A Good Win For Dr Alison Goodwin Against the Medical Council of New Zealand

Dr Alison Goodwin MCNZ FI
Photo Credit - © Canva Pro Content License

Good news regarding Dr Goodwin’s appeal against the MCNZ


73) The appeal is allowed.

74) Pursuant to s 106 of the Act, the decision of the MCNZ is reversed.

Alison Goodwin District Court


In 2020, increasingly concerned that the government’s response to covid 19 might be causing more harm than good, Dr Alison Goodwin looked for other doctors asking questions or offering alternatives to the fear-based narrative.  There didn’t seem to be many. Dr Simon Thornley and Dr Sam Bailey were questioning whether NZ was doing the right thing, but most other doctors appeared to be going along with the deadly pandemic story.

As 2020 progressed, it became ever more obvious that this was no ordinary pandemic.  Natural immunity – not a thing.  Health – irrelevant.  Effective treatments – suppressed.  Vaccination – the only solution.  Questions – forbidden/verboten. 

Having tried in multiple ways and with limited success to engage with the medical profession about her concerns, Dr Goodwin decided to speak directly to the NZ public in the hopes of generating discussion.  This mostly involved asking the questions she, and many New Zealanders had, out loud and offering her perspective as a doctor seeing patients who were being harmed by the measures that had been imposed.

As 2021 arrived, the covid vaccination was provisionally approved.  ’Safe and effective’ along with coercive advertising started hitting the airwaves, and it appeared that pesky foundational principle of ethical medicine – informed consent – was going to be skipped over.

Next came the threatening Guidance Statement from MCNZ telling doctors that they should be vaccinated, they should discuss the benefits of vaccination and woe betide anyone who promulgated ‘anti-vaccination messages’.  (What exactly is an ‘anti-vaccination message’? If a doctor doesn’t recommend aspirin to a patient for whom it is not indicated and explains that to the patient, is that an ‘anti-aspirin message’?)

Informed Consent

Adhering to MCNZ’s pre-existing Statement on Informed Consent, Dr Goodwin started speaking about risks, alternatives and uncertainties (as required for true informed consent) since the public messaging was only about purported benefits of the covid vaccine.  This mostly involved bringing people’s attention to various official documents such as the:

She also discussed topics such as general health and immunity, medical ethics, PCR testing and the use of behavioural psychology to augment compliance.


Following various presentations and public speaking engagements, a few anonymous members of the public and anonymous fellow health professionals reported Dr Goodwin to the MCNZ for ‘spreading misinformation’.  There were no patient complaints and no demonstration of any harm.

In Sept 2021 the MCNZ contacted Dr Goodwin and advised that they had ‘become aware of online videos and publications in which she discussed the COVID-19 pandemic and anti-vaccination messaging’.

Over the next three months there were a series of communications back and forth with the MCNZ which culminated in a decision to interim suspend her APC (Annual Practicing Certificate) while her conduct was investigated further by a Professional Conduct Committee (PCC).  The suspension took effect on the 13 Jan 2022 and was in place for 10 months until the MCNZ granted an APC on 7 Nov 2022.

Prior to suspending Dr Goodwin, the MCNZ provided the ‘reasons’ for their decision.  These reasons were nebulous statements with nothing substantial to back them up. Some examples are below:

Information shared by Dr Goodwin on various platforms ‘casts doubt on the appropriateness of Dr Goodwin’s conduct in her professional capacity.’

‘Council remains of the view that Dr Goodwin’s conduct could cause harm to the New Zealand public.’

‘Council has reasonable doubts as to Dr Goodwin’s ability to provide appropriately accurate, evidence-based, and non-selective information.’

‘Council considers the public might, from Dr Goodwin’s status as a practising doctor and the way in which information is presented, reasonably believe they could rely on her view as a medical expert.’

‘Council remains concerned that Dr Goodwin is sharing information in a manner that does not meet the standards of the profession, in that it is not information that is factual, scientifically grounded and consensus driven for the betterment of public health. Spreading unbalanced, selective, or inaccurate information about COVID-19 or vaccination against it contradicts that responsibility, threatens to further erode public trust in the medical profession, and puts the health and safety of the public at risk.’

In the correspondence there were numerous implications and much innuendo that the information being shared was inaccurate, not evidence based, not scientifically grounded, not consensus driven, unbalanced, selective etc. 

However, no concrete examples were given. 

Was it the provisional consent conditions, the RMP, the vitamin D advice from BPAC or the Medsafe Safety Report that was misleading or inaccurate?


Dr Goodwin viewed the suspension (for publicly expressing her professional medical opinion) as draconian and took an appeal to the District Court. The case was filed on 9 Feb 2022 and was heard 16 months later on 28 Jun 2023 by Judge Kevin Kelly.

During the preparations for the appeal Dr Curtis Walker (Chairman of the MCNZ) provided an affidavit with more information.  He provided lists of selected quotations of comments made by Dr Goodwin taken out of context, most of which can be demonstrated to be correct, or which provide her professional opinion, or which were questions intended for discussion.  He did not go so far as to say “this statement made by Dr Goodwin is incorrect” nor did he provide any evidence to counter her statements.

Example of selective quotation

Submission by MCNZ:

In fact, Dr Goodwin accepts that she may be undermining the national immunisation campaign in a video uploaded on 15 November 2021, in which she states that “the official information that I have been showing and referencing may actively undermine the national immunisation programme”.

The full question that was posed by Dr Goodwin:

“The official information that I have been showing and referencing may actively undermine the national immunisation programme but is it not appropriate to allow people to know that the clinical trials are ongoing, that the mRNA and lipid nanoparticles are new technology, that the vaccine still only has provisional consent, that there were 58 conditions applied to the provisional consent, that Pfizer had no liability?”


The case argued that Dr Goodwin and members of the public both have a right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form; that public speech discussing medical matters with only the potential to cause harm was not sufficient grounds for using s 69 of the HPCA Act to suspend her; that interim suspension was usually reserved for the most serious offences (allegations of serious criminal conduct); that suspension was not “a fair, reasonable or proportionate response” to the concerns and that there were other measures the MCNZ could have used.

Some pertinent submissions made on behalf of Dr Goodwin are below:

  • 15) What the Medical Council is really asking this Court to do is uphold a decision to suspend Dr Goodwin for engaging in reasonable debate about COVID-19 merely because her views might have been, at the time, in the minority. That is the thinnest of ice. Allowing the Medical Council to decide whose voice may be heard by other New Zealanders has the potential to cause great harm and is inconsistent with its statutory jurisdiction.
  • 16) The best response to speech the Medical Council disagrees with is not absolute censorship, but rather for it to have the courage and strength of its convictions. The Medical Council was free to respond in public to Dr Goodwin’s speech and explain, from a position of significant resources, mana and influence, what it considered she had got wrong.  By suspending her, the Medical Council has instead created an impression of trying to silence ideas it has no answer to.
  • 65) The refusal to debate ideas during the pandemic has had a corrosive effect on New Zealand society — driving minority views underground in an unhelpful and damaging way.
  • 94) If Dr Goodwin’s opinions were of a permissible quality (ie, not knowingly or recklessly false), then it is not a ‘risk’ that somebody might subsequently choose not to be vaccinated with Comirnaty — it is simply an outcome. If the Medical Council believes vaccination is the best choice for everybody, it should persuade people of that opinion rather than try to prevent them from hearing contrary opinions it disagrees with. To conclude otherwise disregards the autonomy of patients, who themselves have:
    • 94.1 the right to refuse to undergo medical treatment;
    • 94.2 freedom of thought, including the right to adopt and hold opinions without interference; and
    • 94.3 the freedom to seek and receive information and opinions of any kind in any form.
  • 104) The Medical Council produced no evidence of harm and nor did it put forward any evidence to demonstrate that something said by Dr Goodwin was wrong.

On the other hand, the MCNZ submitted that Dr Goodwin was such a danger to public health that the only option available to it was suspension and that that was a fair, reasonable and proportionate response.

It is significant to note that in each court case in NZ regarding covid 19 matters, the mantra of ‘the biggest public health emergency’ gets repeated and appears to be accepted at face value by the judge.  There is no scrutiny of this assertion.  In addition, there is the unchallenged assumption that the vaccine is indeed ‘safe and effective’ and that covid 19 is deadly.  Not one judge appears to have paused for a moment to consider whether perhaps covid 19 isn’t as deadly as the mainstream media portray, or whether there are serious adverse effects attributable to the vaccine.

The Judgement

Judge Kelly determined that suspension was not a proportionate response by the MCNZ to its concerns and reversed its decision to suspend Dr Goodwin.

Below are a few ‘interesting’ paragraphs from his judgement with our comments:

50) Nor do I accept the submission that Dr Goodwin engaged in a measured and responsible way in what is a significant public policy issue.  Dr Goodwin’s comments were such that they instilled doubt in the risks of COVID-19, the efficacy and safety of the COVID-19 vaccination programme, and suggested that vaccination posed a risk to the public.

We say Dr Goodwin was right to have instilled doubt in the risks of covid 19 which has proven to be an illness akin to the flu, and she was right that vaccination posed a risk to the public as evidenced by the thousands of New Zealanders bereaved and injured following injection of the Pfizer product.

51) I accept that the risk arising from Dr Goodwin’s comments is, as was spelled out by Dr Curtis Walker, the Chair of the MCNZ, that:

“Individuals who contract COVID-19 are at the risk of serious illness and ongoing effects, as well as death.  The highly infectious nature of the disease means the potential for a rapid spread of COVID-19 and resulting significant strain on healthcare systems is high.

The overwhelming scientific evidence is that vaccinations assist in reducing the risk of serious illness in the event of infection and the risk of transmitting the virus to others.  While scientific knowledge of COVID-19 and vaccine efficacy has developed over time, the evidence is and remains that vaccinations are vital in managing COVID-19 in the population.”

We are still waiting to see the ‘overwhelming scientific evidence’ that Dr Walker refers to and that Judge Kelly appears to believe exists. What, because others say it does? Justice Cooke in the High Court at least acknowledged contrary evidence exists when he complained that the Crown’s experts refused to engage with it. We are into our third year of posting evidence for our statements.

It is our view that the significant strain on the healthcare system is due to staff shortages following mandates and vaccine injury, as well as increased demand from New Zealanders suffering myriad adverse effects following injection – strokes, heart attacks, arrhythmias, cardiac arrest, neurological conditions, shingles, stillbirth, premature delivery etc. etc.  There is also an outright loss of medical staff who don’t want to participate in what they see as unreasonable and perhaps harmful delivery of medicine.

57) I accept the submission of Mr Mount that MCNZ was not required to provide a lengthy judicial-style analysis of all her statements and am satisfied that Dr Goodwin was not left in the dark as to the basis for the concerns and decision of the MCNZ.

In reality the MCNZ did not provide any analysis of any of Dr Goodwin’s statements.  It seems the MCNZ does not have to front up with any evidence.

63) I am satisfied that the MCNZ was well placed to determine that the overwhelming scientific evidence is that vaccinations assist in reducing the risk of serious illness in the event of infection, and in transmitting the virus to others.

There is NO evidence that the injection reduced the risk of transmission.  It was not tested in the original clinical trial and Pfizer is on the record stating this.  Our own government was advised and aware that there was no evidence of a reduction in transmission to back up the mandates.  There was wishful thinking, and the government has admitted this much in the NZDSOS court case questioning the legality of the mandates. Their own Department of Justice told them not to mandate if transmission was not prevented. 

64) The objective sought to be achieved  by the MCNZ, however, was not directly that people be vaccinated.  While that was a downstream goal, the objective sought to be achieved by Dr Goodwin’s suspension was subtly different, namely that to ensure that Dr Goodwin was not able to speak as a medical practitioner in a professional capacity. 

Does Judge Kelly think that it is appropriate and right that a doctor can and should be silenced for pointing out harms and voicing her professional medical opinion?  Who gets to decide who gets heard in that case?  Would discussion not be a better solution?  Where is the medical profession (and society) headed if doctors can’t disagree and have a public discussion?

68) I am satisfied that the impairment caused by the sanction was greater than was reasonably necessary to achieve the objective that Dr Goodwin not challenge the COVID-19 response…  In other words, suspension was disproportionate to the importance of the objective sought to be achieved.

At least we agree with this paragraph but we remain disturbed that the MCNZ has sought, and fought so hard, to silence discussion.  What is its ulterior motive?


Other questions that come to mind in light of the witch hunts and sanctions the MCNZ is pursuing against doctors who are engaging with the science:

Is speaking publicly ‘practicing medicine’ and should it come under the jurisdiction of the MCNZ?  The law society recently ruled that Sue Grey, activist, lawyer and politician could speak publicly in her private capacity. What about all the celebrities, politicians, influencers, PhD doctors, media personalities and others who provided medical advice – were they practicing medicine without a licence (a criminal act under the HPCAA) and why aren’t they subject to sanctions?

Do doctors have freedom of speech?

Do patients/public have a right to hear a doctor speaking freely?

Is it not more important in a ‘public health emergency’ to hear from a wide variety of medical voices to decrease the potential for serious harm from mistakes, than to hear from just selected, conflicted ‘experts’ from opaquely funded academia?

Doctors have a duty to speak up when witnessing harm being done to patients and the public.  Where or to whom do they turn when no-one will listen and their voices are silenced?

What has happened to science, ethics, debate and discussion?

When does a doctor stop being a doctor? 

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 307 Average: 4.9]
Share this post

Similar Posts


  1. I find it very insulting that MCNZ consider me to have such a low capacity of understanding and reasoning that I would do something simply because someone told me to…oh yeah that was their campaign not yours!

    Congrats, finally something of a win, although seemingly peppered with some weird contradictory comments to boot.

  2. I do not think this is much of a win at all. The idiots giving expert witness still think vaccines stop transmission. The only win was that the judge said that suspension was too harsh. A win would be the judge saying that plus that Dr Goodwin did no wrong and that the expert witnesses were lying. They continue to give a little but simultaneously take a lot. The punishment Dr Goodwin received far outweighs everything she did – none of which was wrong. Where is the justice in that? They defamed her, caused her to lose income, asked her to participate in ridiculous false narrative re-education sessions and continue to fail to acknowledge that she was right and they were wrong.

  3. How disappointing the judiciary are peddling the same lies….of course to do otherwise would cast a shadow of doubt over their own covid ineptitude. Congratulations to Dr Goodwin on her victory. The points made in the above article are right on point by nzdsos. Your reputation as medical practitioners is still rightfully intact. As for the rest…..shameful behaviour.

  4. I rejoice at this seeming victory Doctor Alison Goodwin has won, not only for herself, but for us who stand with her and reject this whole narrative and farce of the so called c]vaccinations that are anything but. I do not have enough words to praise her for her courage and tenacity in taking on this beast she is seeking to overcome for hers and us all.
    The question remains, is this wretched puppet so called Medical Council in any way being rebuked and brought under control? This I doubt. Nothing less than replacing it with men and women who are sane and sensible and willing to be looking at the statistics to justify their decisions can restore the integrity of this Medical Council.
    The bottom line is this. Faith and trust in the so called Health System and care of New Zealanders has been seriously undermined in this whole vaccination fiasco. Hospitals are no longer seen as safe places to go to. Many Medical Clinics in our towns also not seen as safe, because the doctors serving in them are “following the party line” and deceiving people into making wrong choices about their health.
    It is hard to see what the future is for safe and assured health care for our Nation is going.
    But, let’s at least join with Alison and rejoice at her victory.

  5. it is a start ,well done, but when RFK jnr in the usa has forced dr [ I can’t think of a worse title for that rabid satanic psychopath ,Ive seen more info and research on him than RFK has put in his must read book,’The real Anthony Fauchi’ ,https://www.fishpond.co.nz/Books/Real-Anthony-Fauci-Robert-F-Kennedy/9781510766808 ] . A faux-chi ,and FDA, CDC ,NIH et al, to admit they have no /zero/none ,actual study proof that any ,repeat ,any, Vaccine is either safe or effective .[I think we need a class action lawsuit against the person or persons pushing the ‘safe and effective ‘bald faced ,lethal misleading lie, plastered Goebels style on every possible platform and vantage point ,they are either so grossly incompetent they should be banished from NZ for life ,or, they are knowingly complicit in genocide and should be jailed for life, or just executed ,I would think a referendum of mothers that have lost children born and unborn, could be a fair judge on that last. Was the judge aware that the Italian study from nearly 2 years ago proved the so called covid 19 ‘probably’ caused the deaths, after 1 year of the plandemic, of 20 healthy under 40 year olds ,out of a population of ,yes you guessed, 20 million !?. now we have after lengthy legal pressure the Israeli study showing they had no/none /zero, deaths among healthy under 40 yr olds . No country over the pre-vax plandemic period showed a notable increase in national all cause mortality .[the vacuum inside these experts heads must be so powerfull it is like black hole no light can escape ]. Since the Vax roll out all cause mortality has taken off ,20-40+ % in high vax uptake nations . lastest figures from Europe on infant all cause deaths shows a 1400% rise !?. The spell , or neurolinguistic programming, is indeed powerfull on these ones .

    1. To be fair Craig, it has always been the JOB of the judicial system to uphold whatever laws have been passed by the government. In a true democracy, that would be what the word “justice” meant.

      But the immediate question in my mind is whether or not the Medical Council did obey any specific law when deregistering Dr Goodwin. Did any law ever exist saying that any medic who exercised their clinical judgement about covid and hence questioned the government’s narrative must be struck off? I suspect that no such law did exist. In which case, the Medical Council should now be sued for restraint of trade. In that case, the very least any judge worth their pay ought to do is force the NZMC to pay Dr Goodwin whatever money she might reasonably have earned during the period when she was deregistered — and what’s more, pay it out of their own personal bank accounts (which no doubt have been significantly fattened by the World Medical Association and/or our own bought-and-paid-for government).

      But in the meantime, immense kudos to Alison Goodwin for sticking to her guns and many congrats on this small but important win.

  6. I agree with another commenter here. This is a shallow victory. A victory for Dr Goodwin on a personal note, but there’s still a government, medical council, and other associated bodies that have come out without a scratch. They’re still trotting out the same false statements about Covid, the jabs (they’re not vaccines), mandates and such. Proper accountability and the consequences that comes with it needs to happen for any justice to be done and faith in the system to be restored.

  7. As a nation & globally we are broken on this and so many similar issues. What has happened here is a travesty of justice, democracy and free speech, driven by a now hysterical, woke, ideological left

    This is not the nation our grandfathers fought for in 1939. Our freedoms and right to have an opinions (unlike Chinese, north Koreans, Russians and do on…) are being silenced by a few and their extreme views and disproportionally loudly voices. Sadly it’s not just the medial council, the NZ Law society are now looking to mandate that lawyers must comply and promote undefined fluid “treaty principals” in NZ or risk being disciplined of struck off. This is a complete conflict of interest with separation of the Government and judiciary being completely compromised, it will unfold in the same way with lawyers being struck off for representing a view for their client that is different to the mandated view on the Treaty. This is not China yet! It is time to remove this woke government and all those that seek to limit free speech and control the people of this nation without a mandate to do so.


  8. Ian Jacob is so right be careful who you vote for these elections. Hipkins, Luxton, Ardern are all the same and Act just follows National, Greens & Maori follow Labour so if you want more of the same just follow them. Listen carefully to what they dont say. Its some of the smaller parties that have democracy at heart but study their policies carefully as some of them are offshoots of the main ones. Those with ethics have not been given the benefit of a msm like the others so research is needed. If would be a miracle that should happen that a new broom sweeps clean and the Robin Hoods of the world win through.
    I pray that this will be so.

Comments are closed.