Yeah, exactly: the first thing a public health conspiracy has to do is forbid doctors talking about it. This case is unusual because the tribunal was so clear about their intent:
> "As a physician, the information you communicate is trusted by many."
People don't trust us but they trust you, so we're going to make you into our handpuppets.
> "Online disclosure of a private letter received from an associate medical officer of health;"
Don't tell anyone we're using you this way, otherwise they'd stop trusting you too.
> "We are dismayed by the deliberate steps you took to undermine the public health response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Your communications to colleagues, patients and your thousands of followers on social media regarding COVID-19 and public health response measures were careless, often offensive and at times, possibly harmful."
Offending the government is the primary thing listed here; they aren't even sure he caused harm! The other charges are similar: he disagreed with the government on COVID, he revealed publicly that the government was threatening him, he didn't cooperate with the people who were threatening him, he "deterred the public from complying" and so on. Then something about an infant i.e. someone too young for an invasive COVID test to have value (so he was probably right to interfere with it).