Dr Alanna Ratna, a former GP, spoke at two Freedom and Rights Coalition gatherings on 16 and 30 October 2021 in relation to NZ’s Covid response and in particular the rollout of Covid vaccines and vaccine mandates. She stated that she was speaking as a mother. She also commented about the Covid response on her Facebook page and spoke in a recorded interview with Liz Gunn about her concerns.
She was horrified at the way vaccines were being touted as ‘safe and effective’ when her review of the scientific literature showed otherwise. More importantly her concern was medical ethics, informed consent and the right to decline medical treatment etc, which were being trampled by coercive mandates.
Out of concern for her fellow citizens, she felt obliged to speak and comment publicly to reassure people that the risks from Covid were not as the propaganda was stating, there were treatment options and there were things people could do to improve their underlying health. She also felt obliged to warn people of the potential dangers with the vaccine that was being pushed ever harder on the population of NZ.
Dr Ratna had not practiced medicine or held an Annual Practicing Certificate (APC) since 2006, when she prioritised being a mother over medicine. An APC is a document that every practicing doctor must obtain each year to confirm they are fit to practice. There are requirements for ongoing medical education in order to obtain an APC.
Dr Ratna had however remained on the medical register. The last time she had confirmed wanting to remain on the MCNZ register was in 2014. Staying on the register did not come with any warnings about limitations of fundamental rights such as the right to free speech.
So, when Covid arrived, she did not have an APC, and because of this, she did not receive the MCNZ Guidance Statement in April 2021. This was the egregious document that told doctors they were expected to get vaccinated themselves, they must discuss the benefits of the vaccine (no mention of discussing risks or treatment options) and there was no place for (undefined) anti-vaccination messaging.
When she felt compelled to speak at the rallies in 2021 she was unaware that speaking publicly could be construed as ‘practicing medicine’ or that speaking the truth about scientific and ethical matters could be construed as ‘anti-vaccination messaging’. She believed the NZ Bill of Rights Act (BORA) protected her ability to speak, as well as the ability of others to hear what she had to say.
She spoke publicly and posted information on her social media platform(s). A number of medical colleagues and anonymous members of the public contacted the MCNZ to report these activities. Charlie Mitchell, reporter for Stuff, wrote a hit piece in Nov 2021.
Thus Begins the Witch Hunt
It is important to note that there were no patients, so no patient complaints were received by the MCNZ, no person was harmed, and many people have been appreciative of Dr Ratna’s commentary.
When first contacted by the MCNZ in late 2021 about her speech and social media posts, they requested she sign a ‘voluntary undertaking’ which would mean she could not speak or post on social media. Several doctors who spoke to alert the public were requested to sign similar ‘voluntary undertakings’ which if signed, effectively silenced or gagged them.
Dr Ratna declined to sign such a document and asked to be taken off the medical register. The MCNZ would not do this and instead launched a costly, several-year investigatory and disciplinary process.
Despite its name, a voluntary undertaking is not voluntary. For instance Dr Shelton refused to sign his own gag order and so was suspended. Four years later he has still not had his tribunal. As for Dr Ratna and other harassed colleagues, apart from censure, costs, fines, ‘re-education’ and conditions on APCs, the drawn-out process is the punishment.
According to the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act (HPCAA), which regulates the activities of health professionals, an authority such as the MCNZ can “review the competence of a health practitioner who is registered with the authority and who holds a current practising certificate” Clause 36(1). (Of note, the same act requires the MCNZ to ensure doctors act ethically. Given the number of lawyers now comprising the Medical Council it is despicable but unsurprising that MCNZ has abandoned us – especially children and pregnant women – to the wolves at Pfizer, the most criminally fined corporate in history.)
The fact that Dr Ratna had not held an APC for 15+ years did not deter the MCNZ. They instigated a Professional Conduct Committee (PCC) process in early 2022 which then referred Dr Ratna to the Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal (HPDT) on 11 November 2022.
The HPDT convened in person from 24–26 July 2023 but Dr Ratna did not attend as she believed the MCNZ had no jurisdiction over her as she did not have an APC and she did not consider she had been ‘practicing medicine’ when she spoke and posted on social media. In addition, Dr Peter Canaday had been through the same process without any patient complaints. Despite having top legal support and hundreds of pages of evidence demonstrating the veracity of his statements, he was still found guilty of professional misconduct.
The HPDT proceeded with its hearing over three days. Costs for travel to the location, accommodation and expenses for the five-plus tribunal members were racked up. The MCNZ could have easily avoided the expensive process by deregistering Dr Ratna when she first requested it.
The disciplinary tribunal released its findings on 15 February 2024 and Dr Ratna was found ‘guilty’ on the majority of the charges and ordered to pay 60 per cent of the costs ($179,875.85 unnecessarily racked up by the PCC and HPDT) which totalled $107,929.51.
In addition to the costs, as penalty Dr Ratna also had her medical registration cancelled, had censure imposed and is required to undertake a re-education programme at her own expense should she wish to apply for re-registration. The education programme is to address communication skills, ethical and moral obligations towards medical colleagues, critical appraisal skills so that research can be analysed appropriately, and adherence to the Medical Council of New Zealand’s Statement on Unprofessional Behaviour.
The MCNZ also notified the medical registration authorities of a number of other countries that Dr Ratna was deregistered due to findings of malpractice.
They also imposed a further strange restriction – that Dr Ratna was not to use the information she had learned in medical school in any situation except for a medical emergency. It is not clear how such knowledge was to be erased from her heart and brain!
High Court
Dr Ratna decided to challenge this exorbitant costs decision in the High Court. This was heard by Justice Van Bohemen in April 2025. At the commencement of proceedings Justice Van Bohemen noted his belief in the safety and efficacy of the Covid vaccine. However, the job of the court is to discover the truth of the matter, without bias or favour. (See newly released book Vaccines Amen for more about ‘belief’ in vaccines.)
Further, since Dr Ratna had not entered any evidence to what she believed was an illegitimate disciplinary tribunal with no lawful jurisdiction against her, when it came to her appeal to the High Court, it refused to allow her to present any evidence to refute the tribunal’s costs award against her either! This is contrary to the spirit and the wording of the Evidence Act which facilitates people coming to court to give their best representation.
Dr Ratna had submitted an affidavit with her story along with extensive peer-reviewed, published references to back up her allegations but that was challenged by the MCNZ and not permitted.
Judge Van Bohemen finally released his judgement on 19 September 2025. He set aside the charges related to private communications with the MCNZ as he could not conceive of these having brought or being likely to bring discredit to the profession. As a result of dismissing these charges he reduced Dr Ratna’s contribution from 60 per cent to 30 per cent of the costs accrued.
Despite s 36(1) of the HPCAA explicitly stating that it is health practitioners who hold a current APC who can be investigated, Bohemen accepted the HPDT’s submission that the MCNZ had jurisdiction over Dr Ratna just by virtue of her being on the medical register.
…it is clear from the definition of “health practitioner” that the determining criterion is registration with an authority as a practitioner of a particular health profession and not the holding of a practising certificate.
That begs the questions: Why did he think she was a practitioner when she hadn’t practiced for 16 years? What is the point of Clause 36(1)?
But the tribunal and the High Court ploughed on, despite this crucial clause which actually elevated Alanna’s rights from a politically constrained doctor to that of a private citizen. Malpractice and negligence are serious slurs against a doctor’s name – but she was not, and could not be, working as a doctor. The charges require a health consumer to have been provably harmed and that there is a duty of care by a treating practitioner.
NZDSOS has looked on in disappointment as judges seem to ignore case law and legislation and trash definitions, in order to shore up the government’s commercial relationships and the right of the state to proceed as it wants.
Whose Tune is the MCNZ Dancing To?
So why is the MCNZ (and equivalent regulatory authorities in most Western countries) behaving in this way – embarking on protracted witch-hunts targeting any doctor who dares to question or comment negatively on the Covid response and vaccines in particular?
As with Dr Ratna, in the vast majority of cases there are no patient complaints, no demonstration of harm, often much support for the practitioner and plenty of scientific evidence supporting their words and actions. If there are complaints, they are mysteriously anonymous or from people the doctor has never treated. Are they even from real people?
It is our view that the MCNZ is not independent and is not acting in the best interests of New Zealanders, as is its legal duty under the HPCA Act. (It is also supposed to ensure doctors uphold medical ethics, but never mind…) It is likely taking its orders from the International Association of Medical Regulatory Authorities (IAMRA – note Joan Simeon CEO of MCNZ is chair of IAMRA) and IAMRA in turn is taking orders from the Federation of State Medical Boards (FSMB) in the US. It is highly likely (though denied) that there is significant influence from pharmaceutical companies on the FSMB.
Current MCNZ Deputy Chair and lawyer Simon Watt negotiated for the government to allow the secret, liability-free contract with Pfizer. He has no place on the council silencing an entire profession and attacking those with ethical concerns.
Recently replaced chair Dr Curtis Walker drove the council view that the Covid jabs were zero-risk. For this harmful aberration he should be facing his own tribunal. We had called for his replacement even before we discovered he held this particular medical science misbelief.
In addition, Joan Simeon, acting in her role as chair of IAMRA, signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the WHO in Feb 2024 with the aim of strengthening regulation of doctors and other health practitioners.
This Affects Everyone
While the MCNZ is entangled in this global mesh of control, the doctors of New Zealand are not free to practice medicine in the best interests of their patients.
The MCNZ is not protecting the people of NZ but seems to be dancing to the tune of international bodies pushing pharmaceuticals. Is this who you want regulating your doctor and being present in the consultation room?
We think not, and its time it faced the music and got an overhaul, reorienting itself back to defending the public from harm by government and corporates – check out Dr Aseem Malhotra’s great documentary First Do No Pharm – instead of attacking ethical people like Alanna Ratna who threaten its power base.
You can demand change by writing to current MCNZ Chair Dr Rachelle Love yourself – we have some templates here – and cc the letter to your MP and the responsible Health Minister, Simeon Brown.
Dr Ratna’s Story Timeline:
Oct 2021
Spoke at public rallies to provide information to the public
Oct 28, 2021
Contacted by MCNZ as they had been ‘made aware’ of public speech
Nov 17, 2021
Asked to sign a VU to manage any risk to public health and safety
Early 2022
Referred to PCC and PCC convened
Nov 2022
PCC findings
Nov 11, 2022
Referred to HPDT
July 24–26, 2023
HPDT hearings
Feb 15, 2024
HPDT findings released
Apr 7–8, 2025
High Court appeal
Sept 19, 2025
High Court findings released
Dr Ratna’s Charges:
Particular 1:
Public rally 16 October 2021
6 sub particulars
Particular 2:
Public rally 30 October 2021
4 sub particulars
Particular 3:
Social media posts
9 sub particulars
Particular 4:
Interview with Liz Gunn
6 sub particulars
Particulars 5–14:
Correspondence to MCNZ
16 sub particulars
Total of 41 charges
This article was originally published by the New Zealand Doctors Speaking Out With Science.
