DR BAILEY STRUCK OFF, FINED: MED COUNCIL IS CORRUPT

 

To comment please open your gmail account or use my email address, FB Messenger or X (Twitter). Protestant rants are not posted on this page.

 

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/dunedin-gp-salil-elias-practicing-again-after-admitting-to-having-sex-with-vulnerable-patient/2WTLOQQMBNHDPA67XYFLC3666I/

New Zealanders are foaming at the mouth over Dr Samantha Bailey being struck off, and the $148,000 fine slapped on her for stating facts, for daring to doubt the wonderfulness of the Covid pseudo vax the Medical Council was peddling - and even worse, for criticising 'our dear Dr Bloomfield' and the shocking-pink haired Dr Siouxsie Wiles.

Meanwhile a GP is allowed to practise after sex with a patient, and another doctor is discharged without conviction after filming/grooming and drugging a student. The Medical Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal is corrupt.

 

Dr Bailey tried to deregister herself and the Medical Council wouldn't allow it. Why? It would have spoiled their fun. Looks like they wanted to put her in the stocks, in the public square, to make an example of her. Rather like the preposterous lavender mafia in the Vatican trying to quell dissent from faithful Catholics by sackings and excommunication.

Kiwis should realise that the Medical Council and its apparatus went wonky the moment they allowed doctors and nurses to kill unborn babies in their mothers' wombs, in 1977. Having abandoned the Hippocratic oath, the claims they make against Bailey as being limited by her profession to the right to free speech according to their 'code of ethics' are totally spurious. The Medical Council would not recognise an ethic if it got up on its hind legs and bit them on the nose.

The medical profession has fallen off its pedestal. The public have discovered that if 'our dear Dr Bloomfield' could be so wrong, the rest of them need not be right. Caveat emptor! We've been through thalidomide and now our children are subjected to the deliberate deformation of puberty blockers.

The light of truth is pretty well extinguished now in New Zealand, where Prime Minister Luxon is a Hindu one minute and Muslim the next. Only in mostly Christian countries like the United States, El Salvador, maybe a couple of other Central/South American countries and some eastern European nations is free speech still honoured. It fell victim to Ardern's Stasi right after she and the NZ Parliament voted to suppress the truth of the right to life in the womb, and the Medical Council is still suppressing all opposition to the monstrous truth of Covid.

The truth is that as a vaccine the Jab didn't work. It was and is the globalists' tool for depopulating the planet. It earns billions of dollars for Gates and Soros et al, and injury and death for the 'vaccinated'.

A medical doctor's duty to protect a patient from harm begins with littlest ones, those in the womb. Doctors have a duty to speak and defend the truth against the vested interests of the Medical Council and Big Pharma but like bishops in the Catholic Church they cower under cover, and the grift goes on. How could they stand by while the tyrant Ardern mandated a fake vaccine, denied exemptions to the injured but pre-emptively doled them out to her favoured elite?

The medical profession is always right and thus dissent cannot be tolerated.

It is patently clear: respect for free speech must leave professionals free to advance unorthodox views. Not least because, orthodoxy has often proven to be seriously wrong!

 

However, professionals also don't have a right to be free of censure by the profession (the public expects ways to ensure they can have confidence in our healthcare professions/lawyers etc).

 

Unfortunately, the scope for censure is out of kilter.

 

Undoubtedly, Bailey's claims were 'heretical', within her industry. Allowing these views to challenge the status quo, while also requiring acknowledgement that these views exist definitely outside the status quo, means we can balance competing interests.

 

It is also worth noting that there is a difference between making public statements generally, and providing expert advice to patients. The right to speak should be greater when speaking generally, as Bailey did.

 

We do not question the legitimacy of procedures to protect against 'quackery' (we're also not claiming that is what Bailey's views were). But true respect for free speech would rely on prompt public correction (counter-speech, and from a major platform, at that!) and acknowledge that Bailey had made it pretty clear she was unorthodox and at odds with the majority of her profession.

 

This decision silences professionals from speaking in their personal capacities while noting their experience/skills and presenting unorthodox/heretical claims. But the question remains, what if the orthodoxy is wrong - as it has so often been and inevitably will be again?https://x.com/search?q=free%20speech%20union%20samantha%20bailey&src=typed_query

 

 

 

REALITY CHECK RADIO

@RCR_NZ

Dr Sam Bailey: The REAL Story They Don’t Want You to Hear Dr Samantha Bailey’s case has been splashed all over the headlines — but the media is leaving out some crucial details. In this 2023 interview, Dr Sam reveals: She tried to deregister — but the Medical Council refused to let her. Why? She believes they kept her on the register just so they could drum up charges and make a public spectacle of striking her off. Meanwhile, government-endorsed non-medical influencers were free to give health advice — without consequences. The $148K fine and license cancellation aren’t just about Sam — it’s about sending a message to every doctor who dares to question the narrative. Don’t miss this one — it’s the side of the story you won’t hear in the media. Listen to the full interview here: https://rcr.media/view/254759 What do you think — was this about punishing Sam or scaring others into silence?

 

Follow the money: who benefits from bowing to Big Pharma?

 

Dr. Sam Bailey, a former TVNZ presenter and prominent New Zealand doctor, has had her medical licence cancelled following a long and contentious battle with the Medical Council of New Zealand.

 

Bailey, who gained significant attention for her criticism of COVID-19 policies and mainstream virology, was ordered to pay over $148,000 in legal costs after being found guilty of spreading “misleading and inappropriate” information.

 

The Health Practitioner’s Disciplinary Tribunal, which made the decision in 2023, only released the outcome of the years-long investigation yesterday.

 

Bailey, known for her critical stance on public health measures and vaccine mandates, has built a substantial online following, with her videos garnering millions of views. In her videos, she openly questioned the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 “vaccines” and challenged the medical industry’s practice of manufacturing epidemics for profit.

 

Bailey’s legal battle with the Medical Council began when her videos drew attention to the government’s false COVID information, leading to an investigation that she tried unsuccessfully to halt through a judicial review. Despite being summoned to the tribunal hearing in 2023, Bailey did not attend, stating beforehand that the tribunal “does not even pretend to be impartial” and calling it a “kangaroo court.”

 

In a video titled “Will I Be Struck Off?” in January, she argued that the process was biased from the outset and asserted that being struck off would be a “badge of honour.” She also made it clear that she had no intention of returning to the medical profession, regardless of the outcome.

 

Bailey’s stance against the prevailing pandemic narrative began as early as 2020 when she posted videos questioning COVID-19 protocols and vaccine policies. Her refusal to align with government messaging led to her being dismissed from her role on TVNZ’s health series The Checkup.

 

She has since argued that the Medical Council acted not as an impartial regulatory body but as an enforcer of government policy, suppressing dissenting medical opinions. In a striking revelation, Bailey accused Jonathan Coates, a prominent health sector lawyer who had once advised her, of breaching client confidentiality by later leading the prosecution against her.

 

She claimed this violated New Zealand’s Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2008, which states that a lawyer’s duty of confidence to a client is indefinite. Bailey called for an investigation into Coates’ conduct, expressing concern about the lack of accountability in the regulatory process.

 

Bailey also drew attention to internal communications between the Medical Council and the Ministry of Health from 2020 that labelled her content as a “potential risk to public health.”

 

She argued that this demonstrated the Council’s willingness to prioritise government narratives over open scientific discourse. She further said that the pursuit of her licence cancellation was part of a broader effort to silence voices questioning official health policies, pointing to financial ties between regulatory agencies and the pharmaceutical industry.

 

Bailey has maintained that her criticisms were rooted in her medical and scientific education and were driven by a commitment to protecting medical autonomy and informed consent.

 

Despite the legal and financial consequences, Bailey remains resolute in her mission to challenge mainstream medical narratives. She continues to release videos, write articles, and co-author books aimed at exposing what she sees as corruption within the medical and regulatory establishments.

 

Bailey encourages public awareness and urges supporters to share her findings widely, insisting that the fight is not just about her personal battle but about preserving the integrity of healthcare decisions for the benefit of the public.

 

She says that the ability to question and critique health policies is fundamental to ensuring that medical practices remain rooted in genuine science rather than being driven by corporate or political agendas.https://dailytelegraph.co.nz/news/sam-baileys-medical-licence-cancelled/

A former TVNZ presenter and doctor has had her medical registration cancelled and been ordered to pay more than $148,000 after posting Covid-19 misinformation to her YouTube channel which racked up around 18 million views.

While the Health Practitioner’s Disciplinary Tribunal (HPDT) issued Samantha Bailey with its ruling last year, the outcome of the years-long investigation into her conduct was only publicly released yesterday.

Christchurch’s Bailey, who was previously one of four presenters on the TVNZ health series The Checkup, posted videos to her channel commenting on the “mythology” of the vaccine’s efficacy while touting her medical and science education.

In many videos, she promoted a book she co-authored which looked at “how the medical industry continually invents epidemics, making billion-dollar profits at our expense”.

Another video claimed she was fired from her TV role for not “sticking to the narrative” about the Covid-19 vaccine.

 The Medical Council went on to receive 15 complaints about Bailey’s videos and in 2021 she tried to stall its investigation by requesting a judicial review. 

However, this was declined by the High Court and the council eventually charged Bailey with spreading “misleading and inappropriate” information.

While free speech is protected under the Bill of Rights Act, medical professionals, as per their code of ethics, have a “limitation on this right” and any robust debate they engage in must be well-founded, and expressed in a balanced way.

 

Dr Siouxsie Wiles or Dr Samantha Bailey - whom would you trust?

In 2023, the council’s charges were heard in the HPDT but Bailey did not turn up to the hearing. However, a week before she posted a video titled “Will I be Struck off?”, claiming the tribunal “does not even pretend to be impartial” and was “rigged from the start”.

She labelled it a “kangaroo court” and claimed if she was struck off, it would be a “badge of honour”. Bailey also said she would not pay any costs if ordered to do so and had no wish to return to the medical profession.

While Bailey did not show up to the hearing, she did make submissions in which she said she was entitled to express views that differed from the Government’s position, that she researched the videos thoroughly before posting them and was attempting to shed light on topics her audience was confused by.

Bailey also said the number of complaints to the council compared to the views her videos received suggested public support for them. She questioned the legitimacy of the complaints and suggested there were ulterior political motives. 

‘Discredit to the medical profession’

The tribunal analysed each of the 23 videos relating to the charges against Bailey and found all of them were inaccurate and misleading. In some videos, Bailey made personal attacks on Dr Siouxsie Wiles and Dr Michael Baker who were at the forefront of New Zealand’s pandemic response.

“… these comments would likely have caused those watching her videos to distrust the advice being given to the New Zealand Government and the consequential public health response,” the tribunal found.

“The practitioner’s conduct had the potential to cause significant impacts by undermining public trust in the experts advising on New Zealand’s public health response to Covid-19.

“In attacking their reputation she brought or was likely to bring discredit to the medical profession as a whole.”

 

Medical Council chairwoman Dr Rachelle Love

Costs involved reflect the case’s complexity

In response to questions from NZME about the cost of the prosecution, Medical Council chairwoman, Dr Rachelle Love, said the case’s legal costs included preparation for hearings, gathering evidence, expert opinions (!), and ensuring that the process was fair and thorough.

She said the council was responsible for taking action when concerns arise about a doctor’s practice.

“The cost of any disciplinary process reflects the complexity of the case, the need to follow due process, and the legal requirements involved,” she said.

“While we are mindful of costs, our priority is ensuring that professional standards are upheld and that the public can have confidence in the medical profession.”. https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/doctor-and-former-tvnz-presenter-samantha-bailey-has-medical-registration-cancelled/TBMJQZ7AY5FEPPWXJTEOUWEBP4/

 

 

And when he had cast out the devil, the dumb spoke, and the multitudes were in admiration at it. 

-Gospel. Third Sunday of Lent