Charge

On 17-21 April 2023, the Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal (the Tribunal) considered a charge laid by a Professional Conduct Committee appointed by the Medical Council of New Zealand against Dr Peter Canaday, registered medical practitioner of New Plymouth (the Doctor).

The Charge alleged is summarised as follows:

1. On 9 July 2021, the Doctor made statements via radio broadcast; and
2. These statements were inaccurate/misleading; and
3. A statement was disparaging and unprofessional criticism of other health practitioners; and
4. These statements were likely to bring discredit to the medical profession; and
5. On  or about 21 July 2021, the Doctor uploaded a public video; and
6. The video contained statements that were inaccurate or misleading; and
7. Contained statements that were disparaging and unprofessional criticism of other health practitioners; and
8. These statements were likely to bring discredit to the medical profession; and
9. On or about 19 August 2021, the Doctor uploaded a public video; and
10. The video contained statements that were inaccurate or misleading; and
11. Contained statements that were disparaging and unprofessional criticism of other health practitioners; and
12. These statements were likely to bring discredit to the medical profession.

The Doctor’s statements on three occasions were misleading/likely to mislead/had the potential to mislead about his experience and expertise, the safety and efficacy of the Pfizer vaccine, the use of Ivermectin, quercetin, vitamin C and vitamin D for the prevention and/or treatment of COVID-19. The comments were unprofessional, emotive or likely to undermine public confidence in the Pfizer vaccine.

The conduct alleged above amounts to professional misconduct in that, either separately or cumulatively, it amounts to malpractice and / or negligence in relation to the Doctor’s scope of practice pursuant to section 100(1)(a) of the Act, and / or has brought or is likely to bring discredit to the medical profession, pursuant to section 100(1)(b) of the Act.

The full charge can be found as Schedule 1 to the decision.

Background

The Doctor graduated in 1972 first with a BA in Physics and then in 1976 as a Doctor of Medicine from the University of Massachusetts’ Medical School.  Between 1979 and 1981 he trained for his Fellowship in Pulmonary Medicine through the University of Carolina.

Between 1993 and 1997 the Doctor retrained in Diagnostic Radiology and interventional Radiology at the University of Wisconsin.

From 2013 to 2021 the Doctor worked in New Plymouth, first as a consultant radiologist for a private radiology service then as Medical Officer in Radiology for Taranaki District Health Board until he retired from that role in 2021.  He retained a practising certificate.

The Doctor has also written a number of articles and presented at conferences and on television on a range of topics within the field of Radiology and other topics.

During July and August 2021 when COVID-19 restrictions were being placed on the public of Aotearoa, the Doctor conducted three different public media statements in relation to the safety of the Pfizer vaccine and other treatments for the prevention and/or treatment of COVID-19.

Finding

The Tribunal found particulars 1, 2(b), 3, 5, 8, 9, 10(d) and 12 established. Particulars 4, 6(d), 10(b) and 11 were not individually proven to be professional misconduct, but when considered cumulatively could amount to professional misconduct.  

Particulars 2(a), 2(c), 2(d), 2(e), 6(a), 6(b), 6(c), 7, 10(a) and 10(c) were not established.

The Tribunal acknowledged the Doctor’s freedom to express his opinion but considered the way in which the Doctor presented information to the public careless. His position as a medical practitioner gave credibility to his statements and he owed his audience more balance in his opinions.

The Tribunal found that the Doctor used information from the United States that was not balanced with data from New Zealand, which had a tendency to mislead people about the vaccine mortality rate. In making recommendations of other effective Covid-19 preventative measures, the Doctor was disparaging of other health practitioners.

The Tribunal also found that the Doctor drew a link between the Pfizer vaccine and deaths that was unprofessional and emotive. It was conduct that is likely to bring discredit to the profession. In doing so, the Doctor overstated his ability to provide informed advice on the treatment of Covid-19.

The Tribunal was satisfied that the Doctors inference that the Pfizer vaccine was being favoured over other Covid-19 treatments was likely to undermine public confidence in the Pfizer vaccine. His statements concerning graphene oxide also lacked evidential foundation and were presented uncritically.

The Tribunal did not consider any allegation of “having the potential to mislead” or the “potential to encourage criticism of other health practitioners” meets the disciplinary threshold.

When considered as a whole, the Tribunal is satisfied that the established particulars cumulatively amount to conduct likely to bring discredit to the profession under section 100(1)(b) and are sufficiently serious to warrant a disciplinary sanction. Therefore, the test for professional misconduct is met.

Penalty

The Tribunal is yet to consider penalty.