Dublin GP Claims “Collusion” in Medical Inquiry Over Covid Posts

UPDATE: A Dublin-based GP, Marcus de Brun, faces serious allegations of professional misconduct for his outspoken social media criticism of Covid-19 measures. He claims there has been “collusion” to frame evidence against him during an ongoing medical inquiry.

The inquiry, which is currently in its fourth day, has captured widespread attention as Dr. de Brun argues that the evidence presented by expert witness Colin Bradley should be excluded. Dr. de Brun contends that Professor Bradley’s judgment, stating his actions were “disgraceful and dishonourable,” lacks independence and is influenced by improper motives.

Dr. de Brun, who runs a practice in Rush, Co Dublin, is accused of ten counts of professional misconduct related to his comments on public health guidelines, lockdowns, mask mandates, and Covid-19 vaccinations during the pandemic. Notably, he also allegedly failed to adhere to health protocols during a public rally in August 2020.

In a dramatic turn of events, Dr. de Brun highlighted that the Medical Council’s plan to call a viral immunologist, Graham Bottley, as a witness was only abandoned after he raised an objection. He argues this indicates a lack of transparency in the inquiry process.

“It would be unfair if Professor Bradley’s evidence is admitted as it lacks independence,”

Dr. de Brun stated in the inquiry. His remarks highlight the emotional toll of the pandemic, asserting that the deaths of his patients in a nursing home were a direct consequence of government inaction. He resigned from the Medical Council in April 2020 over these concerns.

The accusations against Dr. de Brun have sparked significant public interest, particularly as they draw attention to the ongoing debate over the appropriateness of social media as a platform for medical discourse. Professor Bradley, during his testimony, expressed concern that Dr. de Brun’s posts could encourage “vaccine hesitancy” and undermine public health efforts.

Under cross-examination, Professor Bradley acknowledged that he did not include his reservations about Dr. Bottley in his report to the Medical Council. “I felt it was very open to interpretation that you were being dismissive of patients,” he cautioned, underscoring the potential repercussions of Dr. de Brun’s online comments.

The inquiry has drawn attention not only for its implications for Dr. de Brun but also for the broader medical community, as it addresses the intersection of social media and professional ethics. The hearing was adjourned, with the committee set to rule on whether Professor Bradley’s evidence will be included in the proceedings at a later date.

As this inquiry continues to unfold, the implications for medical professionals engaging in public discourse on social media remain critical. Observers are urged to stay tuned for further updates on this significant case.

For the latest developments, join our Dublin Live breaking news service.