alicespringstomind

By NZDSOS on 4 May 2026

At a Glance: What This Article Reveals

• The Medical Council of New Zealand operated with the same structure of impunity as the Epstein network – arrogance, rewriting the rules, transnational protection, and the assumption that ordinary people cannot touch them.
• The Stanford Prison Experiment and Milgram’s obedience studies explain how ordinary professionals became complicit – a few became cruel guards  and the rest obeyed authority without question.
• The Council abandoned the Bill of Rights Act (BORA) – the right to refuse medical treatment (s11) was ignored. Mandates proceeded despite the government’s own legal advice that they were “unlikely a justified limitation”.
• Two Council doctors gave polar opposite advice – Chair Curtis Walker told a lay member the vaccine was “zero risk”. Another Council doctor said it was “highly dangerous”. The Chair’s view prevailed because he had the power to make it so. NZ’s doctors were not told this.
• Deputy Chair Simon Watt has a direct conflict of interest – he negotiated the Pfizer procurement contract for the government, now sits on the Council adjudicating complaints against vaccine-critical doctors.
• Complaints against senior officials were binned as “vexatious” – complaints about Sir Ashley Bloomfield and Dr Curtis Walker never reached a Professional Conduct Committee.
• The new Registrar tried to shut down communications – Christine Anderson wrote to NZDSOS attempting to close communications entirely, rather than facilitating dialogue.
• The current Chair privately agrees with vaccine concerns – Dr Rachelle Love has acknowledged concerns about vaccine harms, yet the Council’s public position has not changed.
• The behaviour is explainable but not forgivable – the psychology of corruptibility explains what happened. But the Council failed in its sentinel role and ethical guardianship, leading to widespread ill health and premature death. Conscientious doctors must pushback in any way possible.
•  MCNZ CEO Joan Simeon has refused to respond to all concerns raised by registered doctors since April 2021
• How the elite rewrite the rules and expect no one to stop them

The Epstein files revealed something many had long suspected: there exists a class of people so wealthy, so connected, and so protected by transnational networks that they genuinely believe the rules do not apply to them. They behave above accountability and expect no one to stop them. For decades, no one did. The shock was not merely the utter depravity of the elites but the systemic complicity of the lawyers, doctors, academics, and politicians who made up their world – a world where abuse was facilitated, victims discredited, and evil danced because the powerful had learned that consequences were for other people.

The Medical Council of New Zealand is not Jeffrey Epstein, and the harm it has enabled is not of the exact same nature. But the structure of impunity is eerily similar. A number of things are the same – the arrogance, the rewriting of the rules, the transnational networks closing ranks, the assumption that the little people will never be able to touch them. And the same quiet accommodation by professionals who knew better, looked away, and persuaded themselves their choices were justified because the alternative – admitting error, acknowledging harm, questioning their cosy club – was too uncomfortable to contemplate.

Once you cross a line and the ceiling does not fall in, something changes. You become the naughty child back in a world where anything goes if you can just imagine it.

The Psychology of Corruption: How Ordinary People Become Monsters

In 1971, Philip Zimbardo conducted the Stanford Prison Experiment. Ordinary college students were randomly assigned to be “guards” or “prisoners”. Within days, the guards became sadistic. They humiliated, tormented, and dehumanised the prisoners. The experiment had to be stopped early because the abuse had become so extreme. Zimbardo’s conclusion was not that these students were secretly monsters. It was that the situation – the power, the uniforms, the absence of accountability, the institutional permission – transformed ordinary people into abusers.

Stanley Milgram’s obedience experiments, conducted in the early 1960s, revealed an even more disturbing truth. Ordinary people, when instructed by an authority figure, would administer what they believed to be painful, dangerous, even lethal electric shocks to a helpless stranger. They did not want to. They protested. But they kept pressing the button because the man in the white coat told them to. 

The world’s Medical Councils did not need to corrupt every doctor. They only needed a few to become guards, and the rest to obey.

The Medical Council of New Zealand is not a simulated prison, but the psychology is identical. Doctors and lawyers who would never individually abandon their ethics found themselves in a system that rewarded conformity and punished dissent. They wore the uniform of “regulator” and were commanded by a Director-General. They had the power to silence, to discipline, to destroy careers. They faced no accountability because the complaints against them were binned as “vexatious”. And they persuaded themselves that the emergency justified the means.

It is an explanation not an excuse. And it is the most damning indictment of the institution. The Medical Council did not simply fail; it corrupted the people within it.

The Loss of Legal Anchoring: BORA and Human Rights as the First Casualties

The most fundamental failure of the Medical Council – and of the wider pandemic response – was the quiet abandonment of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (BORA), which is not a mere legal detail. Rather it is the very foundation of lawful government in a free society. BORA affirms the right to refuse medical treatment (section 11), freedom of expression (section 14), and freedom of movement (section 18). These rights can be limited only by “reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society” (section 5).

The government’s own advisors knew this. On 10 February 2021 – six months before any mandates were imposed if you ignore the border workers and front-line health professionals – a briefing from Sir Ashley Bloomfield to Minister Chris Hipkins stated that “mandatory vaccination is unlikely a justified limitation of the right to refuse medical treatment under Section 11 of the Bill of Rights Act”. The legal justification for mandates depended on evidence that vaccination prevented transmission. There is no such evidence. Yet the mandates proceeded anyway.

The Medical Council, as the regulator of the profession, should have been the guardian of human rights. Instead, it became their executioner. It issued ‘guidance’ that effectively silenced doctors who raised concerns. It dismissed complaints against vaccine cheerleaders as “vexatious”. It participated in transnational networks sharing strategies for disciplining “difficult” practitioners. At no point did the Council anchor its decisions in BORA or assess the science for itself, or ask whether the mandates were “demonstrably justified.” The law was simply ignored, and once the law goes, nothing stands between the powerful and the powerless.

We are staring at a failure of civilisation, not of mere policy.

The Spider in the Web: Pharma as a Layer, Not the Ultimate Evil

Before we dissect the Medical Council further, we must name the structure within which it operates. As more of us are learning, the global vaccine rollout was not a public health enterprise but a profit and control vehicle of staggering proportions, and no one understood this better than Epstein, Bill Gates, and pharma bosses like Albert Bourla. Under him, Pfizer generated more than $100 billion in COVID-19 vaccine revenue between 2021 and 2023 – the most profitable pharmaceutical product in history. The imperative to jab the planet, protect that profit, silence dissent, suppress safety information and consolidate control became a structural driver of policy worldwide.

But pharma is not the ultimate evil. Pharma is a layer – a willing tool, a shop window, for an assault on humanity. Above, behind and beneath pharma are the transnational networks that coordinate policy across borders: the World Health Organization, GAVI (the Vaccine Alliance), the International Association of Medical Regulatory Authorities (IAMRA), and the US Federation of State Medical Boards (FSMB). These bodies share information, coordinate disciplinary approaches, and learn how to handle “difficult” doctors – the ones who ask questions. They are the spider’s web, and the Medical Council is one strand.

Jeffrey Epstein, in the years before his arrest, became increasingly involved in pandemic preparedness and vaccine development. He cultivated relationships with scientists and philanthropists, hosted them at his townhouse and on his island, and positioned himself as a player in “plandemic” narratives – a term that has proven prescient, originally referring to planning exercises conducted by governments and foundations to prepare for global disease outbreaks. Epstein and Gates, especially, saw opportunity and profit – a vehicle for influence and wealth. They operated through networks of powerful people willing to look the other way. The connection is that the same transnational, self-protecting, accountability-resistant elite exists in public health as it does in finance, law, and philanthropy.

So this is not an isolated phenomenon. As psychiatrist Charles Eisenstein has documented, the same structure of elite impunity operates across academia, media, intelligence services, NGOs, corporations, and banks – a whole system whose legitimacy is now collapsing under the weight of its own contradictions.

A local spider on the web is Joan Simeon, the Medical Council’s CEO. She was Chair of IAMRA and works to this day internationally to stifle dissenting doctors, partnering with the head of the WHO, the known terrorist from Eritrea, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus.

They define misinformation as anything they – and their money masters – don’t like, and anything they do is called “best scientific, consensus-driven evidence”. If that’s the case, the world needs a hefty dose of misinformation, and the viewpoint of the (substantial) minority.

Simeon started in admin for the MCNZ and has never treated patients but she presides over the destruction of bedrock protections for children, pregnancy and fertility. Her email communications with the FSMB and other international regulators should be a matter of public interest. What was discussed? Ethics? Strategies for disciplining vaccine-critical doctors? Was help given for especially “problematic” practitioners in New Zealand? It sure feels like it. These are questions a functioning democracy would want answered, but the Medical Council has ignored them, hiding behind the closed ranks of the transnational regulatory class.

The Banality of Evil and the Abandonment of Altruism

It is tempting to imagine the people who made these decisions as monsters. But they are likely ordinary professionals – doctors, lawyers, public servants – who persuaded themselves their choices were justified by the emergency, the pressure, the greater good, and were rewarded with money and power. This is the banality of evil: not theatrical villainy, but the quiet accommodation of wrongdoing by professionals who should know better.

What is shocking is how willingly doctors and medical regulators abandoned the core ethic of their profession. The Hippocratic Oath commands physicians to go above and beyond. The Medical Council’s statutory duties are to protect the public and defend medical ethics. Yet its doctors and all those it regulates suppressed safety information about myocarditis, denied exemptions to people with genuine medical concerns, and coerced children into a second dose against the explicit advice of the government’s own technical advisory group. They probably did not do these things because they were evil, but because they were scared stupid – of the virus, of public opinion, of political pressure, of being on the wrong side of history. Fear is the most reliable pathway to complicity.

Insulating from their own cognitive collapse, they will tell themselves they acted in good faith, that information was uncertain, that pressures were unprecedented. This is how the mind protects itself from the recognition of its own failures. It is also irrelevant, in the context of accountability. Good faith is not a defence against gross negligence. Unprecedented circumstances do not excuse the suppression of safety information. “Doing your best” is not enough when your best included dismissing concerned doctors as “flat earthers” who needed to put on their “tin foil hats” because they foresaw danger for their patients and tried to help.

The shock of the Epstein revelations was not that a single predator existed but that so many people knew and did nothing. The shock of the Medical Council’s conduct should be no different. The then-Chair must have known that “zero risk” was a lie. The Deputy Chair knows he negotiated the Pfizer contract for the government. The triage team knew complaints about Sir Ashley Bloomfield and Dr Curtis Walker were being binned as “vexatious”. The Registrar knows her attempts to shut down our communications are inconsistent with the Council’s duty of transparency. And the current Chair, Dr Rachelle Love, has privately acknowledged concerns about vaccine harms – yet the Council’s public position has not changed. This is the banality of evil: a quiet, everyday, professionalised indifference to harm.

The behaviour of the Medical Council may be explainable by the psychology of corruptibility and echo-chamber ethical surrender, but it is not forgivable. Multiple lines of evidence converge on widespread ill health and premature death from the failure of the Council’s sentinel role and ethical guardianship. All conscientious doctors must feel outrage and profound moral injury to the core of their being, and the only response to that injury must be pushback in every way possible.

Schism on Display: Polar Opposite Opinions from Two Medical Council Doctors

If anyone doubts the dysfunction at the heart of the Medical Council, consider this: a lay (non-doctor) member, whose affidavit is a matter of public court record, received advice from then‑Chair, Dr Curtis Walker, who advised him – in the context of a casual consultation – that the vaccine was “zero risk” and he should just take it, to keep his seat on the Council. But we have learned that another doctor expressed privately that the vaccine was highly dangerous and that it was right to hesitate, based on alarming safety signals.

Two doctors from the same Council, on the same injectable gene product, with directly opposite opinions.

Is this just a difference of professional opinion? No. Over a new product to be forced onto healthy people, this represents a complete breakdown of institutional coherence. The Chair’s view dominated, not because it was scientifically correct, but because he used his power to make it so. The other doctor, for whatever reasons, remained silent. 

Not us however, as our regular letters since Easter 2021 to MCNZ leaders can illustrate.

This is how abusive power operates. Not through overt coercion but through the manipulation of information, the marginalisation of dissent, and the quiet enforcement of conformity. Walker must have known the “zero risk” claim was false, as an experienced kidney specialist, and nominated to medicine’s highest chair by the Health Minister. He said it anyway, because who was going to stop him? The Council’s triage team binned complaints. The HDC went after concerned doctors. The first of two Royal Commissions whitewashed. The elite protect their own, and the establishment must remain, as white as the driven slush.

The Bald‑Faced Conflicts of the Medical Council

The Council’s current Deputy Chair, Simon Watt, is a lawyer. Before being placed into the MCNZ in Nov 2022, he negotiated the Pfizer vaccine procurement contract on behalf of the New Zealand government, including the Pfizer indemnity and a likely gag clause on serious side effects and early treatments like ivermectin. This was not a minor bit part. He got us the jab. He has a direct, material, unresolved conflict of interest that should have disqualified him from any involvement in the Council’s COVID‑19 decisions.

The Council received complaints against doctors who raised concerns about the vaccine. It issued guidance that silenced those doctors. It participated in a global network sharing strategies for disciplining vaccine‑critical practitioners. And its Deputy Chair was the lawyer who sat on the other side of the negotiating table, securing a multi‑billion dollar supply contract.

A fair‑minded observer might think Mr Watt could not be impartial. He had a professional interest in the success of the rollout. His reputation, network, and future opportunities aligned with the vaccine’s success and the marginalisation of its critics.

This is the same norm‑flouting conduct that characterised the Epstein collaborators – like the lawyers who facilitated Epstein’s non‑prosecution agreement. The academics who accepted his funding and looked away, or worse. They knew it was wrong but did it anyway, because the rewards of complicity outweighed the risks of accountability, and because they believed there would be no consequences.

Simon Watt is the Deputy Chair because he is a successful lawyer who did a job for the government, and was then given another which allowed him directly to buttress against any fallout from upset doctors. The problem is the system that allows a person with such a clear conflict to remain in authority over matters directly related to that conflict. The problem is the Council’s failure to declare, manage, or even acknowledge the conflict. The problem is the quiet assumption – the same assumption that protected Epstein for so long – that no one will notice, no one will object, and no one will stop it.

Complaints Binned, Communications Shut Down

The pattern is consistent. Complaints about Sir Ashley Bloomfield and Dr Curtis Walker were triaged away as “vexatious”. Our complaints to the Council about Walker’s conduct were deflected to the black hole of the Ministry of Health. And when NZDSOS persisted, asked questions, and demanded transparency, the Registrar, Christine Anderson, eventually wrote back attempting to close communications entirely.

The MCNZ triage team is the first line of defence: classify complaints as “vexatious” and they never reach a Professional Conduct Committee. The OIA process is the second line: redact embarrassing minutes, withhold names, stonewall until the requester gives up or joins the massive queue for the Ombudsman. The HDC referral process is another line: block complaints against unethical vaccine cheerleaders, ensuring no public hearing, no disciplinary consequences, no accountability – while conscientious doctors are strung up professionally.

The Epstein collaborators used similar tactics: non‑prosecution agreements, confidential settlements, gag orders, bribery. The goal was not to prove innocence but to make accountability too expensive, too painful to pursue. The Medical Council has made the pursuit of accountability exhausting – burying complainants in procedural delays, hiding behind technicalities, wearing down persistence, hoping the little people will simply go away.

They have not gone away. Nor will they.

What Can Be Done? The Truth Will Out, It Always Does

The Epstein case broke open because victims persisted, journalists investigated, and prosecutors acted. It took decades, but it happened.

The same is true here. NZDSOS has persisted for years, publishing over a thousand articles. Derek Cheng at the New Zealand Herald has broken key stories about the suppressed CV TAG advice and the “100% gold‑plated bad idea” of mandating two doses for children. The documents are now public. The doctors they failed to silence are still speaking out. The families of injured children are starting to tell their stories. Bereaved parents are sharpening their teeth.

As an example of the escalating parallel disclosures, just today as we publish, four news items cross the desk. 60 minutes in Australia uncovers that the FBI took over then suppressed investigations into claims of atrocities including possible murder at Epstein’s Zorro ranch in New Mexico, whilst a US Congressional report uncovers the FDA admitting it harmed more children than it saved with the jab and that CDC hid many emergent safety signals early on. Finally the UK’s MHRA (Medsafe equivalent) admits that 1 in 7 pregnant women who vaccinated had a serious medical reaction

The next step is accountability. The Ombudsman must investigate the suppression of myocarditis information. The Attorney‑General must consider prosecutions. The government must release all the unredacted CV TAG minutes and the communications between the Medical Council, IAMRA and the FSMB. And the Medical Council must be replaced from the outside.

The elite class expects no one to stop them. They have made it so, but it must not remain so. The truth is everywhere – especially piled up under the blood-stained carpet. Some of us have lifted it up, so now the rest must be brave and look too.

Postscript: Method and Proportion

This article draws parallels between two different phenomena. The purpose is not to equate the gravity of Epstein’s crimes with the Medical Council’s conduct necessarily, though the MC’s body count in NZ is arguably much greater. It is to illuminate a structure of impunity, transnational networking, norm‑flouting, and institutional protection that allows those at the top to believe they are above consequences. That structure exists in many domains, but recognising the pattern is the first step to breaking it.

The banality of evil requires only ordinary people who look away, rationalise their choices, and prioritise institutional loyalty over ethical duty. The doctors and lawyers of the Medical Council may be more human than monster. But can they be called back to the values they have abandoned? Given the devastation of the past six years, we say absolutely not. The question is whether the institutions they have sullied can be dismantled and rebuilt by people who still remember what the profession is for.