A GP accused of professional misconduct over his criticism of Covid-19 vaccines and other pandemic measures has told a medical inquiry that he believed he could adhere to public health guidelines in his medical practice while still challenging them on social media.
Marcus de Brun told a fitness-to-practise hearing of the Medical Council that he felt "corralled" into using Twitter, now known as X, to question public health guidelines because there was no other forum for doctors to raise their concerns about measures used to combat the virus.
"There was nowhere else to go," he remarked.
Dr de Brun gave evidence that he continued to hold the view that Covid-19 vaccines had caused an excess of deaths and were dangerous because of his belief they have the potential to cause cancer as they are unlike traditional protein-based vaccines.
He repeated a claim made in a controversial tweet in July 2021 that injecting a child with a genetic-based vaccine was "a crime against humanity".
The inquiry heard the GP had resigned his HSE contract because he did not want to have to administer the vaccine to his patients, even though it had serious consequences for him including his relationship with his family.
However, Dr de Brun stressed that he had followed all public health guidelines while working in his previous practice in Rush, Co Dublin during the pandemic.
The GP, who legally represented himself at the inquiry, denied he was a "maverick".
Dr de Brun - a former member of the Medical Council who had operated his own practice in Rush is accused of ten counts of professional misconduct over his criticism of lockdowns, the wearing of facemasks and Covid-19 vaccines.
Most of the allegations relate to 67 posts by the GP on his Twitter (now X) account between May 2020 and October 2021. Others relate to comments he made at a public rally in Dublin in August 2020 when he was also accused of failing to wear a facemask and observe social distancing.
The Medical Council claims Dr de Brun's comments and actions were inappropriate and undermined public health guidelines as well as running contrary to sections of the Guide to Professional Conduct and Ethics.
However, the GP maintains that the deaths of his patients in a nursing home during the pandemic and the subsequent anger and upset he expressed on Twitter were "a consequence of Government guidelines and inaction of the Medical Council".
The qualified microbiologist told the sixth day of the inquiry that he was no longer proud to be a GP.
Dr de Brun gave evidence that the feedback he got from his peers when he first raised his concerns about the vaccine was to "keep my mouth shut".
The GP noted that speaking out against public health guidelines was "risky and dangerous."
He also felt his views were "entirely ignored" by mainstream media, while his more detailed publications about his views were vilified, insulted and denigrated by medical colleagues.
Dr de Brun said he had rather foolishly assumed there would be some degree of discussion about public health guidelines among doctors with "some degree of latitude" shown to those with contrary opinions.
However, he observed there was no place in Irish society for criticism of what he believed is a dangerous vaccine. "This tribunal is proof of that," he added.
Dr de Brun said he resigned from the Medical Council in April 2020 because his attempt to raise concerns about deaths in nursing homes "fell on deaf ears".
He claimed he felt added indignation by a Medical Council statement that he had resigned "for personal reasons" when he said "nothing could be further from the truth".
Addressing the allegations against him, Dr de Brun said he stood over everything he had said at a public rally at the Custom House in Dublin on 22 August 2020, although he noted that his family had not asked him to attend the gathering.
He remarked that he would be "a lot better off materially and physically" if he had not gone to the rally "but not spiritually."
The GP said he had attended the rally to highlight "egregious" policies and to call for a full public inquiry into deaths in nursing homes during the pandemic.
"I felt it was something I had to do," said Dr de Brun who admitted he would have done it even if it had meant breaking the law.
On the National Public Health Emergency Team (NPHET), he remained adamant that the group’s policies had resulted in "a significant number of deaths".
"A great many of their decisions were wrong with disastrous effects then and which still reverberate through our society," he added.
Dr de Brun said he believed there was "political favouritism" in people appointed to NPHET while the group’s financial arrangements were "suspicious."
He also complained that a decision by the HSE to only allow Hydroxychloroquine to be used with hospital patients for "a pharmaceutical and political agenda" had deprived him of a treatment that could have saved lives among his patients in nursing homes.
Under cross-examination by counsel for the Medical Council, Neasa Bird BL, Dr de Brun accepted he had used Twitter to challenge public health guidelines but agreed it was not a place "for detailed complex discussion".
He pointed out that he had always referenced his longer articles about Covid-19 issues in his posts.
While the GP accepted that some of his posts may have caused distress, he disagreed with Ms Bird’s suggestion that his use of Twitter to raise his concerns was inappropriate including using a photo of a Nuremberg rally in one tweet.
Ms Bird said such posts including one which described giving vaccines to children as "the greatest crime against humanity that this century has witnessed so far" were "clearly inappropriate and highly alarmist".
Dr de Brun also continued to maintain that some doctors would rather take money than "do right" by their patients but conceded that the tone and language of some of his tweets were "severe".
Asked if he supported any public health guidelines, Dr de Brun said he had agreed with the use of hand sanitiser and the isolation of vulnerable people in nursing homes which he accepted were introduced "with a lot of good intent".
However, he believed the consequences of social distancing and lockdowns for young healthy people were "more severe and dangerous" than Covid-19 itself.
In reply to other questions, the GP accepted he had not complied with his regulatory body’s guidelines on the use of social media but said his posts should be seen in the context of his primary duty "to do no harm and then try and do some good".
He reminded the fitness-to-practise committee that in the past thalidomide has been authorised before problems with the drug were recognised.
The inquiry was adjourned and will resume tomorrow when it is expected to conclude.
