victoria is "piggybacking" off their reputation and "misleading" the public;
Accusing people who give them 1-star Google reviews that they have confused FTA with Fit Test Victoria;
Posting doctored screenshots on social media;
Disparaging both me and my business - verbally and in public online forums.
I’ve had to hire lawyers to assist with copyright infringement, defamation, and misleading and deceptive conduct.
Instead of addressing their actions, Rebekah and Michal have doubled down on their efforts to discredit who they see as their biggest threat: Fit Test Victoria.
This is not a "smear campaign" as Rebekah will inevitably claim when she sees this. It's the truth, supported by tangible evidence, including emails, letters, screenshots, and legal correspondence.
That Article Looks Familiar
The saga started while I was doomscrolling through LinkedIn one day. I saw a post from Rebekah McCutcheon that caught my eye. She shared an article she wrote titled "Respiratory Protection Programs: What they are and why you need one."
Interesting. I had just written an article with that same title.
When I clicked to open the link to the content, I was gobsmacked to discover that the article was, indeed, my work.
Rebekah copied and published my original written work without permission and claimed that she wrote it. By any professional or legal standard, it’s unethical and unlawful.
When Rebekah's LI followers praised the article’s clarity and insight, she responded with things such as, “Thanks! I love writing about respiratory protection!”
It made me physically ill to see this.
I immediately commented on Rebekah's post that the article was mine. She quickly deleted that comment. I reposted my comment and it was again quickly deleted.
I messaged every person who had liked, commented on, or shared her post to let them know that the content was stolen from me.
What Rebekah didn’t seem to consider is that I’d recognize my own writing. It’s baffling that she assumed I wouldn’t notice she had published my work under her name. She wasn't even trying to hide it. She was promoting it.
When I realized Rebekah wasn't going to take down the article, I picked up the phone and called her. I gave her the opportunity to remove my content from her blog and social media accounts.
She played dumb and hung up on me.
After that call, I noticed that Rebekah had changed a few words around in the article (e.g., "employees" became "staff") believing that synonyms would help her avoid plagiarism and copyright infringement. She continued to publicize the article and accept accolades for writing it.
This told me a lot about Rebekah's character. I knew she wasn't going to do the right thing, so I hired a lawyer to send a cease and desist letter for copyright infringement.
Rebekah chose not to respond to this letter.
And while she did remove the article from her blog post and LinkedIn after receiving the demand notice, she reshared my work as a very long Facebook post. That FB post wasn't removed until after the deadline specified in the cease and desist order.
When my lawyer called Rebekah to ask if she planned on responding to the letter, she said, "probably not."
Rebekah didn't think a legal demand letter required a response? Really? Most people, when served with a concerns notice from a lawyer will at least acknowledge the accusation, whether to deny, dispute, or defend it.
I believe hijacking someone else’s work, claiming authorship, and accepting praise for it shows a clear lack of integrity, dishonesty and disrespect. It’s calculated and self-serving.
Report to RESP-FIT
After Rebekah lifted my article and claimed authorship of it, I reported her to Mark Reggers, Chair of RESP-FIT, and to the AIOH Ethics Committee (Heidi Scott and Venessa Thelan).
Rebekah admitted to them that she misappropriated my intellectual property but no disciplinary action was taken against her. RESP-FIT and AIOH informed me that, "Rebekah had complied with my lawyer's letter, but I turned her in anyway." It’s difficult not to interpret their response as protective of Rebekah and accusatory towards me.
I responded to Mark with the facts. Rebekah did not respond to my lawyer's letter and she did not meet the deadline for removing my content from all her social media platforms.
I also told Mark that I believe FTA's financial sponsorship of RESP-FIT may have influenced their willingness to accept Rebekah's claims without scrutiny. No one from RESP-FIT or the AIOH Ethics Committee bothered asking me for the facts during any point in their investigation.
For the record, I don't believe any accrediting, certifying or licensing body should accept financial donations from the very people it assesses and accredits. This presents serious conflicts of interest on so many levels. Impartiality and objectivity are inherently compromised when money's coming in from one side of the table.
Although I disagreed with the outcome, the ordeal was over. Or at least I thought it was.
Getting Sued for Doing It Better
In July 2024, a few months after I submitted a complaint about Rebekah to RESP-FIT, I received a letter from FTA's lawyer, Victor Ng of Cooper Mills.
The letter claimed that my business, Fit Test Victoria, was attempting to 'pass off' as Fit Test Australia and that was the reason for our growth and success in the Victorian market.
We were also accused of 'misleading and deceptive' conduct. The allegation was that I was telling people we were a subsidiary of FTA to "piggyback" off their stellar reputation and gain clients. The letter asserted that Fit Test Australia was the leading provider of fit testing services in Victoria (false) and that I was riding on their coattails.
The letter demanded that I pay FTA $5,900 for "damages," cease doing business as Fit Test Victoria, and turn over all my marketing and promotional materials to the office of Cooper Mills. Literally - drive anything that says 'Fit Test Victoria' to their office and surrender it. I guess that meant my company vehicle too.
I imagined Rebekah, Michal and Victor standing around a bonfire burning my 'marketing and promotional' materials and raining my $5,900 in the air in pure joy over their easy defeat.
Victor Ng also claimed that I could never start another business with the words “fit test” in the name or apply for a trademark using those two words. He based this on an unregistered trademark he claimed Fit Test Australia was “likely” to obtain.
They were using threats based on an unregistered trademark to block competition and limit naming rights, which is illegal to do.
The letter said I would be taken to Federal Court if I didn't comply with all their demands.
I had a good laugh and then sat down to respond.
The accusations and demands were, in my view, so baseless, retaliatory, and made in bad faith that I didn’t see the need to hire a lawyer. I responded to Victor Ng directly.
After that, I never heard from him again.
You can read the letters here:
If Rebekah was so concerned that Fit Test Victoria copied her brand and business name, she could have voiced her concerns when I first opened in 2022. Instead, she sent me a sales email asking if I wanted to buy her fit test probes.
You're Unethical. But We Won't Say Why.
In September 2024, three months after I received the complaint resolution letter from RESP-FIT regarding Rebekah McCutcheon, I received another email from Mark Reggers and the AIOH Ethics Committee regarding the same complaint.
I was surprised to get another response from RESP-FIT and AIOH as I was told the matter was closed back in June.
The email had a letter attached from the RESP-FIT Board and AIOH Ethics Committee. In that letter, I was told that the RESP-FIT Board and the Ethics Committee had decided that I was 'unethical.' The letter said Rebekah was unethical too (that part I agreed with). Unfortunately, I inadvertently deleted that letter so I can't share it here.
There was no other context and no explanation as to what led them to this conclusion about me. It was bizarre.
I called Mark Reggers to ask for details as to what prompted this serious allegation against me. He told me that Rebekah had made some "additional complaints" about me that RESP-FIT and AIOH took into consideration.
Mark refused to tell me what those allegations were. When I asked him for a video conference meeting with the RESP-FIT Board and AIOH Ethics Committee, he said, "that won't be happening."
Mark also mentioned that the RESP-FIT Board and AIOH didn’t “take too kindly” to my pointing out that Fit Test Australia—and thus Rebekah as its owner—pay RESP-FIT thousands of dollars each year, and that I believed this financial relationship influenced their bias in her favour.
In this case, there was an obvious dispute between the Institute (AIOH) and me. Denying me the opportunity to know what was said about me by Rebekah, and refusing to meet with me to dicuss the matter, was in direct violation of AIOH's own grievance procedure outlined in their 'Rules and Statement of Purpose.' Section 13.0 states both parties must meet to discuss the matter in dispute.
Policy or not, accusing someone of being unethical without explaining why nor giving them a chance to respond isn’t just unprofessional, it’s a failure of basic fairness and due process.
I was not happy (to say the least) with how I was treated by RESP-FIT and the AIOH, but, once again, I decided to drop it and move on because the whole thing was mentally and emotionally exhausting.
And that was the end of that, right?
Not by a long shot.
Enter the Dojo. Mojo Dojo.
On 7 February 2025, I got an interesting phone call from a person named Ajay from a marketing agency called Mojo Dojo. I had never heard of Mojo Dojo and thought he was cold-calling to solicit my business. I almost hung up the phone.
But that's not what Ajay was contacting me about at all.
He was calling to let me know that Michal Morgan of Fit Test Australia had publicly named my company, Fit Test Victoria, in one of the many negative Google reviews he and Rebekah left for Mojo Dojo.
Ajay told me Rebekah had engaged Mojo Dojo over a year earlier and took advantage of a free consultation for FTA.
I couldn't figure out why Michal Morgan would specifically name Fit Test Victoria in a review he left for Mojo Dojo. It didn't make sense.
But when I read the reviews Ajay was referring to, it became clear. Michal and Rebekah were accusing Mojo Dojo and Fit Test Victoria of working together.
Rebekah and Michal went on to leave multiple 1-star reviews for Mojo Dojo, falsely accusing them of working with their competitor (that would be me). Their accusation was based solely on speculation and, in my opinion, a hefty dose of paranoia.
Here's another derogatory review Michal left for Mojo Dojo. Notice here that Michal uses the alias "M" instead of his real name:
In the message below from Rebekah to James (of Mojo Dojo), Rebekah acts as if she has no idea who "this M person" is and denies being involved in M's 1-star review left for Mojo Dojo. Rebekah threatens to leave Mojo Dojo a review that will be "much worse than the one this M person left you."
Rebekah knows exactly who this "M" person is. She lives with him.
This is yet another example of how Rebekah and Michal will say whatever suits them in the moment, facts be damned. It’s about controlling the narrative, gaslighting anyone who pushes back, and rewriting reality to fit their agenda.
I suppose Michal/M's 1-star reviews for Mojo Dojo weren't enough. Rebekah chimed in too from the FTA account. Rebekah, like Michal/M, accused Mojo Dojo of "onboarding" their competition.
Rebekah exclaims in her review that it is unethical and a conflict of interest for Mojo Dojo to work with FTA's direct competitors. She "raises concerns" about their "new partnership" (meaning with Fit Test Victoria).
But remember, FTA was never a paying client of Mojo Dojo. Mojo Dojo is free to work with whomever they want. Also notice that in her review, Rebekah reverses her original claim of not knowing who “this M person” is and now refers to “M” as an FTA staff member.
Let me crystal clear (pun intended). Mojo Dojo and Fit Test Victoria do not have a partnership, relationship, friendship, or any other kind of ship together. I believe Rebekah and Michal's obsession and distress over the success of Fit Test Victoria is what led them to concoct this paranoid delusion.
For the record, my husband has a 25+ year career in marketing/advertising and has a private marketing consultancy called "Rule of Three." We own and operate three businesses. He has always handled all aspects of our branding, websites, SEO, marketing & advertising. And I've taken courses on SEO to learn how to optimize my website and blog posts. We have never used an external marketing or ad agency.
Like I'm doing now, Mojo Dojo felt it was important that others be made aware of the conduct and business practices of Rebekah, Michal, and Fit Test Australia. Conduct that they, Mojo Dojo, viewed as unethical, harassing, and concerning.
Mojo Dojo created a 3-part exposé. You can watch those videos here:
Video #2 is especially enlightening regarding FTA's fake 5-star reviews. Mojo Dojo found one of FTA's reviewers who admitted to being paid to write fake positive Google reviews.
After being exposed, FTA attempted to do damage control by changing their responses to fake 5-star reviews. Below is just one example of many. By the way, Rosalia is the person Mojo Dojo was able to contact and who admitted to being paid to write fake online reviews.
Before Mojo Dojo's video, FTA thanks Rosalia for coming in and for leaving a 5-star review:
After Mojo Dojo's video, FTA changes their response to say they have no idea who Rosalia is. Why didn't they say this in their original response?
Buying fake reviews isn’t just dishonest, it’s a breach of public trust and undermines the integrity of genuine customer feedback.
Someone who left a 1-star review for FTA's Randwick office mentions that they were solicited to write a 5-star review. Also, notice that FTA accuses the reviewer of 'posting in error' while claiming they (FTA) pride themselves on their "ethical standards and integrity."
Buying reviews is not only unethical, it's against the law. The Australian Consumer and Competition Commission (ACCC) makes that very clear.
The ACCC also notes: "You should not ask others, including family and third parties, to write reviews about your business without prominently disclosing their personal connection or commercial relationship with your business in that review."
Greg Van Beek is a Fit Test Australia staff member who works at their Toorak office. Greg left FTA a 5-star review on their Toorak business page. I wonder if Greg fit tested himself and then praised his own service with the maximum gold stars? Either way, FTA is very appreciative.
The only thing that's missing here is a prominent disclosure about Greg's relationship as an employee of FTA as required by consumer protection laws.
After Mojo Dojo published their videos on YouTube, Rebekah took to social media claiming that she was the target of a smear campaign, the victim of a "savage witch hunt" intended to tarnish her reputation.
Rebekah pleaded with her followers for advice on what to do. She also claimed that it took her "years" to build up their 5-star reviews. The truth is, FTA's 5-star reviews exploded from the single digits in mid 2024 to over 900 as of April 2025. So no, it wasn't years, it was a few months.
What Rebekah conveniently omitted from this post were the facts. All of them. The truth is that she and Michal were the ones who initiated a smear campaign against Mojo Dojo and then dragged Fit Test Victoria into their debacle. I am still scratching my head about this.
Rebekah also forgot to mention that, perhaps not all, but many of FTA's "long-standing 5-star reviews" are fake.
This is Rebekah and Michal's modus operandi when they are confronted with hard truths and get exposed. They blame everyone but themselves and then attempt to do damage control hoping to get people to feel sorry for them.
After I saw Michal and Rebekah's reviews for Mojo Dojo explicitly naming Fit Test Victoria, FTA's defamation of Fit Test Victoria in their Google review responses, and Rebekah's post claiming she was targeted, I sent Michal a letter.
You can read it here:
Click Bait
Let's take a trip down memory lane way back to the section in this post called, 'Getting Sued for Doing it Better.'
FTA attempted to extort thousands of dollars from me and accused me of misleading and deceptive conduct and passing off. Yet all the while, FTA was, and still is, paying for Google ads that use my business name 'Fit Test Victoria' prolifically.
I believe this is a strategic move to get folks to click FTA's link, believing they are engaging with Fit Test Victoria.
Rebekah and Michal have argued that it's just keyword targeting, not infringement.
But let’s be real. There’s a difference between bidding on generic industry terms and deliberately using a competitor’s exact business name in your ad copy. You'll see that FTA uses 'Fit Test Victoria' but never Fit Test NSW, Fit Test Queensland, Fit Test SA, Fit Test WA, or Fit Test anywhere else for that matter. Only Fit Test Victoria.
Given that FTA proclaims to provide services Australia-wide, it's curious that they only choose to use 'Fit Test Victoria' in their ads.
That’s not clever marketing, it’s misleading and deceptive, the same conduct they accused me of and tried to collect monetary “damages” for.
But don't take my word for it. You be the judge.
You Must Have Us Confused with Fit Test Victoria
When confronted with 1-star Google reviews, Rebekah and/or Michal consistently accuse the reviewer of confusing FTA with my business, Fit Test Victoria. Or they claim that Fit Test Victoria is impersonating them.
Fit Test Australia extensively uses 'Fit Test Victoria' in their paid Google ads to capture traffic from people searching for my business. I believe they want folks to be confused.
When people who have been tricked into engaging with FTA leave 1-star reviews to convey their frustration at being misled, FTA’s response is to blame the reviewer, claiming they’ve “confused” the two companies because our "business names are similar."
Here's a sample of reviews from FTA's Google Business Pages (read FTA's responses!):
You can’t have it both ways. If you deliberately pass off and advertise using another business’s name, you don’t get to play innocent when the fallout lands at your door.
Rebekah and Michal know full well that Fit Test Victoria is not trying to impersonate them nor are we telling people we're affiliated with FTA. Their relentless repetition of this accusation is just another attempt to undermine Fit Test Victoria and damage our reputation.
In light of FTA falsely and publicly accusing me of working with Mojo Dojo, using my business name in their ads, and disparaging my business in their Google review responses, I hired another lawyer to send a demand letter to Rebekah McCutcheon to cease defamation and misleading and deceptive conduct.
You can read the letter here:
Not only did Rebekah ignore the letter - no surprise there - she and Michal continued to post derogatory statements about Fit Test Victoria, claiming we were "impersonating" FTA and "misleading others", after receiving the demand notice. They also doubled down on the use of 'Fit Test Victoria' in their Google ads.
They have had numerous chances to right their wrongs, but they refuse to do so.
Fun Fact - Did You Know Fit Test Australia was the FIRST Fit Test Provider in Victoria and NSW?
No? That's because they weren't.
Rebekah and Michal vehemently assert that their business, Fit Test Australia, was the first fit testing provider in Victoria, "established in 2019" (see Google reviews above). And they've been known to claim they were the first in NSW as well.
LinkedIn members have called them out on this fairytale. And so have I.
In the post below, FTA claims to be the first fit testing provider in Victoria and NSW - but this time they claim 2020 instead of 2019.
Carl politely calls their bluff.
FTA's rebuttal is that they "specialise solely in fit testing" and have "inspired" others to use the words "fit test" in their business names. They go on to derogatorily refer to other fit testing providers as "COVID pop-up companies."
The fact is, the business name 'Fit Test Australia' wasn't even registered until May 2020 under Rebekah's sole trader ABN.
And Fit Test Australia wasn't established as a company with its own ABN until April 2022.
Fit Test Australia didn't open an office in Victoria until 2023, about a year after Fit Test Victoria was established.
One more point. Fit test companies are popping up everywhere. With increased enforcement of mask fit testing in light of new silica regulations and a recent pandemic, it’s no surprise. Using “fit test” in a business name where the primary service is fit testing makes perfect sense. I don't think anyone needs to be "inspired" to come up with that.
Telling fit testing providers they can’t use “fit test” in their business name is akin to telling plumbers they can’t use the word “plumbing.” It’s absurd.
Another Ask of RESP-FIT and the AIOH Ethics Committee
If you're still with me, you can see there are many moving parts in this fiasco. Now back to me being deemed unethical by RESP-FIT and the AIOH Ethics Committee.
Even though I was confused, angry, and considerably hurt to be labelled "unethical", and given no chance to respond to these allegations or defend myself, I decided to let it go and move on.
And that's exactly what I was doing until February of this year.
A third party alerted me that Rebekah had been recorded verbally defaming me and boasting about "turning me in" to RESP-FIT and the AIOH Ethics Committee.
I went back to Mark Reggers and the Ethics Committee. I informed them of the situation and again requested that they provide me with details regarding Rebekah's allegations.
I waited weeks and received this response: “We’re gathering more information and will get back to you in due course, thanks for your patience.”
Gathering more information? What more did they need? I was simply asking what allegations were made against by Rebekah me that led them to assassinate my character. They already had that information.
Given that RESP-FIT and AIOH had made a damaging and unsubstantiated claim about me in writing, and showed no willingness to rectify the situation, I engaged my lawyer to assist. A formal letter was sent to AIOH President Aleks Todorovic requesting details of the allegations made by Rebekah and an explanation as to why I was denied basic due process and procedural fairness.
AIOH's lawyer, Mark Harrick, sent a response to my lawyer. The outcome was:
RESP-FIT and AIOH still refused to tell me what Rebekah said that led to their labelling of me as unethical;
The letter calling me unethical was "retracted";
They offered to provide a mediator between Rebekah and me. (This was an odd offer as my grievance, in this case, was with RESP-FIT/AIOH, not Rebekah).
The outcome was disappointing but unsurprising.
In my opinion, if RESP-FIT/AIOH admitted their actions were based on unverified claims from someone with a documented history of dishonesty, it would expose them to scrutiny they’re clearly trying to avoid.
The bizarre offer to provide mediation between Rebekah and me was insulting. In this case, my issue was with RESP-FIT and AIOH, not Rebekah.
And while RESP-FIT/AIOH technically “retracted” the letter calling me unethical, it was too little, too late in my opinion.
Bob McGiggity and Fake Emails
Michal and Rebekah have consistently demonstrated that they’ll twist facts, bend the truth, and target anyone who questions their carefully curated image.
They craft their version of events to portray themselves as the reasonable, ethical, smart, and reliable ones, while casting anyone who challenges them as the problem.
Here's a prime example of their manipulation.
After I discovered the online defamation by Rebekah and Michal, I sent them two personal and very direct emails containing some colourful language. Well, I used a colourful word to be exact (given the circumstances, it was fitting).
Michal posted a screenshot of one of those emails on LinkedIn, accompanied by an impassioned plea for me to "leave FTA alone."
But there was a big problem with Michal's screenshot. The email I wrote had been drastically altered with a photo editing software or AI. It wasn't real.
I've posted Michal's doctored email and my original email side by side below. On the left is the screenshot Michal shared on LinkedIn. On the right is the real email.
Michal omitted all of my words aside from the last line, leaving out the crux of the message, which was to call Rebekah and him out for continued defamation and accusing Fit Test Victoria of impersonating them.
Michal also removed the subject line: "DEFAMATION" and deleted the screenshot where he was defaming Fit Test Victoria. He even moved my email signature up to appear as if that one sentence was the entire email.
What Michal did by doctoring my email and posting it on social media is called 'defamation by omission.'
Defamation by omission refers to a situation where someone attempts to damage another person’s reputation not by what they say, but by what they deliberately leave out. Especially when that omission misleads others or creates a false impression.
A response to Michal's Frankenstein'd screenshot was made by Jason Polson (my husband). Jason also posted the real email I wrote in the thread:
'd
Shortly after Michal posted the doctored screenshot on LinkedIn, another LinkedIn member, whom I didn't know, sent me a message. That member told me that the altered email Michal crafted had also been shared on a Reddit subgroup called "LinkedIn Lunatics" by a user who went by the moniker 'Bob McGiggity.' I was grateful to be alerted to this.
By the way, Michal's comment about "repeated late-night phone calls" is another exaggerated falsehood. I certainly have attempted to contact Rebekah and Michal directly on multiple occasions when I’ve seen them post defamatory content online and when Rebekah stole my article. But never late at night. Unless you consider 6pm "late at night."
The post by Bob McGiggity was intended to ridicule me, implying that I was a lunatic for writing such an email to FTA and that I shouldn't have challenged Michal on his SCBA recommendations for pool workers (more on that in the next section).
I find it interesting that Bob McGiggity selectively cropped his screenshots just enough to make Michal look like the innocent victim, and me to look unhinged. Bob McGiggity could have taken a screenshot of the entire LinkedIn exchange, which included FTA's inaccurate post about SCBA and my real email alongside Michal's doctored version. But providing that context as a whole would have made Michal Morgan look bad. And for some reason, Bob didn't want that.
Bob McGiggity, under the cowardly cloak of his online alter ego, was doing the exact same thing Michal had done to me - defamation by omission.
I have to wonder - why would a stranger jump in so hard on someone else’s behalf to defame me?
I responded to Bob McGiggity telling him as much.
The Reddit post has since been removed and so has Michal's doctored email on LinkedIn.
Someone - in this case 'Bob McGiggity' - taking a cropped screenshot of Michal's falsified email and posting it on an international Reddit group called "LinkedIn Lunatics" demonstrates the damage false, defamatory content can cause and how far-reaching its impact can be.
Gobbledygook
Fit Test Australia posts extensively on LinkedIn.
Many of their posts are just self-congratulatory or moral high-ground lectures aimed at "other fit testers" for not “doing the right thing” the way they claim they always do.
But some of Fit Test Australia's posts contain information that, as Mark Reggers and many others (including me) have duly noted, is misleading, irresponsible, incorrect and incompetent.
Section 8.4 of the AIOH's Code of Ethics states that its members may only make public statements claiming professional knowledge if they are competent to do so.
In one post, FTA provided guidance on the type of respiratory protective equipment workers at a recreational pool should wear to protect against chlorine exposure.
Michal Morgan made a couple of comments that his advice to the workers was to use self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) because of "potential carbon dioxide" levels. I think he may have been confusing carbon dioxide with chlorine - two very different hazards.
I don't believe Michal actually told pool workers they needed to wear SCBA. In my opinion, he was just trying to sound smart.
The post about the SCBA for pool workers was so bad, and so wrong, that I reported it to RESP-FIT as a violation of Section 8.4 of AIOH Code of Ethics. They did not respond.
In another of FTA's posts, they confidently claimed that filtering facepiece respirators with valves can't be tested using the qualitative fit test (QLFT) method. And if disposable valved masks were tested using the QLFT method, the results would be invalid.
Anyone even vaguely familiar with international fit testing standards, including the AS/NZS 1715:2009, knows this is patently false.
That particular post garnered quite a bit of uproar.
Below are some of the comments. This time, Mark Reggers also chimes in.
I agree with Mark. These kinds of discussions on social media perpetuated by FTA are “NOT what keeps standards or best practices sharp, but creates confusion... as if it's coming from a reliable source.”
Paul’s right too - it’s clickbait. And I too wondered, what does qualitative testing have to do with the “functionality of the exhalation valve”? Fit testing isn't meant to verify if the valves of a respirator are functioning properly. Michal’s explanation doesn’t just miss the mark, it doesn’t make any sense at all.
After being called out by multiple people, FTA put a disclaimer on their original post to say the information was "an error on our part." FTA was glad their mistake got "picked up so quickly."
Let's be clear. Claiming that qualitative fit testing is “invalid” and "not advised" for valved filtering facepiece respirators isn’t an innocent mistake. It’s not a typo, error, or a minor oversight. FTA’s entire post was built around their opinion that the qualitative method is not valid for valved masks.
The problem is that FTA's posts are written with such conviction that anyone unfamiliar with the correct information can be easily misled.
When someone states something so boldly, people tend to believe it, especially if they don’t know any better. And that’s dangerous.
Another example is a post where FTA fit tested a person with a beard, showed the results, and then instructed the person to shave for a repeat test. When they were called out for breaching fit testing protocol, they claimed they were conducting an "experiment."
LI user Jarrod told FTA they should "have someone reviewing their content before posting it." And again, FTA plays the victim. Everyone is "throwing digs" at them for no reason at all.
There are more examples of FTA posting misinformation and then backtracking when called out, but I won't bog down this section with more screenshots.
FTA's pattern is consistent. They post incorrect information, get called out, delete it, retract it, or "correct" it, and then repeat the process all over again.
The scary thing is that people believe FTA because their advice sounds convincing and they seem like they know what they're talking about.
But in my opinion, a lot of it is just gobbledygook.
(Gobbledygook, is a term for unclear language or writing, often filled with technical jargon and long words. It's sometimes used to appear intelligent or knowledgeable, even if the speaker or writer doesn't fully understand the topic.)
It doesn't help that OHS professionals, including certified occupational hygienists, encourage FTA by liking some of their posts and thanking them for sharing (mis)information.
I believe many of FTA's LinkedIn posts are generated using ChatGPT. The giveaways? Frequent use of colourful emojis & icons, bold and italic text, and different fonts, none of which are native features of LinkedIn’s post editor. These formatting quirks suggest the content was created elsewhere and copied and pasted in. And from what I’ve seen, and others have noted too, the information often isn’t fact-checked before it’s posted.
It's OK to use AI to assist with content generation and editing. But you still have to thoroughly understand your topic, and ensure the end product is 100% accurate, especially when it comes to health and safety information shared widely on social media.
If You Can't Beat 'Em, Try to Buy 'Em
I suppose if you can't bring your competitor down, the last resort is to see if they will sell you their business.
On 26 May 2025, I received this cordial email from Michal Morgan:
I guess Michal's thought was - If you can't beat 'em, try to buy 'em.
There's something more sinister here than a competitor wanting to buy my business. Michal's bold enquiry suggests that he and Rebekah believe that they may have worn me down to the point that I'm just going to give up and sell them my business. An easy win.
It also occurred to me that Michal's so-called interest in buying my business might’ve just been a clever way to try and get their hands on my financials.
Given what I know about Michal and Rebekah, nothing would surprise me.
Like I said at the top of this post, I wasn’t sure about writing this. I had to ask myself if it was really worth kicking the hornet’s nest...again.
But when Michal sent me that smug email expressing interest in purchasing Fit Test Victoria, after trying to run it into the ground, I knew I had to put the truth all in one place.
So I hopped on my laptop and started writing.
That's a Wrap
Everything you've read here is an honest account of my experiences dealing with Rebekah McCutcheon and Michal Morgan.
I've certainly shared a few of my opinions. I've shared them on LinkedIn as well so it's no secret how I feel.
I believe Michal and Rebekah have mastered the art of rewriting reality to suit their own fairytale story. One where they’re always the heroes, frequently the victims, and never the perpetrators.
I fully expect Rebekah and Michal to respond to this post with more denials, deflections, and the usual attempts to paint themselves as the victims. They will probably ask their social media followers what they should do about this. Another undeserved, savage witch hunt.
And it wouldn't surprise me at all if they throw in some more manipulated data and photoshopped screenshots, too. They've proven that they will do anything to control the narrative in their favour, facts be damned.
The thing about smoke and mirrors? Eventually, the smoke always clears and the illusion is revealed.
As Abraham Lincoln purportedly said, “You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.”
Rebekah - feel free to lift this article and share with as many people as you like across all your social media accounts. This time, you have my explicit permission to do so.
Коментарі