Today, a man, who has permanent name suppression, described how one of Bailey’s videos came up on his suggested feed on YouTube as he had been watching lots of Covid content as he had family overseas.
He made a complaint to the Medical Council about Bailey’s conduct the following day.
The man said he found Bailey’s video “deeply concerning”, noting that she clearly identified herself as a doctor and in his opinion was “insensitive” and “offensive” with her use of memes and hand signals, such as air quotes when talking about the public health sector.
In his opinion, Bailey was using her status as a doctor to “give weight” to her opinions and was attempting to “monetize” her views by encouraging viewers to buy a book she co-wrote.
He said her videos aimed to “discredit” mainstream media and she encouraged viewers to access her content on a different channel through hinting she would get banned from YouTube if she gave her full opinion on that channel.
When asked if he believed doctors were entitled to their own opinions the man said while he believes everyone has the right to challenge the norm, it was concerning particularly for a doctor.
He said Bailey’s videos felt like a “betrayal of trust” for someone responsible for others to be sharing such a “concerning” message that “clearly undermines” the public health sector.
“I wouldn’t see a doctor if I didn’t think they believed in some of the fundamentals of doctoring,” he said.
‘Attention seeking and clickbait’, health expert claims
The tribunal also heard from infectious diseases physician and clinical microbiologist Dr Michelle Balm who said Bailey often quoted her own work to back up her views.
Balm said some of Bailey’s statements in her videos were “blatantly not true” and she appeared to be “selecting a narrative to prove what she wanted to prove”.
She pointed out a research paper Bailey included in one of her videos about Covid-19 but said that this paper was actually released in 2017 and wasn’t about the virus as Bailey indicated it was.
Balm said Bailey was “heavily critical” of Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) tests as a means of detecting Covid-19 but pointed out that a simple discussion with a laboratory clinician would determine if Bailey’s statements about these tests were accurate.
She said Bailey’s claim that the PCR tests are “fraudulent and not fit for purpose” was backed up with no evidence of what led her to those conclusions and appeared to be “attention seeking and clickbait”.
“[The] PCR test is not a perfect test, it’s important to understand test limitations but it’s one of the best tests we’ve got and certainly a powerful diagnostic tool,” Balm said.
On Monday Bailey’s videos, some of which were removed by YouTube for breaching its medical misinformation policy, and some removed by her, were played to the tribunal.
The videos show Bailey sitting in front of the camera speaking about issues related to Covid-19. She often starts the videos by saying what she is discussing is her personal opinion and references various research papers in relation to the virus.
Coates said it wasn’t just what Bailey said but the way she said it which was problematic for her as a member of the profession, with the use of memes throughout her videos.
He described the difference between misinformation and disinformation, the former being false information shared with no harm intended, the latter being false information knowingly shared to cause harm.
Coates submitted that Bailey’s content included disinformation and had “no special legal or medical meaning”.
He said the videos had the potential to mislead people in relation to Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) tests as a way of detecting Covid-19, the Covid-19 vaccines and issues relating to the virus. He also said comments Bailey made about other medical practitioners were inappropriate.
While Bailey has not engaged in the tribunal’s process, and did not make an appearance at the hearing, she had previously tried to stop an investigation in 2021 until a judicial review could be heard. That was declined by a High Court judge on the basis of the balance of convenience and the interests of justice.
The hearing, which is expected to take a week, continues.
Emily Moorhouse is a Christchurch-based Open Justice journalist at NZME. She joined NZME in 2022. Before that, she was at the Christchurch Star.
