It’s A Small Club


Clockwise from top: Dr Martin Feeley’s position with the Dublin Midlands Hospital Group was ‘untenable’ after criticising Ireland’s ‘Draconian’ response to Covid-19; Dr Marcus de Brun is currently under investigation by the Irish Medical Council for doing the same; Dr Patrick Morrissey was removed as chairman of Shannondoc for delivering a speech against restrictions and questioning case numbers

They wouldn’t muzzle it.

Now they must pay.

Via Limerick Leader:

Dr Patrick Morrissey, of Shannondoc has been removed from his position, after he delivered a scathing anti-Covid restriction speech against Nphet and the Government at a rally in Dublin at the weekend.

Dr Patrick Morrissey, who operates a clinic in Adare, told the Limerick Leader that a meeting of the Shannondoc board on Monday night concluded that he was to be removed from the board as chairman and director…

…Asked if it was fair that he was removed from his position at Shannondoc, Dr Morrissey said: “I think it’s a sad indictment of a country that we live in and the time we live in, that things are so polarised and there isn’t room for free speech, and that I would be penalised because of that. But I respect the board’s integrity and they have made a judgement.”

Limerick doctor ‘removed’ from role as chair of Shannondoc after Covid rally speech (Fintan Walsh, Limerick leader)

Previously: ‘I have Said All I Can

That’ll Learn Him

Sponsored Link

144 thoughts on “It’s A Small Club

  1. broadbag

    He can’t be surprised, it’s like watching someone stand on a plug and then being surprised it hurts when you try it out.

    1. SOQ

      So he should have just kept his head down like the rest eh? I admire people like Patrick- they have the courage of their convictions- we need more like him speaking out to challenge this nonsense, not less.

  2. Harry he/him

    He’s entitled to dissent but if he breaches guidelines by attending a rally then he shouldn’t feel too let down

    1. TheFerg

      +1 Also, it just doesn’t add up for me:
      “Your recommended approach to tackling a pandemic is different to ours so we can’t be friends anyone”

  3. Cian

    Dr Marcus de Brun is currently under investigation by the Irish medical Council for doing the same
    Not quite. A complaint was made to the IMC and they are obliged to investigate. They are also investigating at least two other doctors that refused to exempt patients from wearing a mask. It is one of their roles – to investigate complaints.

    Shannondoc is a private agreement between a group of doctors, and if they don’t want to be associated with Morrissey that is their right.

    Feeley resigned.

    1. Bodger

      Cian, Dr Feeley was forced to resign from the Dublin Midlands Hospital Group – after 40 years service. HSE management told him his position was untenable.

      1. Micko

        Whatever you think about the other two being removed because of them attending rally’s etc.

        Dr Feeley should not have been forced to resign.

        This all feels very sinister and wrong

      2. Ithaca

        How is anyone forced to resign? That’s such an abuse of language. They may feel they are forced but it’s a choice.

        1. alickdouglas

          As someone who was forced to resign from a job I loved, I can tell you there’s feck all choice.

    2. SOQ

      Feeley resigned. And then went on national television to double down on his views.

      Come on Cian, that was a very weak spin- you can do better than that eh?

    3. GiggidyGoo

      So, can we make complaints against, say, doctors on NPHET, and the IMC will have to investigate them too?

    4. Lilly

      Why don’t people in situations like this refuse to resign and force the employer to fire them? Do they lose entitlements if it’s a firing?

  4. Hector Rameriz

    From the examiner

    “In defiance of guidelines from the HSE, I use hydroxychloroquine, zinc, azithromycin, and vitamin D in combination in high-risk patients with Covid. HCQ [hydroxychloroquine] has been used for 70 years in treatment of malaria and autoimmune diseases,” he said.

    I’m thinking other doctors in the group didn’t want to be associated with a person prescribing against guidelines.

    1. SOQ

      Guidelines are just that- doctors prescribe many drugs for off label use. The issue is that he said that it works and for some peculiar reason- that is not allowed.

      1. Hector Rameriz

        I didn’t read him saying it works…

        I read that he gives it in combination. But again, against HSE guidelines and his fellow doctors asked him to step down.

        1. SOQ

          Well I seen the speech and he said he prescribed the combo so one can safely assume he feels it works or he wouldn’t be making a public statement about it.

          Thing is- he is probably not the only one doing it but his real crime was to SAY he was doing it.

          1. SOQ

            You have answered your own question there Cian- he said he worked in a CoVid hub- not sure what means but I assume it was some sort of unit specific to CoVid-19 patients.

        2. E'Matty

          I was at the protest and heard him speak and he stated very clearly that his treatment had worked and not one of his patients had been admitted to ICU and none had died. It’s amazing that even after the fraudulent nature of the Lancet article on Hydroxychloroquine was exposed, people still cannot see the move by vested interests to deny it as a treatment. This is a doctor using a drug used successfully for years for numerous diseases, including the SARs virus, but due to the climate and culture of obedience to power, he is being punished for daring to do so.

          The media and political attack on Hydroxychloroquine is nothing short of criminal.

          1. Lilly

            Why wasn’t Trump, who presumably got the best treatment available, treated with Hydroxychloroquine?

          2. E'Matty

            “Why wasn’t Trump, who presumably got the best treatment available, treated with Hydroxychloroquine?” Who knows? I wouldn’t be using Trump as my guide for anything. Bit surprised you are. Perhaps the treatment he received, which I understand was a new treatment, is more effective. That doesn’t mean though that Hydroxychloroquine is not an effective treatment, particularly when used as a prophylactic first, or in the early stages of contracting the virus, as it was used by so many doctors worldwide. Nobody is claiming it’s a magical cure, but that it is an effective form of treatment as part of a broader treatment plan.

            Do you not find it odd that Hydroxychloroquine was safely used for decades to treat a wide range of diseases, including successfully treating SARs (Covid-1), but was demonised and attacked by establishment sources based on what we now all know was a fraudulent Lancet study? We are all told, the only solution to this virus will be a vaccine and that for it to be effective, everyone must get it.

          3. alickdouglas

            There simply does not appear to be enough high quality data to support the use of Hydroxy vs. COVID. Risk/Benefit is usually the key criterion for regulators. For example, if entirely hypothetical Drug A cures Rabies (100% fatality rate after the onset of symptoms) but makes your fingers drop off, the risk/benefit might still be positive, because your risk of death from Rabies is near 100%, so the downside of losing your fingers is, on the grand scheme of things, relatively limited (compared with almost certain death). However, if the same Drug A entirely prevented COVID, but made your fingers drop off, it would NOT receive a reco for prophylaxis of COVID on the label. The situation for Hydroxy is obviously not as dramatic, but in a similar vein. Hydroxy is fairly reactogenic, and has dubious impact on COVID course. The side effects are reasonably easy to capture, the impact on disease much less so. So there is a decent database of the problems with hydroxy, but not so much on the benefits of hydroxy vs COVID. Therefore Risk>Benefit=no label. It may have a role in modulating certain aspects of the disease, but modulation isn’t prevention (or measurable benefit), hence big numbers in ranomized clinical trials are still needed to support a label. No conspiracy, just either not a good drug vs. COVID, or not a drug that anyone really wants to put the time into studying.

          4. E'Matty

            @alickdouglas – “No conspiracy, just either not a good drug vs. COVID, or not a drug that anyone really wants to put the time into studying.” Thousands of doctors worldwide would disagree with you on this. They have used this to treat their patients with widespread success. It’s not a golden panacea for sure, but just one of a wide range of treatments which can mitigate the impact of this virus on society. The problem is we have the key global bodies involved in health controlled by financial interests (the Gates Foundation, Wellcome Trust, Rockefellar Foundations appear at every turn for example) with a vested interest in ensuring that a) there’s no cheap treatment for this virus, and b) only a vaccine administered widely will allow a “return to normal”. So, you have been presented a narrative by established sources that this drug is dangerous, or ineffective.

            Over the past two decades, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has donated “a bit more than $10 billion” into mainly three groups: the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization, the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, and the Global Polio Eradication Initiative.

            “We feel there’s been over a 20-to-1 return,” yielding $200 billion over those 20 or so years, Gates told CNBC’s Becky Quick on “Squawk Box” from the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. Does nobody see a conflict of interest here? I see many who think Gates is just giving his money away to help the poor. Gates made this statement at the WEF in Davos at the same time the Great Reset was being launched.

          5. alickdouglas

            Ah, I cannot look at your comment and reply at the same time, so bear with me if I misremember what you said

            For your first statement that thousands of doctors have seen hydroxy impact on COVID. That may be, but from a regulatory/label perspective that is low value data, it would fall into a category generally referred to as ‘case studies’. It’s only reagarded by regulators as high value data if generated as part of a randomized controlled trial (that would be the case for FDA, EMA, MHRA and Japan at the very least) where all participants can be given standard treatment with standard analysis. Regulators attach more weight to case studies for rare conditions but that’s not the case for COVID. So again, I don’t see the lack of acknowledgement of hydroxy as a conspiracy, quite the opposite; I want to see drug recomendations based on evidence of a high standard.

            Regarding Gates. I do have some issues with the way the organization works, but probably not the same ones as you. The ‘return on investment’ that Gates and his team refers to is usually based on standard health economic practice. It is controversial, and I dislike it, but health economics estimates impact in dollars. What Gates is referring to here is dollars laid out on intervention vs. future dollar returns to the economy. One example of this, that is backed up by published data is that up to 2016, 1 billion dollars were invested in polio eradication, and that if polio eradication were to be successful by 2018 (it wasn’t) the return over the next 5 years would be 8 billion; that was because of hospitalisations/treatments averted and the capability to stop polio vaccination campaigns. This isn’t about the Gates foundation return on investment to itself, the numbers are about the global economic investment in the intervention, and the return to the global economy. Also, worth noting that the vast majority of the money that Gates has invested into polio eradication has gone to oral polio vaccine, USD 0.12 per dose. Most of that vaccine is currently manufactured in Indonesia.

          6. E'Matty

            @ alickdouglas – thanks for your considered reply. In respect of “Risk/Benefit is usually the key criterion for regulators”. This ignores the control financial interests exert over regulatory bodies worldwide. Hydroxychloroquine was deemed safe for patients until Covid came along. It’s danger was then fraudulently claimed by the Lancet article which has since been repudiated. This idea that it is dangerous to administer remains for many in the public domain. As I said, thousands of doctors are adamant that they have been successfully using it to help their patients avoid the worst effects of Covid.

            In respect of Gates, we have a very clear conflict of interest issue. Here’s a guy who’s organisations have been calling for a decade of vaccines (The Global Vaccine Action Plan 2011-2020), global mass vaccination campaign (launched at Davos World Economic Forum Jan 2019), with a global biometric ID for every human (ID2020 – “an electronic ID program that uses generalised vaccination as a platform for digital identity). The ID2020 Alliance held their Summit entitled “Rising to the Good ID challenge” 19 September 2019. A month later in November 2019 The John Hopkins Center, World Economic Forum and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation ran a pandemic table top execise involving top global business, government, military and public health leaders that simulated a global coronovirus pandemic.

            When the coronavirus “pandemic” did emerge towards the end of 2019 and into early 2020, who did the governments of the world turn to for guidance? The World Health Organisation of course. Who were the top voluntary sponsors of the WHO in 2019? No.1 the United States. No.2 the Gates Foundation. Now that Trump is pulling US funding (actually redirecting through the Gates Foundation), the Gates Foundation is now the prime financial donor for the global health organisation calling the shots.

            Just by pure coincidence, Bill has been free to focus fully on his “philanthropic work” having resigned from the Microsoft board in March 2020 (what timing!) and has since predicted that things won’t “go back to truly normal until we have a vacccine that we’ve gotten out to basically the entire world”.

            You may also be interested to note that Irish man Michael Ryan, who we see on our tvs speaking on behalf of the WHO, worked with the Gates Foundation in Africa on their vaccine programmes. The prominent vaccine being touted by our media, the Moderna RnA therapy vaccine, is being created by Moderna which was co-founded by Julie Sunderland after having led program-related investments for the Gates Foundation which provided financial support to Moderna.

          7. SOQ

            @ alickdouglas I don’t see the lack of acknowledgement of hydroxy as a conspiracy, quite the opposite;

            WHO denounced it as dangerous based on a fraudulent study that nobody bothered to check- don’t you find that odd?

            The US front line doctors- some of whom have lost their jobs- having been fighting for the right to prescribe hydroxychloroquine after it was banned in a number of states- by politicians.

            A 70 year old drug that can be bought as a health supplement in some countries suddenly becomes something so dangerous that it is removed from pharmacies.

            I don’t like the word ‘conspiracy’ as it is now a put down but it is pretty obvious that there is interference coming from somewhere.

      2. Verbatim

        Follow the money. The licence for HCQ is long gone, hardly costs anything the cocktail hydroxychloroquine, zinc, azithromycin, and vitamin D.
        However, I would be very interested to hear of results which are hard to come by because it is “under the counter”.

      3. alickdouglas

        Don’t fully disagree with you, but there is a (not sure how to phrase it) ‘unwritten contract’ (?) between regulators/prescribers/pharma companies. For example, pharma companies and regulators typically tolerate off-label use when its limited in scope and public claims of impact aren’t made by the prescriber. It starts to get sticky however if you declare that something works in public when you don’t have data to back it up; in that case the prescriber is at risk of a spanking from regulators/medical bodies or even pharma companies. It’s worth remembering that GSK received (at the time, perhaps still) the biggest corporate fine in history because of off-label use of Paxil. One of the findings of the NY attorney general was that the company’s medical reps should have picked up that Paxil was being prescribed off-label to adolescents under 18 years of age, and that the company should have reminded prescribers of their obligation to prescribe on label. I haven’t come across a subsequent run in between a major pharma co. and a prescriber subsequent to that, but it makes the governance and legal folks in phrama companies very anxious when it comes up…

    2. george

      Sounds like a reasonable decision for a group of doctors to ask him to step down from their board in light of that.

  5. RuilleBuille

    I’m old enough to remember when some doctors backed tobacco firms that smoking was harmless. That doctors opposing cigarettes didn’t know what they were talking about.

        1. SOQ

          Before he went off line, Marcus DeBrun tweeted something about how GP’s were being incentivised with CoVid-19 payments- so much for a telephone call, so much for a test etc.

          Quite a nice little earner by the sounds of it.

          1. Cian

            “GP’s were being incentivised with CoVid-19 payments”

            Oh, there was me thinking the doctors were being paid for their time. GPs don’t work for free. They have bills. If you go to the doctor need paying. The government has said that any Covid-related visits are paid by the State.

            This is being spun as “incentivised”.

          2. SOQ

            I don’t spin darlin- that is your job.

            Tweet not available now as account gone but his point was that the payment system could be manipulated in order to extract the maximum per patient.

            Apologies to Marcus if I am misinterpreting his point.

          3. Cian

            Are you accusing Marcus of saying the other GPs were manipulating the system in order to extract the maximum per patient?

          4. ReproBertie

            Marcus also seemed to suggest that it was a bad thing for the government to pay for the flu vaccine rather than putting the cost on those receiving the vaccine. Somehow passing the cost to the government like this was an incentive or a reward for following the narrative rather than just a way to encourage uptake of the vaccine.

          5. SOQ

            @ Cian- his point was that the payment system could be manipulated in order to extract the maximum per patient- the clue is in the word COULD?

            Stop trying to twist my words- besides you have enough to do trying to defend this poo show these days.

          6. Cian

            What is your point then?

            A system was put in place to give free Covid care to all.

            A doctor, in theory, COULD manipulate this. But what exactly is your point? *you* brought it up.

          7. SOQ

            My comment was in response to Matty’s that GP’s were financially incentivised to administer flu vaccines.

            You go to GP with a sore toe right now and they will insist on a CoVid test because there is a financial incentive for them to do so also.

          8. ReproBertie

            Last week I brought my son to the GP about his asthma. No Covid test was mentioned, required or insisted upon.

          9. Cian

            Wow. Just wow.

            Now you are actually saying that GP would push people for test that they don’t need.

            You must be one of those alternative-medicine people? Homeopathy? and Crystals? and all that woo.

            You realize that is the sort of behavior that would get a doctor investigated by the IMC?

          10. SOQ

            Is that the best you can do? You are losing your spin touch now Cian.

            To suggest that it may be in the interest of GP’s to avail of payments for the testing of CoVid-19 is somehow surprising? That is the whole point of it- no wonder test numbers are so high.

            Wayback has not captured Marcus’s recent tweets but on August 6th he tweeted that “Following the narrative is very profitable for most GPs,…”

            Unfortunately that was the last capture but he did outline later how much a GP could make- and if memory serves me it was over €1000 per week with just two tests and phone calls per day.

          11. Daisy Chainsaw

            Quite a scurrilous accusation SOQ about doctors insisting on covid tests. Anything resembling proof to back it up?

            I’ve been to the doctor and to a couple of different hospitals in the last 6 weeks and never had to have a covid test for any of those appointments. I had one prior to admittance for a procedure, but that was it.

          12. SOQ

            Scurrilous to suggest there is a few quid to be made out of Covid-19 testing? It’s happening all over the bloody world- and the private hospitals are even worse.

            In the US they are paid thousands extra per CoVid patient and when they changed the payment structure in Madrid, the amount of hospitalised patients fell by 50%- complete coincidence of course.

          13. Cian

            when they changed the payment structure in Madrid, the amount of hospitalised patients fell by 50%- complete coincidence of course.
            [citation needed]

          14. italia'90

            JAY ZUS SOQ!!
            You don’t half undermine the good work and Trojan efforts by
            those you have quoted and used regularly in your posts to debate the
            opposition on here and the Maskzi sympathisers.
            There’s no point debating a side if you are going to just make up
            random sh 1t and throw it out there and be damned.
            Please retract that comment about getting unnecessarily covid tested if you have no proof.

            On De Brún’s point he made about the potential to earn 1 doctor in 1 GP practice the sum of €1500 per week from just 2 new covid suspected patients is made up of:
            €30 initial telephone consultation with the Dr.
            €70 appointment with the Dr. and swab sample taken
            €50 Test fee
            *2 new patients = €300 *5 days = €1500
            If those who can’t see the incentive want to argue the point there is no incentive, well, you don’t have any chance of convincing them about scientific matters which are proven and just as obvious. They’re pushing a narrative, whether consciously or subconsciously is a different matter.
            You just have to see on another thread earlier today that they are still pushing the now well debunked Russiagate narrative.
            Same people, same modus operandi. Every fluichin time.

            I can’t wait until the time comes when they realise, like most neutral observers, that it was Hillary Clinton who invented the Russia story to compensate for her failure to become POTUS and that it was Biden who undermined her campaign with help from his associates in Ukraine because he was denied a run in 2016.
            It will all be exposed sooner or later, a lot already has.
            They’ll probably still quote Mueller then too, even though Mueller himself refused to testify under oath at a non partisan committee hearing.

          15. SOQ

            @ italia’90-

            Define if a test is needed or not? Symptoms? Of what? Near every single patient who walks into a surgery has symptoms of something or other.

            I know of a number of people who’s GP’s insisted on tests despite symptoms which were most definitely not of CoVid-19- and they paid for their consultations too.

            I repeat Marcus last recorded tweet- “following the narrative is very profitable for most GPs…”

        2. Daisy Chainsaw

          Trying to sidestep the actual question asked! You claimed, without offering any proof, that doctors are insisting on covid tests.

          “You go to GP with a sore toe right now and they will insist on a CoVid test because
          there is a financial incentive for them to do so also.”

          What doctors insist on a covid test, regardless of why you’re attending?

  6. Eoin

    Is the ENTIRE media machine going to ignore The Great Barrington Declaration? 7000 doctors calling for an end to lockdown and the engagement of a herd immunity approach.

    1. SOQ

      It is changing, albeit slowly. The UK’s Daily Mail and The Telegraph are on board and now Labour are challenging the lock down measures. London’s talkRADIO is gaining quite a lot of new listeners because of their coverage too apparently.

      No sign of a anyone breaking ranks here in Ireland yet- but it is only a matter of time.

    2. Micko

      It’s completely mental.

      I sometimes feel that they could take one of these doctors out the back of the sheds and beat seven shades of poo out of them and some folks here would say they ‘had it coming’ ;-P

      “Well, if he breaches guidelines by attending a rally, that’s what you get” and “Sounds like a reasonable decision” etc

      1. Verbatim

        It’s always superficial changes in Ireland, the small minded parochial esprit always shows up.

  7. MME

    Marcus de Brun is the odd one out here. Way more going on with him than an honest critique of government measures. He has a gargantuan and utterly misplaced ego, a Trumpian approach to issues and an overwhelming desire to get elected on a (not that well veiled) right wing populist mandate. Polarizing and divisive. His previous political musings don’t exactly inspire confidence.

      1. Daisy Chainsaw

        Only because many many thousands decided not to vote for him because he was too important to the community as a doctor to become a TD.

    1. Commenter #1

      I hadn’t read too much of his non-Covid related positions before.

      Interesting to hear his idea that those who “demand equality most vociferously” are “the new abusers.” And his opposition to gay marriage (apparently marriage is a “straight thing”). Or that “Dyslexia for example is almost entirely a myth that has arisen as both a real and an imagined consequence of ‘equality’ and consequent dysfunction of the family unit.”

      Here’s another…interesting position: “We are not permitted to hate things that are protected under the umbrella of our modern liberal values; we cannot hate certain people like; Jews, homosexuals, differing ethnicities, nor can we hate other countries or religions. “

      1. Commenter #1

        “A provocative example of our modern predilection to render all things equal would be in the context of contemporary notions of homosexuality. Homosexuality has moved from the realm of profanity, mortal sin and even criminality, to that of a superficial or artificial type of equality with its heterosexual counterpart. A suggestion that the two are not ‘equal’ even upon practical grounds, may bring the opprobrium of the masses and the near immediate charge of ‘homophobia’. In the recent past a homosexual male was likely (and still is likely in some primitive environs) to be subject to violence and brutality. The tables have turned somewhat and within the context of contemporary social dialogue a stated distinction between heterosexuality and homosexuality is now almost equally likely to be the subject of hate and discrimination.

        To bring the analogy to an extreme let us consider the following: Anal intercourse between two males cannot upon its own merits be considered as ‘normal’ relative to its heterosexual counterpart. This assertion does not mean that one might then ‘discriminate’ between either forms of intercourse.”

        From here:

        Maybe the next time you have Marcus on answering questions, Bodger, you can ask him to elaborate a bit more on his views around homosexuality in general, and gay marriage in particular?

        1. MME

          Thanks for highlighting Marcus de Brun’s, ahem, “other positions”.

          He knew right well with whom he stood alongside at those anti-mask rallies and I don’t for one minute believe he doesn’t but endorse and share their views on a whole range of issues that would cause any reasonable person to shudder.

          He is no friend of the vulnerable and those in minorities.

          1. Commenter #1

            The vulnerable, you say? Well don’t worry, the good doctor has a nice strong position on charity that I’m sure he’d love to chat about the next time Bodger has him on.

            “Wilde rightly concludes that Charity is immoral, that it degrades and demoralises. Charity is in itself an entirely ineffectual institution, one that works on an immediate level by relieving in a limited but obvious way, the sufferings we impose upon the world in a massive globalised and yet invisible way.”


          2. Commenter #1

            lol nope, sorry Bodger. Here’s Dr De Brun’s paragraph in full:

            “In his lesser known but very pertinent essay The Soul Of Man Under Socialism, Wilde states that ‘it is immoral to treat the ills that are caused by private property, with private property.’ In essence, we are trying to cure the disease with the same process that has produced the disease. Wilde rightly concludes that Charity is immoral, that it degrades and demoralises. Charity is in itself an entirely ineffectual institution, one that works on an immediate level by relieving in a limited but obvious way, the sufferings we impose upon the world in a massive globalised and yet invisible way”


            Dr De Brun is anti-charity, anti-gay marriage, and anti-mask. I hope you get to chat about these things the next time you have him on.

          3. Bodger

            Commenter, you are so over the top and unreasonable that I’m not sure if you are satirising a person being over the top and unreasonable for a laugh. Dr De Brun is agreeing with Oscar Wilde that if you don’t get at the root cause of an issue (say, homelessness) and only offer temporary solutions (unsafe shelters, hotels, charities) you are not ending the suffering, merely relieving it, a situation which degrades the giver and the receiver. Wilde is not talking about kindness or generosity, virtues he was noted for.

          4. Commenter #1

            Also: just because Wilde was persecuted because of his sexuality, doesn’t mean he’s always right.

          5. MME

            Come off it Bodger. One only needs to look at how de Brun interacted on Twitter – very unbecoming considering his status as a doctor. Crazy stuff and unable to disagree in a healthy way. You obviously see something I don’t but he certainly has qualities that do not endear him to me…to put it mildly. And it is reasonable to wonder if he is (wilfully or otherwise) misunderstanding the meaning and obvious takeaways of those essays.

          6. Commenter #1

            I guess it probably is uncomfortable to have to rationalise your support for an individual who explicitly believes, in bald terms, that charity is immoral, that it degrades and demoralises.

            It is the condition of poverty that degrades and demoralises, not efforts to alleviate that poverty. Again; Wilde is not right about everything, but Oscar Wilde has not been feted by this website for their anti-mask stance so it’s immaterial.

            It’s just something for you and Dr De Brun to have a chat about next time. How efforts to alleviate poverty degrade and demoralise; and also his views on homosexuality generally and gay marriage in particular.

          7. Commenter #1

            Again, the only person to mention homophobia in this thread is your good self, and Dr De Brun in the passage I quoted earlier.

            Gotta say; I’m surprised at how bent out of shape some people are in response to the verbatim quoting of Dr De Brun’s positions on dyslexia; gay marriage; and charity.

          8. Commenter #1

            I really don’t know what to tell you SOQ. What I’ve done is quote Dr De Brun’s position on gay marriage; a position at odds, I should mention, with that of Broadsheet.

            The first person on this thread to connect opposition to gay marriage with homophobia was De Brun himself; you were next; then E’Matty. That’s on you.

          9. Commenter #1

            Ok let’s try this, on poverty:

            “Yet the wants of the masses are no longer consistent with our needs. We have enough bread (almost half of it ends up in the garbage and half of what is consumed, clogs arteries and bursts buttons). Our poverty is one of relativity, or a consequence of some individual pathology, rather than the old model of the lion’s share going to our masters.”

            Our poverty is one of relativity, or a consequence of some individual pathology. Ask him about that Bodger, next time you have him on. Ask him about this brave stance, that the poor in Ireland are only poor in relative terms, not really poor; or are poor as the result of some pathology of theirs.

          10. SOQ

            People died in nursing homes without basic sanitary nursing care let alone palliative drugs- who is responsible for that criminal negligence?

          11. Commenter #1

            The government, probably, although I’m not sure what that has to do with what we were talking about i.e. Dr De Brun’s positions on gay marriage, poverty, charity, and dyslexia.

          12. SOQ

            The reason we are discussing Dr De Brun is because people died in nursing homes without basic sanitary nursing care let alone palliative drugs- or have you forgotten that in your abstracted character assignation?

          13. benblack


            Maggots on a dying man’s face – as written into the Dáil record – is about all you need to know.

            That is unacceptable.

            What more can one say?

          14. Commenter #1

            On the contrary, this could not be less abstract. The conversation started with MME asserting that Dr De Brun’s political ideas set him apart from the other individuals referenced in Bodger’s post. That led to me trying to figure out just what some of those positions were.

            Again; you’re the one conflating verbatim quotation of Dr De Brun’s stated positions with character assassination. Quoting someone’s words in plenty of context, with links to the originals? Hardly abstract.

            EDIT: Apologies, you wrote character assignation, not assassination. I confess I… don’t know what that means

        2. Daisy Chainsaw

          Kinda makes sense why he was happy to stand alongside a bunch of bigots at that donkey derby/

          1. MME

            I would not mind only his “analyses” above are just plain weird. Weird in that way that would make you uneasy and take a step back.

          2. benblack

            @Daiay Chainsaw

            Images of the Orange Order marching on a beach spring to mind.

            Erase, erase.

      2. Commenter #1

        What are Dr De Brun’s views on racism, you might wonder?

        “Does the traditional academic approach to ‘race’: race-history, the history of ‘African Americans’, ‘Irish Americans’, the sociological ‘needs’ of a particular ‘race’ etc, contain a powerful sublimated racism, that makes it impossible for the victims of formal education to escape ownership of ‘racism’.

        Does the formal notion ‘Irish American’ and all of its particular ‘history’ contain a codified racism of sorts.

        Does formal education upon the subject of race, embody, preserve and foster the sublimated form of the ‘ism’?

        I think it does, and it is perhaps the single greatest reason that Race (if it exists) cannot escape the ism.”

        I suppose you could call that the “Just Don’t Look” thesis; if we just stop talking about racism, it’ll mostly go away. An…interesting position.

        Also: here’s a little more on Dr De Brun’s “relative poverty” thesis.

        Weird wild stuff!

      1. E'Matty

        how is she a bigot? Might you fit the definition of a bigot more closely? “a person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions.”

          1. E'Matty

            @ Why are the Irish Freedom Party considered racist out of interest? I don’t know much about them tbh.

          2. E'Matty

            @ I have but I can’t see anything that could be considered racist yet? They do oppose aspects of migration, but that in and of itself can’t be considered racist.

          3. Lamo

            E’Matty doesn’t get it.

            If Daisy claims someone is racist then they’re bloody racist.

            How many more times do you have to be told?

          4. Lamo

            You don’t question Daisy on BullSheet.

            She’s the queen of astroturfing.

            She is she who must not be challenged.

            Else you’re a bigot.

          5. Geraldine

            Daisy, I read your comment with interest, but we might look to the dictionary for help here. The definition of a racist is one who is prejudiced towards, or believes one is superior to, someone of another race. The Irexit party was formed with a view to achieving Irish independence from the EU and an end to mass immigration, which is not the same thing as being racist.

  8. Just Sayin

    If I get covid I want to be treated by a doctor like Patrick Morrissey who will do what he can to fix me, rather than doing what he is told to do by the government/HPHET who are simply following the discredited WHO.

    There is plenty of evidence that HCQ + Zinc + Vit D are massively effective.

    However the pharma companies can’t make money off those dirt cheap out of copyright ingedients.

    Even worse you can’t get a license to fast-track a vaccine if an effective treatment already exists.

    Hence the WHO promote fraudelent Lancet report which says HCQ is useless

    Just look at the results from Switzerland during the 13 days that they banned HCQ on WHO advice and the difference again when the realised the Lancet report was a fraud.

    It’s clear to me that Dr Patrick Morrissey has looked at the scientific evidence and is using that to provide the best outcome for his patients.

    What the pootle-tootkins is wrong with NPHET? Why are they hiding simple effective treatments?
    Why isn’t there a HSE campaign telling people to boost their Vitamin D levels etc…

    They need to keep the casedemic going to keep us afraid, so they can have their friends sell us the vaccine.

    1. Daisy Chainsaw

      A website called medicalkidnap sounds totes legit! How far down the rabbithole do you have to go to find this quackery?

        1. benblack

          According to Tommy Tiernan, all ducks are rapists.

          Do I have to say all male ducks.

          There it is.

  9. Geraldine

    These doctors are to be applauded for having the courage to speak out and thanks to the Limerick Leader and Broadsheet for covering the story.

    In a free country, we punish men for the crimes they commit, but never for the opinions they have.
    President Harry S. Truman

    1. millie madonna

      Funny, but I only heard this last night from a friend of mine who is a patient of his. I meant to mention it to you queenie.

      At the risk of sounding very cynical, I wouldn’t be surprised if we see him running in the next election. It’s no secret that he has political aspirations and this hoo-ha over masks and covid has put dr Marcus on the map. If he can capitalise on that, he may do well in local elections etc.

        1. millie madonna

          You don’t think we’ll see another GE before then?

          I’d be very surprised if the current government manages to go the distance. They’ve lurched from one eff-up to the next. It’s embarrassing.

          1. benblack

            Do you really think the Prime role will not rotate to Leo?

            This government will almost definitely stay the course.

            There is no opposition and no viable alternative.

          2. millie madonna

            Leo is biding his time, for sure. That’s his part in all these shenanigans, I’d wager.

            Doesn’t Eamo get a shot at the big job before Leo though?

            (never has the notion of a ‘rotating taoiseach’ seemed more ridiculous)

        1. SOQ

          I have several gay male friends who do not agree with same sex marriage- does that make them homophobic too?

          I don’t agree with them but sure that’s what us adults do- agree to differ.

          1. Oro

            Soq – So many friends that satisfy so many different anecdotal requirements! How convenient! Much believable.

        2. E'Matty

          @ Commenter #1 – you do know Leo V was opposed to gay marriage up until relatively soon before the referendum? Not sure why it is a verboten standpoint? I personally support gay marriage but feel people are entitled to not be in favour it and oppoing ay marriage doesn’t make one homophobic. Your anti charity point doesn’t hold up to scrutiny when one realise his opposition to charity is that it prevents any true addressing of the underlying causes of the issues charity seeks to stick a band aid on. He has a point (as did Wilde). Whilst one may not agree with it, it certainly should not be a position that is forbidden to hold. Anti-mask, well not sure we need to go back into that…

        1. GiggidyGoo

          Not bad for a first outing. The only way is up. What you boyos have done to him won’t be forgotten either if he runs next time round.
          Third count Varadkar in 2016, Fifth count Varadkar last election. Down down, deeper and down. He won’t be ordering his pizza too early next time. He’ll probably have it delivered.

Comments are closed.

Sponsored Link