Wexford based GP Dr Billy Ralph has been found guilty of professional misconduct for tweets critical of covid policy that he posted between 2020 and 2022.

The Irish Medical Council’s fitness to practise committee found the charges to be proven ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ in five of the six allegations against him.

The committee, made up of Chairman Paul Harkin, Ms. Jill Long and Dr. Liam Conroy delivered their findings in Dublin yesterday.

After the committee’s decision was delivered (details below), Dr Ralph’s wife Paula stood to address the inquiry.

“Thank you for letting me speak today. You have 698 pages of testimonies from patients. This is mine,” she said.

“Over the course of these proceedings I have listened carefully to everything that has been said. I have listened to arguments about tweets, professional obligation, public confidence and standards. What I would like to speak about today is the man at the centre of all of this.”

“I have known Billy for 42 years. I have watched him study into the night for exams, work 80 hours as a junior doctor, get up in the middle of the night for patients. I have watched him carry worries about people home with him. I have watched him cry when he lost patients. I have watched him dedicate his life to medicine, not because it was lucrative or easy but because he genuinely cared about people.”

“That is the man I know and it has been difficult, at times heartbreaking, to sit in this room and watch 32 years of service reduced to a handful of posts made during one of the most divisive and uncertain periods in modern history.”

Willing to Stand Alone

“You have seen Billy through documents, I have seen him through a lifetime. You have seen the tweets, I have seen the man. The Billy I know is not reckless. He is not indifferent to suffering. He is not motivated by ego or personal gain. He is someone who asks questions. He is someone who thinks for himself. He is someone who has always been willing to stand alone if he believed something needed to be said.”

“That quality may be uncomfortable at times, it may even be unpopular but it is also a quality that has driven progress in every profession throughout history. I am not asking you to agree with Billy. I am not asking you to endorse what he said. I am asking you to recognise that he said those things because he believed them, not because they were fashionable, not because they were safe, not because they were profitable, but because he genuinely believed he had a duty to speak.”

“Whatever conclusions have been reached about that decision, I ask you to remember that conviction is not the same thing as malice, disagreement is not the same thing as dishonesty, and independent thought is not the same thing as professional misconduct.”

Repugnant

“During the closing submissions I listened to examples involving sexual assault, fraud, neglect and other serious forms of criminal activity. While I understand that these examples were used to illustrate legal principles and were not allegations against Billy, sitting here as his wife I found that moment deeply upsetting and repugnant. The man I know had somehow disappeared from the room, the man I love, the doctor who has dedicated years of his life to caring for others seemed to become a case, an argument, an example.”

“Whatever conclusions have been reached about Billy’s conduct, those comparisons felt profoundly disconnected from the man I know. How did you come to view a man’s conduct almost entirely through the lens of a few months in a long career?”

“Billy’s life is bigger than this hearing, his career is bigger than this hearing, his contribution to medicine is bigger than this hearing and his character is bigger than this hearing.”

Cost to our family

“This process has come at an enormous cost, professionally, personally, financially and emotionally. Our family will live with the consequences long after these proceedings are over but regardless of what happens today, I remain proud of Billy. I remain proud that he was prepared to stand by his convictions and I remain proud of the decades he has spent caring for the people who placed their trust in him.”

“Thank you.”

Committee chairman Paul Harkin thanked Paula for her submission, which he said was “very powerful and very effective.”

“I know it’s most difficult when you are so close to the subject matter in this. I would hope that at all stages throughout this Inquiry process I have tried to acknowledge that this is not about whether Dr. Ralph is a good doctor or a bad doctor, it is about the specific net issues of the six allegations that are here in front of us,” Mr Harkin said.

Day 6

Yesterday marked the sixth day of Billy Ralph’s fitness to practise inquiry, which got underway last March. The session heard that though Dr Ralph’s opinions were ‘genuinely held in exceptional circumstances,’ his use of social media under his title of Doctor amounted to professional misconduct.

The committee dismissed evidence from Prof Angus Dalgleish as “not persuasive” and was “not satisfied” that evidence from Dr Clare Craig “demonstrated the independence of an uninfluenced expert.”

Expert Witness

In its report the committee said while it did carefully review the evidence of the two witnesses put forward by Dr Ralph, it “preferred” evidence from the CEO’s expert witness, Cavan based Dr Rukshan Goonewardena.

“Dr. Ralph did not put to Dr. Goonewardena any of the expert evidence subsequently led by him from Prof. Dalgleish or Dr. Craig. Therefore, Dr Goonewardena did not have the opportunity to comment on or challenge the opinions expressed by either Dr Craig or Prof Dalgleish,” Chairman Paul Harkin told the decision hearing at the Talbot Hotel, Stillorgan yesterday.

The entire thrust of Dr Goonewardena’s evidence, which the committee upheld in reaching its decision, was that Dr Ralph’s tweets were “inappropriate and undermined public health guidelines” because they had the potential to influence public opinion on controversial issues such as facemasks, lockdowns, NPHET, ivermectin as a treatment and covid ‘vaccines.’

“The Committee is satisfied that Dr. Ralph’s conduct was conduct which doctors of experience, competence and good repute would consider dishonourable. It was not acceptable that these tweets were put on social media,” Mr Harkin said.

In March this year, the committee examined six allegations against Dr Ralph, concerning tweets posted between October 2020 and June 2022.

The committee found the GP’s comments on facemasks did not reach the threshold of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ and as such did not amount to professional misconduct.

A central focus of Dr Ralph’s critical commentary on social media was the policy to mass vaccinate the Irish population with an untested gene therapy product. His comments were particularly critical of the decision to vaccinate children.

As we heard last week at Dr Pat Morrissey’s hearing, criticism of the nationwide jab programme was deemed ‘unhelpful.’

Chairman Paul Harkin outlined the committee’s findings:

“Dr. Goonewardena was of the opinion that any doubt as to the roll out of vaccines would not have been helpful in November 2020 for the public opinion of vaccinations and doctors who were vaccinating,” he said.

“He was of the view there was a risk that these three social media posts, which were from Allegation 6, would influence the public opinion who might not get vaccinated and become ill. He was of the opinion that the phrase: “How has the medical profession stooped so low as to be sales reps for the experimental vaccines?” undermined public health guidelines at a time which could then influence vaccine uptake.”

“His opinion on the description of the vaccine as an experimental gene therapy was that it was inappropriate because it was clearly a vaccine and had safety and efficacy, use of ‘gene therapy’ could influence doubt into the minds of the public who might not get vaccinated, putting themselves and the community at risk,” Mr Harkin said.

Neasa Bird, BL for CEO of the IMC (Dr Maria O’Kane), advised the inquiry on the topic of sanctions, noting that the committee’s primary objective in imposing sanctions is to ‘act in the public interest.’

She said further objectives of sanctions include

“protecting the public, promoting and maintaining public confidence in the profession and the regulatory process and promoting and upholding professional standards and conduct.”

The sanctions are a matter for the council and not the committee and will have regard to what Ms Bird termed “insight”, meaning the extent to which Dr Ralph admitted to any perceived wrong-doing.

“Dr. Ralph did not make any admissions as to professional misconduct on his part. Dr. Ralph was, however I think it’s fair to say, to a large degree frank in his evidence concerning his actions, his intentions and his motivation,” Ms Bird said.

Genuinely held views in exceptional circumstances

Ms Bird reminded the committee that Dr. Ralph’s views were expressed in ‘genuine concern and disagreement over the public health response to Covid-19 and his intention to contribute to an important medical and societal discussion.’

“Of course the Committee has also found that that was not done in an appropriate way but in terms of circumstances surrounding the event, it does seem appropriate and fair that regard be had to the exceptional circumstances of the pandemic which may serve to illustrate the reason why Dr. Ralph had the motivations which he did and the fact that this was an exceptional time and an exceptional context,” she said.

Mitigating factors

The inquiry heard that mitigating factors include the fact that none of the allegations pertained to Dr Ralph’s clinical practice or his treatment of patients.

Possible sanctions

Legal advisor Mr Frank Beatty replaced Ms Patricia Dillon SC at yesterday’s session.

Mr Beatty outlined the sanctions available to the committee, which are contained in Section 71 of the Medical Practitioner’s Act 2007:

These include:

• (a) advice or admonishment or a censure in writing

• (b) is a censure in writing and a fine not exceeding €5,000

• (c) is the attachment of conditions to the Registrant’s registration, including restrictions on the practice of medicine that may be engaged in by the Registrant

• (d) the transfer of the Registrant’s registration to another division of the Register

• (e) the suspension of the practitioner’s registration for a specified period

• (f) the cancellation of the practitioner’s registration

• (g) a prohibition from applying for a specified period for the restoration of the practitioner’s registration.”

Ms Bird outlined the CEO’s position on sanctions. She said it is the CEO’s view that the minimum sanction ‘to mark the seriousness of these matters’ would be a censure in writing. A further sanction could include a ‘professional development plan’ that would address the ‘importance of following or adhering to national health guidelines’ and ‘adhering to good communication practice, particularly in the area of social media.’ A third sanction option would require Dr. Ralph to complete professional or educational courses to the use of social media.

Dr Ralph will deliver his written submission to the committee this week and sanctions will be decided on a future date.

Share

*Thanks to those that support and share this work - much appreciated.

I have entered the world of Revolut (!) https://revolut.me/louisehni3

Buy the author a Coffee

Previously on this case:

Subscribe now

Intro: *Note Dr Billy Ralph will find out tomorrow Tuesday (July 28th) whether he has been found guilty of professional misconduct by the Irish Medical Council.

Decision hearing takes place at The Talbot Hotel, Stillorgan at 10am and support is welcome.

The article below continues coverage of Dr Pat Morrissey’s fitness to practise hearing, specifically his cross examination of expert witness Prof Colin Bradley.

At 11.42am on Thursday last, Dr Pat Morrissey asked the Irish Medical Council’s (IMC) expert witness if he wanted to take a break or was he happy to continue?

Prof Colin Bradley replied that he was happy to continue. He had spent the morning giving his opinions on why the seven allegations against Dr Morrissey amount to poor professional conduct and/or professional misconduct.

Dr Morrissey first asked the witness if he had furnished the committee with an updated CV the previous day.

Dr M: “You provided the Committee with an updated CV yesterday, I believe, is that correct?” he asked the expert witness.

Prof B: “That’s correct,” the Prof confirmed.

Dr M: “You previously described yourself as a medico-legal advisor to the Medical Council, but this wasn’t in the updated CV. Why not?”

Prof B: “Well, at the previous - the last time I appeared before a Fitness to Practise Committee, there was a question arose in relation to my independence, and I understood, and on reflection that the way I had described my interaction with the Medical Council had been perhaps misunderstood as not being an independent witness. So I clarified in this version of the CV that I act as an independent witness… And I would fiercely contest my independence as an expert witness. So I have rephrased that part of my CV to clarify that,” the Prof said.

Dr M: “So am I correct in understanding you removed that reference in your CV?”

Prof B: “It is not that I removed it, I have clarified it.”

Dr M: “At the time you wrote up this report (the report he prepared on Dr Morrissey), did you have it on your CV?”

The Professor asked him to repeat the question, which the doctor duly did.

Dr M: “At the time you wrote up your expert report on me, did you have it on your CV that you were a medical advisor to the Medical Council?”

The Prof explained that he revised his CV after his independence was questioned at a previous IMC appearance in 2023.

“Yes, so that revision to my CV was prompted, if you like, by my experience of the previous appearance, which I think was in about September of 2023, so I amended my CV at that time to clarify that point. And so the CV that I submitted, the full CV that I sent to my colleague yesterday was actually a CV that I had compiled after my experience here before where my independence was being questioned,” the Prof said.

Independent Expert?

Before we go through the (somewhat explosive) details of evidence, let’s have a look at what Prof Bradley was involved in at University College Cork to determine if he can in fact be accurately described as ‘independent.’

This video report from April 2 2020, shows RTE reporter Brian O’Connell walking around the newly established contact tracing hub established at UCC for the HSE. Prof Bradley’s title was UCC Professor of General Practise at this point, which was prior to the adoption of masks and social distancing as policy.

On April 15 2020, Dr Bradley is identified as the UCC Professor who “led training courses for GPs recruited to operate the Covid Community Assessment Hubs.” These ‘hubs’ were established to ‘help keep patients from overburdening the hospital system’ - a controversial initiative known to have had detrimental effects on the health of the nation.

And in October 2020, Prof Bradley gave a speech to a Covid Conference hosted by UCC titled: GP training for the COVID community and the GP Buddy Communicating COVID tracker.

Against this background, Dr Morrissey established that the Prof had altered the CV he provided to the IMC committee. He was just ten minutes into his cross examination of the expert witness, when a 15 break was requested. That break stretched on for 35 minutes. When the session resumed, Dr Morrissey moved to question the professor’s role in the preparation of allegations.

Here is the dialogue that unfolded:

Dr M: “Professor, you confirmed in answer to Ms. Bird (Neasa Bird BL for the CEO of the IMC) yesterday that your duty is to assist the Committee?”

Prof B: “Yes.”

Dr M: “And this is your overriding duty?”

Prof B: “Well, sorry, my overriding duty is to provide independent expertise in relation to the matter before the Committee.”

Dr M: “Is it not to assist the CEO?”

Prof B: “It is not to assist the CEO, it is to assist the Committee.”

Dr M: “Okay. So you agree that the expert must now become an advocate for the party who is instructing him?

Prof B: “That’s correct, that’s my understanding of my role.”

Dr M: “Thank you. Am I correct that ordinarily an expert is provided with a set of allegations?”

Prof B: “Yes, I am usually given a copy of the allegations.”

Dr M: “And that the expert would consider the relevant material?”

Prof B: “Yes.”

Dr M: “And on that basis form an opinion?”

Prof B: “Exactly.”

Dr M: “Whether favourable or unfavourable to the party instructing him?”

Prof B: “Correct, yes.”

Dr M: “Thank you. Prof Bradley, you had involvement in these matters around my case before being retained by the Fitness to Practise Inquiry, correct?”

Prof B: “Correct.”

Prof Bradley confirmed that he had prepared a report for the Preliminary Proceedings Committee (the precursor to the inquiry) and that he had multiple calls and e-mail exchanges with Fieldfisher, solicitors for the CEO, during the preparation.

These email exchanges were contained in the Booklet of Correspondence between Bradley and Fieldfisher dated January 20th, 2025 and it transpired that this evidence was not before the committee.

Neasa Bird BL clarified the matter.

“That is not currently before the Committee, it was a set of documentation that Dr. Morrissey requested, and we provided him with all of that correspondence and the attendances and so on, but it hasn’t been put before the Committee as a booklet. We weren’t aware that he was seeking to rely on that in cross-examination,” she said.

Dr Morrissey resumed his questions. These referred to Fieldfisher’s notes on a conversation with Prof Bradley in which discussions took place regarding the IMC’s allegations, a conversation that the Prof regarded as ‘helpful’.

Dr Morrissey asked Prof. Bradley if he would consider this “framing?”

“I would have to clarify what you mean by the term ‘framing’?” the Prof replied.

“Assisting in the formulation of the prosecution?” the doctor said.

“I am not sure that I would agree. I think it is just, as you can ascertain, and I am not legally qualified, and I am aware of the wording of the legislation, but, as I say, it is helpful to clarify for me as a non legal person the difference between poor professional performance and professional misconduct, and again the two limbs of professional misconduct. I mean I have tried to keep with that, but I have to admit that it can be difficult to always make that distinction in every case,” the expert witness said.

(This, from a medical professional who removed ‘medicolegal advisor’ from his CV the day before.)

Things went generally downhill from here for the Professor, as Dr Morrissey landed the following blow before the session broke for lunch.

In an email to the CEO’s solicitor, the Prof asked a question that throws the entire case against Dr Morrissey into doubt, not just because it reveals that the doctor was well within his rights to prescribe ivermectin for the treatment of covid symptoms, but that the expert witness was seeking direction from the solicitor on a particular allegation.

The Prof wrote in an email:

“However, in the light of the information that medicines that have not had HPRA approval may be prescribed by doctors, albeit subject to more stringent provisions than apply to off label use of the approved medicines, I am writing to ask if you still wish me to consider sub-allegation 2(a) or might this sub-allegation also be dropped?”

Dr Morrissey asked again if this was evidence of ‘framing’ or indicative of expert witness’ independence.

Then he moved on to a study on the efficacy of treatments for covid 19 including ivermectin. In his early research and in order to treat his patients, Dr Morrissey used the website c19study.com, which he said was ‘under attack’ and so moved to a different domain, c19early.org. Dr Morrissey had supplied the link to this website as part of his defence.

Prof Bradley confirmed that he had access to this study while compiling his initial report for the PPC, but later when he was compiling his report for the Fitness to Practise committee he said ‘that website was unavailable, it couldn’t be accessed.’

Commenting on the website data, the Prof said a clinical conclusion could only be based on randomised controlled trials.

“So this could be used for a whole range of studies, but to come to a clinical conclusion, one wouldn’t pull data across multiple studies, one would pull data only across those studies which met the scientific quality of criteria of being randomised controlled trials,” Prof Bradley said.

For the benefit of the committee, Dr Morrissey illustrated how the information showed that ivermectin is a beneficial treatment for covid.

“Before I move on, can you just tell me the number of patients involved in the studies for Ivermectin?” he asked the Prof.

“Well, according to this, it was 220,000, across a 106 studies,” Prof Bradley said,

“Thank you, Professor.”

Dr Morrissey moved then to the Vida Hamilton document issued by the HSE in March 2020, identifying hydroxychloroquine as an effective treatment for covid.

The Prof argued that as time went on, that position shifted.

“So time went on and there were more studies conducted on the use of hydroxychloroquine, particularly in clinical trials and in hospital settings, it was found that this medicine wasn’t as effective as first thought or as first indicated,” he said.

Dr Morrissey responded with a question.

“Is it reasonable to say though that the HSE or people high up in the HSE believed that HCQ or hydroxychloroquine could be beneficial in the treatment of patients with SARS-CoV-2?”

The Professor replied “Yes.”

“But, as I say, as time went on, the view in relation to the utility of these drugs or the efficacy of these drugs varied. And in the case of hydroxychloroquine specifically, it is my understanding, and also from the HSE guidance that it didn’t stand up to further scrutiny, this initial suggestion that it could be helpful,” the Prof told the inquiry.

‘Cardiotoxic’

The next series of questions and answers should be read with the vaccine roll out in mind. Professor Bradley defended the confining of hydroxychloroquine use to hospitals only, because he said, it is ‘cardiotoxic.’

Dr Morrissey asked: “Do you understand why I might have a problem with the use of hydroxychloroquine being confined to hospitals?”

Prof Bradley replied: “Not really, because, as I said, it was already known that hydroxychloroquine was a drug which is cardiotoxic, could cause prolonged QT (changes in the heart’s electrical signalling system), and the appropriate way of ensuring that that risk didn’t have adverse effects for patients would be for that patient to be monitored,” he said.

Dr M: “Would you agree as a general principle that it is good medicine and good practice to treat a condition early in its progression?”

Prof B: “In general yes, the earlier an intervention in a disease process, that’s often beneficial.”

Dr M: “Do you understand the mechanism of actioning hydroxychloroquine in SARS-CoV-2?”

Prof B: “I can’t say I understand it in detail, no.”

Dr M: “Just for the benefits of the committee, it is a Zinc ionophore, so it allows the ingress of Zinc into the cells that are infected to disrupt viral replication. So it is necessary to interfere during the early phase of a viral illness, and it will not work in that way later in the progression of the disease. Do you think that that is a reasonable explanation of a mechanism in action?”

Prof B: “Again, it is not my area of expertise, but I think that could be a mechanism of action. I think again there are other people with greater expertise than myself, and a greater expertise that I would suggest of a general practitioners in general. And it would be important that we would trust the expertise of other people who have greater knowledge of the mechanisms of action and the potential for this medicine.”

Marseilles

At five minutes to 1pm, Dr Morrissey raised the persona of Prof Didier Raoult in Marseille and asked the Professor if he was ‘somebody of scientific authority?’

This wasn’t a trick question, Dr Morrissey had (again) provided this information to the Prof for the provision of his expert report.

Prof Bradley: “Sorry, who are you referring to?”

Dr M: “Prof. Raoult?”

Prof B: “I am afraid I don’t know..”

Dr M: “I supplied materials for your report. He was one of the authors?”

Prof B: “You will have to refer me to the particular material.”

At this point the hearing adjourned for lunch and resumed at 2pm. From here on, the inquiry heard the expert witness admit the evidence put forward by Dr Morrissey was ‘outside his area of expertise’ repeatedly and the session descended into the realm of relative farce.

Dr Morrissey asked Prof Bradley if he was aware of the Surgisphere Scandal and its impact on hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for covid.

The Guardian report on Surgisphere states:

The World Health Organization and a number of national governments have changed their Covid-19 policies and treatments on the basis of flawed data from a little-known US healthcare analytics company, also calling into question the integrity of key studies published in some of the world’s most prestigious medical journals.

Prof Bradley replied that he wasn’t aware of this scandal until two days previously.

Dr M: “So, Professor, would it be fair to summarise the Surgisphere Scandal as there was fake data used in studies published in some of the most important and influential journals in the world that was detrimental to the case for hydroxychloroquine in the treatment of Covid?”

Prof B: “Yes, I suppose I would say that this was data which subsequently was proved to be unreliable.”

Global Health Emergency?

Dr M: “Would you agree that Covid was a global health emergency?”

Prof B: “Yes.”

Dr M: “Would you think that doctors should sit on their hands until the randomised controlled trials were all performed before we treat patients?”

Prof B: “Again, I think it would be appropriate for clinicians who were in a position to treat the patients and observe them within the context of a clinical trial…”

Dr M: “You did say earlier though that early treatment is better than later treatment?”

Prof B: “Yes. But again that’s earlier treatment in - once a treatment has been established as having a useful clinical effect..”

Dr M: “So your advocating the non treatment of sick patients?

Prof B: “I am not advocating non treatment, I am advocating safe and effective treatment.”

Dr M: “So the Guide to Ethics of the Medical Council says I am entitled to use my clinical judgment, is that correct?”

Prof B: “That is correct.”

Dr M: “And I am entitled to use that judgments on the basis of emerging evidence, is that correct?”

Prof B: “Yes, that’s correct.”

‘Asymptomatic Spread’

Dr M: “Before I move on, I just want to clarify, he is standing over the assertion that there is significant asymptomatic spread of Covid-19?

Prof B: “I am not making that assertion, I am saying that that was a reasonable supposition based on the experience of the early days of the pandemic. I am not in a position, and again it is not my area of expertise to say exactly whether asymptomatic spread was a major factor. It is just my understanding from the experience of the early phase of the pandemic that it seemed likely that there was asymptomatic spread.”

Infection Mortality Rate

Dr M: “You criticised my assertion of the infection mortality rate of 0.2%.”

Prof B: “Well, I just felt that the way that came across in, I think it was, I can’t remember now whether it was a tweet or a public statement that you made, but I think quoting that figure in a way that was disseminated to the general public without explanation as to what would be an expected infection mortality rate, then I think that figure is misleading and likely to give a sense that this illness was not dangerous to people who might become infected, when in fact it did constitute a danger to a significant number of patients.”

Dr M: “In your report you cite a range from 1% to 25%. Just for the sake of clarity, 25% would mean that one in four patients with Covid were dying?”

Prof B: “Yes, and that was a figure that was reported from some quarters. So, and again not atypical of pandemics..”

Dr M: “So you are saying that even if it is accurate, it is poor professional performance on my part to cite 0.2 per cent?”

Prof B: “Well, to put it in a public forum where there was no context for people to understand what that meant, it looks like a low figure, so 0.2% to the average member of the public looks like a low figure. And, therefore, as I said, to be putting out that information in a report to the general public is potentially giving the impression that this was not a serious illness.”

Was Treating Patients Wrong?

Dr M: “Going back to the case reports about my patients, was there evidence of moral turpitude in relation to my treatment of patients?”

Prof B: “Not that I - I don’t think, no, I don’t think I was saying that, I am not saying that there was moral turpitude in terms of the treatment of the patients, other than the administration of drugs which were not approved. I am just saying in relation to that particular aspect of your treatment, I felt it was something which was wrong for you to be doing in the context of clear directives from appropriate authorities that these treatments were not to be used in the community setting.

Dr M: “So we are to rely on authorities and not evidence?

Prof B: “Well, no, I would say you should rely on evidence, but the evidence that we should rely on is evidence that comes from the appropriate authorities. And again I think it comes down to a matter of, in this circumstance who - in whom one places one’s trust.”

Pfizer’s Adverse Outcomes - 1,223 Dead

Dr M: (re exhibit before the inquiry) So this is an internal document from Pfizer. It was published under Court Order. Pfizer had not planned to release it for 75 years. And I just draw your attention to the second page and the box?

Prof B: “Yes.”

Dr M: “So just to clarify, you were in practice during Covid, is that right?

Prof B: “Yes, I was.”

Dr M: “Was your practice administering the Covid vaccine?”

Prof B: “Yes, we did.”

Dr M: “Were you aware of the data in this box?”

Prof B: “I can’t say I was, I am not quite sure when this data was published -

Dr M: “It was widely published when it was released under Court Order.”

(April 30 2021)

Dr M: “Could you just read out what the number is under the fatal number?”

Prof B: “It says 1,223.”

Dr M: “Just reiterate, so 1,223 people died in a group of 42,000 people who were administered this treatment. This is Pfizer’s own data. Can you confirm that?”

Prof B: “Well, that’s my understanding from what you are telling me.”

Dr M: “Were you aware of this when you were administering this product to your patients?”

Prof B: “Well, given that we started administering before this data was available, I wasn’t aware of it, and I subsequently --

Dr M: “But had the randomised controlled trials not been done?”

Prof B: “So basically it’s saying that these people who administered the vaccine died. It doesn’t say that they died as a consequence of being administered the vaccine. There were people dying during that pandemic from the kind of things that people generally die from. Also the deaths from Covid, as we learnt unfortunately the vaccine didn’t necessarily protect everyone who got it from Covid.”

“So, as I say, I am not in a position to say whether or not these fatalities are necessarily causally related to the administration of the vaccine. But if they were I would still trust that it is something that the National Immunisation Committee would review and have highlighted to us rather than picking up on, as I say, an individual set of data like this without understanding the wider context on what this data actually means.”

Dr M: “Would you agree it is a cause for concern that 1,223 people died in the first three months?”

Prof B: “Absolutely, and that’s why I would expect, and I would have been reasonably confident that people like the EMA, or the National Immunisation Committee would look at this data and explore whether those fatalities were, as it were, coincidental or were potentially causal from the vaccine.”

Dr M: “How many cases in the international literature are you aware of where patients died from the co-prescribing of azithromycin and hydroxychloroquine?”

Prof B: “I don’t have a figure for that, but, as I say, it was highlighted to us practitioners by the HSE, the EMA and the manufacturer of hydroxychloroquine, Sanofi.”

Dr M: “I did a search at the time and it was one.”

….

Safe and Effective in Children?

Dr M: “Just to refer back to the Pfizer disclosure there, and in relation to my tweets and your criticism of my tweets; do you think it is reasonable on the part of a practitioner to exercise caution in relation to the use of this Pfizer product in children?”

Prof B: “Again, I will go back to I think a fundamental point here, back to who one trusts in relation to this kind of guidance as to what is safe or unsafe. As I say, as an individual practitioner, I feel it is -- if it is deemed by people who have more expertise and look into this in greater depth than me as a practitioner can do, that I think again one has to respect their expertise and their judgment as to whether or not this is safe in any particular group of patients or potential patients.”

Dr M: “So would it be fair to characterise that you think this is safe and effective in children?”

Prof B: “Again I am not in a position to say whether it is safe and effective in children, I would be reliant on others to guide me as to whether it is safe and effective in children. But again if I was guided by the appropriate authority, as I have said, in this instance it would be the National Immunisation Committee.”

Off Label Prescribing

Dr Morrissey submitted a document into evidence on off label prescribing of ivermectin.

Dr M: “So that document …clarifies that oral Ivermectin is an off label product available from pharmacies, and it is actually a HSE document that recommends it for the use of drug resistant scabies… it serves to validate my stance around off label prescribing. So are you aware, Professor, of the extent of off label prescribing in general practice and in various medical disciplines?

Prof B: “I think as I have referred already, it is relatively uncommon in general practice compared to specialist practice…” (The professor mentions paediatrics “and sometimes for indications that are not specifically within the marketing authorisation for that medicine.”)

Dr M: “Would it surprise you if I was to tell you that the scale of off label prescribing in outpatients or general paediatrics, even in the general practice setting, is about 30%?”

Prof B: “That figure wouldn’t entirely surprise me in relation to paediatrics, because as I have mentioned just a moment ago, in paediatric practice there is quite a lot of medicines which are used in paediatrics which haven’t been through, as I say, the same approval process as there would be for adults.”

PCR “dogshit”

Dr M: “I will just move to the subject of PCR. You were critical of my reference of the Corman-Drosten review and the Yeadon paper. So the PCR, you were unhappy with my characterisation of the PCR test as dogshit.”

Here Dr Morrissey refered to a Portuguese court ruling on PCR that was referenced in one of his tweets. He asked Prof Bradley if he understood the ruling or went through the detail of the ruling made by the Judge.

Dr M: “The specific detail was that there was a 97% false positive rate based on the cycle threshold that was being used in the test that was being applied. Were you aware of that?

Prof B: “I am aware that one of the issue was this aspect of cycle tests, cycle, yeah, the numbers of cycles that the PCR test was put through. Again it is rather technical, not quite within my expertise. The 97% false positive rate, again it is a problem with tests that the tests, the false positive rate will vary with the prevalence of the condition in the community.”

Dr M: "“Are you aware of who Kary Mullis is?”

Prof B: “Sorry, who?”

Dr M: “Prof. Kary Mullis?”

Prof B: “No, I can’t say I know that individual either.”

Dr M: “Okay. I accept what you say in relation to your knowledge of PCR, but I just want to probe you a little bit because you are quite critical of my appraisal of PCR and criticism of PCR. So what was the standard cycle threshold used by our National Virology Centre and Prof. DeGascun?”

Prof B: “I am afraid I don’t have that figure to hand. I did look into it a little bit in relation to my further - my initial reading of the Portuguese case. So I know that the cycle threshold is an issue. It seems to me a technical issue in terms of virology, so it is not something I would claim to have expertise on. But, as I say, I do have confidence that the people looking at the Irish Public Health Authorities, and NPHET, for example, were guided by people would have the necessary expertise to make judgments about the cycle threshold and the technicalities of the PCR test.”

Dr M: “They went into the details of PCR testing in quite a detailed way in the Portuguese ruling, and they said that beyond 25 cycles the test was unreliable for detecting live virus. So would it surprise you if I told you that we were using 45 cycles on our PCR tests?”

Prof B: “Well, first of all, I don’t know what the figure is for our usage, but I do know that the people who have the appropriate expertise were aware of this cycle threshold issue….”

Dr M: “And are you aware that each cycle threshold doubles the amount of material?”

Prob B: “Again, I have said, it is not my area of expertise and I don’t know in detail what cycle thresholds are about.”

Dr Morrissey clarified to the inquiry that the material he is referring to is ‘infectious material.’

Dr M: “So the difference between a cycle threshold of 25 and 45 is 2 to the power of 6, which is one million. So you are amplifying by one million the amount of material between the cycle threshold of 25 and 45.”

“And Prof. Kary Mullis is the Nobel prize winner -”

Legal Advisor to the Committee Patricia Dillon: “Is he or she going to give evidence?”

Dr M: “He is dead.”

Ms Dillon: “Well, that answers that.”

Neasa Bird BL for the CEO of the IMC then interjected to ask Dr Morrissey to be fair to the expert witness in terms of his expertise.

N Bird: “Firstly, a question has to be formulated. And secondly, as Ms. Dillon had already advised Dr. Morrissey, reference to a lot of material, as in reliance on other sources and so on, that to be fair to Prof Bradley I think needs to be put to him. He has also I think answered on three or four occasions similar questions to the evidence in terms of his response that he is not a virologist and that he was relying on the advice of virologists.”

Dr Morrissey clarified the reason for his questions.

Dr M: “So the line of questioning was just to try to ascertain how much knowledge and research he had done himself in terms of his criticism of my tweets and my criticisms of the PCR test in how I talked about it.”

“Unhelpful and likely to induce vaccine hesitancy”

With less than ten minutes to the close of the day’s proceedings, Dr Morrissey raised the following tweet he posted on June 21 2021, regarding ‘experimental unlicenced gene therapy’ which the CEO alleges was:

‘inappropriate and/or undermined public health guidelines and/or or public health authorities and/or were not in accordance with the Guide to Professional Conduct & Ethics for Registered Medical Practitioners (Amended) 8th Edition 2019:’

Dr M: “And I have linked to the information of excess mortality rising in Israel and this is in the Notice of Inquiry, it’s one of the tweets that you believe characterises my problematic approach to the subject.

Prof B: “So as I think I mentioned at the time, the recurring description of this as experimental gene therapy was unhelpful and likely to induce vaccine hesitancy. I think there were people in appropriate positions in NPHET and the National Immunisation Committee to decide on the basis of what I would regard as, what I would expect to be robust evidence as to whether or not there were harms or benefits associated with vaccinating children.”

“In terms of harms, I am not aware of there being any additional harms noted in the case of children as opposed to adults, and the harms that were noted in relation to adults tended to be very minimal in terms, as I say, things like soreness at the injection site.”

“And as I say, while children were not as badly affected by Covid-19 as adults, there were definitely instances of Covid-19 in children and indeed not in this country but there were deaths in children with Covid-19.”

Phase Three Trial

Dr M: “So are you aware that when you are administering the Pfizer product in your practice, that it was in a phase 3 trial?”

Prof B: “No, I wasn’t aware of that but again - sorry, I wasn’t aware of that specifically, but I do know that all new drugs when they are released with marketing authorisation or even provisional market authorisation are subjected to further evaluation in ongoing clinical trials.”

Dr M: “So if it is in a phase 3 trial, surely its description as being experimental is accurate, no?”

Prof B: “No, I don’t think - it’s not entirely inaccurate from a purely academic or scientific point of view I suppose because a trial is in essence an experiment. But to describe something to the general public as experimental suggests that it is untested or untried. So I think it is unhelpful to use that term in relation to drugs which are undergoing clinical trials. As I say, it is while perhaps technically and scientifically true, to put that out in a public forum like social media is unhelpful because it conveys the public an idea that this is somehow untested or that, as I say, that they necessarily need to be weary of taking the particular treatment.”

Dr M: “Are you aware that it was under an EUA at the time?”

Prof B: “Sorry, you might just clarify what you mean by EUA?”

Dr M: “Emergency use authorisation.”

Prof B: “Yes, I know that some of these vaccines were under emergency use authorisation and, as I say, that was to do with the fact that we were in a public health emergency and particularly in relation to an infectious disease, pandemic, it is often the case that there is a need to proceed with the rollout of a medicine which hasn’t gone through all the rigours of procedures that might be carried out in relation to other medicines.”

Dr M: “So it wasn’t fully licensed then?”

Prof B: “Well, yes, yes, I suppose it’s not in the sense fully licensed but to say that is not helpful because it infers that it wasn’t licensed at all. It had been licensed. It was a conditional licence because there was the recognition that this vaccine had come along quickly.”

“What does mRNA stand for?”

Dr M: “What does mRNA stand for?”

Prof B: “Sorry?”

Dr M: “What does mRNA stand for?”

Prof B: “mRNA stands for messenger ribonucleic acid.”

Dr M: “No, actually it stands for modified ribonucleic acid?”

Prof B: “Pardon me, modified. Well, it can stand for messenger as well, apologies.”

Dr M: “In the setting of the products we are talking about, it’s modified. Do you know what the modification is?”

Prof B: “No, we’re getting into areas that are beyond my expertise.”

Dr M: “There was a doctorate given to a colleague of yours in UCC, Dr. Karikó, for her achievements in mRNA technology. Were you aware of that?”

Prof B: “No, but again as I have said it is not my field.”

Dr M: “Is ribonucleic acid genetic material?”

Prof B: “It is, yes.”

Dr M: “So in summary, is the characterisation of experimental unlicensed gene therapy inaccurate?”

Prof B: “Yes, I am saying that it is inaccurate because it conveys an overall impression about the nature of the vaccine. So even though there may be technical aspects to which it is clearly something that was modified, does contain RNA, but to describe that as unlicensed experimental and gene therapy is to convey a completely wrong characterisation of the vaccine.”

At this point, Thursday’s hearing wrapped up at the scheduled time of 4pm, to continue on a date to be confirmed. Sources indicate this could be in September or October.

Dr Morrissey confirmed at the hearing that he had not completed his cross examination of the witness.

Meanwhile, Dr Billy Ralph will find out tomorrow Tues (July 28th) whether he has been found guilty of professional misconduct. This hearing takes place at the Talbot Hotel, Stillorgan at 10am.

*Thanks to those that support and share this work - much appreciated.

Buy the author a Coffee

Share

Previously:

Subscribe now

Josephine Keohane, from Cork, was 59 years old when she became ill with covid in December 2020. She took a covid test after speaking to a friend on the phone.

That friend was Cllr Peter O’Donoghue (Aontú), from Kilworth, North Cork.

When her test came back positive, Cllr O’Donoghue reccommended she contact Dr Pat Morrissey.

Speaking to this Substack, Josephine said she became ill ‘very quickly.’

“The approximate date I was diagnosed with Covid was somewhere around the 19th of December 2020. I had become quite ill very quickly. I took a Covid test at home after chatting with a friend on the phone about it,” she said.

Now 64, Ms Keohane credits Dr Morrissey with ‘saving her life’.

“I was incredibly ill at the time. I was honestly afraid for my life,” she said.

A psychotherapist by trade, she currently lives between Sweden and Spain.

“My husband works in Sweden, our home is in Spain. I live between Sweden and Spain at the moment, but I come home regularly to Ireland to be with my adult daughters,” she said.

Reading about the Irish Medical Council inquiry into allegations of professional misconduct against Dr Morrissey, Ms Keohane said she found the proceedings ‘unfair, unjust and unfounded’ given how the Adare based GP helped her when she needed him.

“I was struggling to breathe, I had an uncontrolable cough that hurt my ribs and was making me sick. I was sweating. I was unable to sleep or eat. I had lost my sense of smell and taste. My son - who was then in his 30’s - was scared as he thought I was going to die,” she said.

“I had never felt this bad ever in my life. I can struggle with my lungs during any flu but never did I feel like this. I also have a heart issue (angina) which made me more vulnerable according to reports. It was a scary time,” she said.

In consultation with Dr Morrissey, he asked her questions about her symptoms.

Josephine said she was relieved to find someone to listen and advise her. To treat her symptoms, she said Dr Morrissey prescribed ivermectin, hydroxycholoquin, zinc, vitamin D and azithromycin.

Within a few days, Josephine began to experience some improvement. She regained the strength to walk. She began taking solid foods again. Eventually, she made a full recovery, under the close eye of Dr Morrissey.

“It was after about three days that my symptoms began to ease - though not completely. I was able to walk without losing my breath. I started eating again,” she said.

Her recovery took a few weeks, but she believes Dr Morrissey saved her life.

“It took a few weeks to completely recover but I made a full and steady recovery. Dr Pat rang me every second day to follow my progress. He was really very attentive and gave me solid advice throughout. My own GP at that time was following the protocol of the WHO, NPHET and the Irish Medical Council - which was to stay in bed and take paracetamol. Had I followed this advice I believe I would not be here now,” she said.

Josephine and her family became patients of the Adare surgery.

“Dr Pat very graciously took me and my family on as patients. I am currently being monitored regularly for my heart,” she said.

“Last year he diagnosed some cancer on my nose quite early and got this treated by Mr. Neville Shine very successfully. He’s very thorough in his work. He is very conscientious,” Josephine said.

“I believe Dr Pat saved my life during that Covid episode as the recommended treatment by the WHO, NPHET, IMC would have denied me the treatment I needed,” she said.

“I would have been neglected by those recommendations as many others were,” she said.

“I know Dr. Pat would be too humble and modest to say he saved my life, but I know how unwell I was and for the first time I my life I was scared I was going to die,” she said.

Josephine remains under Dr Morrissey’s care.

“Dr Pat continues to provide our health care and I am leading a very healthy life as a result. Just recently he referred me for a hip replacement which has been a success. Dr Pat is a man of integrity, honesty and respect and for that I am so grateful,” she said.

Meanwhile Dr Morrissey endured a gruelling session of evidence at the fitness to practise inquiry against him today at Kingram House.

Expert witness for the Irish Medical Council Professor Colin Bradley was in the witness box giving his opinions on Dr Morrissey’s treatment of patients, his views on vaccines and of the doctor’s social media activity.

This Substack live tweeted details over on X and will compile a full report in due course.

Below is a taste of what was heard at today’s hearing, which continues again tomorrow from 10am.

Share

Warm thanks to those supporting my work - much appreciated

* Buy the author a Coffee

Subscribe now

Previously:

“Feeling much better.”

“Showed marked improvement.”

Details of how Dr Pat Morrissey treated his patients for covid symptoms at his surgery in Adare, Co Limerick emerged yesterday, the first day of the Irish Medical Council’s inquiry against him.

The fitness to practise inquiry heard how Dr Morrissey used “off label” medications such as ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin along with vitamin D and zinc to treat patients with covid symptoms.

Dr. Morrissey voluntarily provided patient medical records to the inquiry and examples were read into the record at yesterday’s hearing.

Feeling much better

A record dated December 20 2022 notes a patient who presented with sore throat, headache and fever. The patient was treated with Hydroxychloroquine, NAC and doxycycline.

“Day 2 Covid. Sore throat headache fever. Not much of a cough. Not nauseated. Happy to take off label meds. HCQ 400mg 5/7, NAC and Doxy.”

Two days later the patient was ‘feeling much better.’

“Throat better, voice back and no fever. Hoping she can see family on Christmas day.”

A patient presented on December 15 2022 with cough and sore throat.

“Covid day 3. First time +ve. Cough and sore throat. Will start HCQ and IVM. Happy to take off label meds. [IVM dose 42 mg by 3/7]. Wt 76 KG. [HCQ 400mg by 3/7, doy 200mg by 5/7] rv Monday. Eats plenty red meat so zinc replete.”

The next record for this patient is December 19 2022:

“Back to full health.”

A record from September 20 2022 notes a patient feeling unwell for some weeks who dramatically improved after ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine.

“Feels sort of flattened since Covid in end of July. Reduced energy. No respiratory symptoms as such. Will try 36 mg IVM.…” Dr Morrissey reveiwed the patient two weeks later.

“Patient got covid on his way to France but had the IVM I gave him. He had been on the weekly HCQ. He noted dramatic improvement after one dose resolution after two doses.”

A record dated March 25 2020 details an out of hours call through Shannondoc. On March 21st, the patient had been given a query diagnosis of covid-19 but did not want to be swabbed.

Dr Morrissey’s record is from March 25 2020.

“Patient is feeling worse, empty retching in the morning shivery and has chesty cough now. Cough is not very productive. Will treat with hydroxychloroquine now in view of clinical progression, risk of severe illness. Patient aware that this is off label.”

Two days later, the patient was holding stable.

“No deterioration. Previous referral for swabbing rejected. Will resubmit.”

By March 31 the patient had improved.

“Feeling better but tummy not right still. Has been able to stay up whole day now w/o going back to bed. No fever.”

Harsh Cough

On January 4 2021 Dr Morrissey treated a patient with a ‘harsh cough’.

“Day 6 of symptoms with Covid. Began last Wed evening. Harsh cough and quite myalgic. Eager to take HCQ and Doxy. Already on Vit D,C and Zn. (Zinc).”

Neasa Bird, BL for the CEO of the Irish Medical Council, read out a record that stated the patient’s daughter was ‘very happy’ that her mother would have access to hydroxychloroquine.

The entry is dated September 4 2020 and notes how Dr Morrissey discussed his treatment plan with a third party.

“Patient has now been confirmed to be Covid +. Still coughing. No improvement with keflex. I spoke with another third party and explained rationale for using HCL/AZM/Zn/Vit D. She agreed to follow this course in view of patient’s symptoms and risk factors.”

Another ivermectin record dated November 1 2022:

“Day 2. Sore face, sinuses, headache. Coughing all night. Antigen positive. Will treat with protocol w/o IVM and rv in 3/7.”

The entry for this patient dated November 14 2022 states “Much improved.”

The same patient became ill again in December.

“Day 3 Covid. Will take HCQ 400 by 5 days.”

The next entry notes that the patient recovered quickly on hydroxychloroquine.

“Patient recovered quickly with treatment for covid in December, nothing adverse to report.”

FLCCC

A more complex case is recorded in the doctor’s notes on January 8 2021. It illustrates how Dr Morrissey had applied his own personal research in his treatment of patients, with a reference to the IMASK protocol from the FLCCC (Front Line Covid 19 Critical Care Alliance.)

“Day 9 of symptoms. I am only aware now of his condition. He is totally flattened and weak and has no taste. No appetite, can’t sleep. Aches all over. No change in last 24 hours but not better either. He is happy to take HCQ/Zn (hydroxychloroquine and zinc.) Other meds written up from IMASK protocol as due to late presentation risks of cytokine storm effects including increased clotting tendency more likely.”

The next record entry is five days later, January 13 2021.

“Very shook. Cough still present but not SOB. Sleeping OK.”

The inquiry heard how the patient developed a secondary bacterial pneumonia before drmatically improving.

“...Coarse creps in both lungs R>L, HR 80. RR 18. Temp 36.9. BP 110/70. A secondary bacterial pneumonia.”

On January 15 2021 the patient “showed marked improvement.”

Four days later, the patient was ready to go back to work.

“Feeling much better, hoping to return to work next week.”

After reading through multiple patient records documenting successful use of ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, Ms Bird examined the official ‘guidance’ issued in respect of these drugs.

“I am going to ask the Committee then to turn to the Interim Guidance for the Use of Antiviral Therapy in the Clinical Management of Acute Respiratory Infection with SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19),” Ms Bird said.

This guidance was published on March 30 2020.

Ms Bird told the committee that the guidance was not intended to replace clinical judgement.

She read out the following paragraph from the guidance:

“The use of investigational or off-label medicinal products to treat patients with confirmed COVID 19 is at an experimental stage. The evidence of clinical efficacy is lacking. Patients (or their next of kin, by phone) should be adequately informed about the uncertain efficacy, and respective toxicities of the agents, and their consent obtained.”

Here is what the guidance said about hydroxychloroquine:

“Highly toxic in overdose, especially in children. There is currently insufficient evidence to recommend systematic use of HCQ and azithromycin in combination for the treatment of COVID-19. Any case being considered for combination treatment should be reviewed with local Infectious Diseases or Clinical Microbiology team with consideration of the safety profile of the combination..”

Dr Morrissey proscribed azithromycin as part of his protocol.

The guidance states:

“Insufficient evidence to recommend systematic use of HCQ and azithromycin combination for the treatment of COVID-19. Cases being considered for combination treatment should be reviewed with local Infectious Diseases or Clinical Microbiology team.”

Ms Bird told the inquiry the medications used by Dr Morrissey have ‘serious side effects.’

Dr Morrissey interjected.

“Can I just interject, sorry, briefly? One of those large trials I have submitted in evidence, it was retracted study, the Surgisphere study, and I will refer to it again in my questioning of Prof. Bradley.”

Prof Colin Bradley is the IMC’s expert witness for the case. Dr Morrissey is referring to the Surgisphere study that recommended anti malaria drugs for use in covid treatment (hydroxychloroquine.) The study was published in the Lancet but was quickly attacked and then retracted.

Ms Bird highlighted guidance that linked hydroxychloroquine to cardiac arrthymia.

Readers could keep in mind the roll out of the covid jabs when reading the following paragraph:

“You will see at the bottom of that paragraph they note that study numbers were very small; that there was a lack of consistency between the doses of each drug used in the trials; that there was limited data evaluating the safety of the combination therapy,” she said.

She then read the following extract from the official guidance:

“However the risk of QT prolongation and arrhythmias is a notable safety concern. The safety of QT prolonging drugs, such as hydroxychloroquine or azithromycin, may be maximized by close monitoring and optimisation of risk factors. Use of combination therapy with azithromycin and hydroxychloroquine should ideally occur within a clinical trial, where both efficacy and safety can be closely monitored.”

In the International Covid-19 Guidelines Ms Bird found a reccommendation that the medications Dr Morrissey was using be utilised only in hospitals.

“Guidelines from the Infectious Diseases Society of America, recommend hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine plus azithromycin only in hospitalised patients with COVID-19, and only the context of a clinical trial.”

The inquiry evidence includes a document issued in May 2020 by the producers of hydroxychloroquine, Plaquenil. Ms Bird informed the inquiry that this safety information was then officially approved by the HPRA.

“It details under the summary its authorised uses. It is noted that it is being used globally in the context of the ongoing pandemic in the management of patients with COVID-19 and is being investigated in clinical trials. However it has no marketing authorisation and any use in the management of the Covid-19 is off label,” Ms Bird said.

She noted that the HSE had initially ‘identified as something which might be administered in a hospital setting or in a clinical trial’ for treatment of covid. However, by September of 2020, the advice had changed again.

“By September 9 it was now being advised that hydroxychloroquine was not recommended as a therapeutic agent outside of clinical trials due to evidence indicating a lack of benefit in patients hospitalised with Covid-19,” Ms Bird said.

She read out advice from European Medicines Agency (EMA) against the use of Ivermectin for the prevention or treatment of Covid-19 outside randomised clinical trials.

“It (the EMA) noted the approved uses for Ivermectin, that it was not authorised for use in Covid-19 in the EU and that no application for such use had been received by the EMA, that following media reports of its use, it had reviewed the latest published evidence from laboratory studies, clinical trials and meta-analyses,” Ms Bird said.

And once again, the conclusion was that insufficient evidence to support ivermectin outside of clinical trials:

“It concluded that there was not sufficient evidence to support the use of Ivermectin in Covid-19 outside clinical trials,” Ms Bird said.

Share

Speaking outside the inquiry yesterday Dr Morrissey said he was heartened by the support he received at the hearing yesterday.

“I’m glad to be here, finally, after almost six years, to face my accusers and I hope to make a good case for my view of how things panned out during the Covid era,” he said in a video recorded for journalist Aisling O’Loughlin.

Representing himself. Dr Morrissey is facing seven allegations of Poor Professional Performance and/or Professional Misconduct. The three person committee hearing evidence is chaired by Ms Jill Long, with lay member Dr Conor McCrystal and medical member Prof Tom Clarke.

The hearing continues at Kingram House in Dublin.

Previously:

Share

Subscribe now

The fitness to practice inquiry against Limerick based Dr Patrick Morrissey is set to begin next week. The Adare based GP is facing seven allegations of professional misconduct and poor professional performance brought by the Irish Medical Council (IMC).

Dr Morrissey is the last of the Irish doctors that took a public stance against covid policies and vaccines to appear before the IMC.

A dedicated husband and father of three, Dr Morrissey runs a busy family practice in picturesque Adare, Co Limerick. He continued house calls to ill patients during covid, prescribing ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine to treat symptoms and prevent hospitalisations. As a result, Dr Morrissey earned a loyal patient base that continued to grow throughout the covid era.

Dr Morrissey is the only doctor before the IMC facing charges for treating patients. These allegations specifically refer to hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, both of which are known to be effective against covid symptoms.

The allegations

• The IMC alleges that Dr Morrissey’s treatment of patients was contrary to prescribing guidelines issued by the Health Service Executive (HSE) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA).

• The IMC further alleges that treating his patients with drugs known to work, which patients were grateful for and which he himself achieved significant results in the treatment of covid symptoms was contrary to the Guide to Professional Conduct and Ethics for registered medical practitioners in Ireland. The IMC further alleges that treating his patients with these drugs was ‘not in their best interest.’

• The IMC alleges that Dr Morrissey’s treatment of ill patients - which prevented any of his patients entering hospital - ‘did not assist in the efficient and effective use of healthcare resources and was ‘inappropriate.’

Notably, this Substack spoke to two of Dr Morrissey’s patients who took ivermectin for covid symptoms back in 2021 and both reported hugely positive outcomes. One female patient said she felt extremely unwell and felt too weak to walk to her ensuite bathroom but after 24 hours on ivermectin, she felt a marked improvement and was able to take a shower.

In addition, since initiating its case against Dr Morrissey, the former head of the IMC Dr Rita Doyle, has admitted under oath that the HSE knew that hydroxychloroquin was an effective treatment for covid:

Complaints

Alongside actual treatment of patients, the seven allegations against Dr Morrissey include three complaints, one of which has since been withdrawn.

Patient Cathy Horan withdrew her complaint against Dr Morrissey after visiting his surgery and reporting him for not wearing a mask.

It is worth noting that then Taoiseach Micheál Martin had issued the advice that two metre social distancing was required in addition to mask wearing, a feat that is surely impossible for a GP examining patients.

James Fitzgerald took issue with public comments made by Dr Morrissey and his complaint remains.

The IMC issued their own complaint against Dr Morrissey in January 2021 arising out of his social media activity in relation to covid vaccines.

Going Public

In addition to treatment of patients and comments issued on social media, the inquiry will hear of the allegations against Dr Morrissey for his attendance at and speeches issued at two public rallies, in Dublin on October 3 2020 and in Limerick on December 19 2020. In Dublin, Dr Morrissey told those attending the rally that he was using a protocol of hydroxychloroquine, Vitamin D, zinc and azithromycin to treat high risk patients.

He further stated that NPHET were ‘completely out of touch’ and the PCR swab result was ‘meaningless’ due to huge rates of false positive results.

It was this rally speech that launched Dr Morrissey into the public realm and as a result, he was immediately removed from his position on the board of Shannondoc.

In Limerick a few weeks later, Dr Morrissey told a public rally that the covid policies imposed by the government, NPHET and health services was ‘totally evil’. And he issued the following rallying cry that offered hope and inspiration to hundreds of thousands of people across the nation:

“I will not let their ignorance and their greed dictate how I live my life.”

“I would rather die standing than live on my knees.”

Comments on Social Media

Finally, below are some of the social media comments made by Dr Morrissey that the IMC regard as ‘inappropriate’ and which ‘undermined public health guidelines. These relate to the PCR test, the false positive rate, lockdowns, early treatments, the notion of ‘zero covid’ and totalitarianism. Note the stats for improvement attached to ivermecin - a 78% improvement in early use and 46% improvement when used as a late treatment.

Here’s a further selection of the tweets forming part of the allegations:

Speaking to this Substack this morning, Dr Morrissey said that while next week’s inquiry will be an uncomfortable process for him, it is not without value.

“A lot of people have to go through much worse trials than me. The case will act as a marker and a testament of what’s gone on and it will serve as an official record. Marcus (De Brun) and Billy (Ralph) have given me great example in what they’ve done and how they conducted themselves,” he said.

Dr Morrissey is not calling any witnesses at this time but that could change as the inquiry process unfolds.

Late last week the IMC changed the dates of Dr Morrissey’s from July 20th to July 21st.

The case opens at the IMC, Kingram House, Dublin on Tuesday July 21st and is scheduled to run for three days.

Share

Those wishing to send a card, note or words of encouragement can post to Dr Morrissey’s surgery: Adare Medical Centre, Station Road, Adare, Co. Limerick.

Meanwhile, the provisional date set for Dr Billy Ralph’s sanctions hearing is July 28th at the Talbot Hotel, Stillorgan, Co Dublin.

Subscribe now

Why the delay?

Writing for Ireland’s best selling Sunday newspaper, Eoin O’Malley is an Associate Professor in politics at the School of Law and Government at Dublin City University.

He is a regular columnist at the Sunday Independent.

He opens with a pertinent question, which he described as a ‘mainstay of medicine.’

“Can I get a second opinion?”

The question, he says, “acknowledges that doctors are fallible and the science of medicine is not fixed.”

Well well.

Interesting that this article appears after Dr Marcus de Brun was found guilty of professional misconduct by the Irish Medical Council. De Brun is currently awaiting his sanctions hearing.

Medicine is not an exact science

‘Medicine is not an exact science.’ How often I heard this phrase at the Coroner’s Courts covering inquests when medical procedures had gone wrong. It was used to help explain to grieving families how a loved one had died. It is correct and it was helpful in these situations, because it is the truth. It is not always the fault of the medical profession that someone has died.

“Questioning medical interventions and guidance is something that is essential to medicine. It enables the profession to make progress and get closer to the truth.”

Yes indeed. This is not rocket science. Questioning medical interventions is also essential to journalism, but the Sunday Indo knows that.

O’Malley helpfully points out that the process of posing questions acknowledges that in doing so, the medical professional will never actually reach the truth, because “there is always more to learn.”

This is a concept based on the virtue of humility, that doctors can be wrong, because medicine is not an exact science. Humility does not form part of an agenda that is evil, because the two are diametrically opposed. Society would to well to remember this.

In contrast, in 2020, covid guidelines were broadcast as gospel and the vaccine was heralded as saviour. No questioning was tolerated. Let’s not forget Kinzen (the outfit founded by former RTE presenter Mark Little) was paid by the HSE to monitor social media ‘misinformation’ during the covid era. The Kinzen state contracts mysteriously disappeared.

Eoin O’Malley says is it “surprising” that the Irish Medical Council has chosen to “pursue and discipline some doctors who were outspoken in their criticism of the State’s covid 19 response as directed by the National Public Health Emergency Team (NPHET.)”

“Evidence suggests Dr de Brun was right and that putting Covid 19 positive patients in nursing homes early in the pandemic likely played a role in preventable Covid 19 cases and mortality.”

To scratch the surface of this statement is to concede that this policy served multiple purposes beyond endangering nursing home patients. It allowed all nursing home deaths to be attributed to ‘covid’ by way of association, with the policy of no post-mortems imposed simultaneously. It allowed for the counting of so called ‘covid deaths’ to feed the propaganda machine’s death count. It required the withholding of treatments known to be effective for whatever covid actually was and as such, the heralding in of the so called vaccines.

For the record, I asked Marcus de Brun if he implemented the ‘end of life’ treatment protocols that hastened death for the elderly in nursing homes, including midazolam. He answered that he did not.

Eagerness to be seen as helpful

Moving onto what I see as the most interesting two paragraphs in this column, O’Malley looks at what happened to public bodies that should have been leading the charge in questioning public policy, for that is their role.

“At the time, there was an eagerness among most public organisations to be seen as helpful and not get in the way of a medical emergency. The courts facilitated a suspension of people’s rights and none of the usual self proclaimed defenders of human rights piped up to question this.”

Here, O’Malley is referring to the Irish Council for Civil Liberties, but for some reason, stops short of naming it.

It’s worth noting that most of Ireland’s ‘public bodies’ are funded by the government and were therefore rendered useless in terms of questioning anything.

This list of public bodies under Lobbying.ie includes most major hospitals, An Garda Siochana, all local authorities, care services such as the Brothers of Charity, the Prison Service, the Courts Service and the Victims of Crime Office. The list includes the Irish Medicines Board, the Medical Council, the Pharmaceutical Society of Ireland and the Mental Health Commission.

The list above includes the Irish Sports Council, now Sport Ireland, one of the few (perhaps the only?) organisation that reversed its vaccine pass requirement during the apartheid style segregation system imposed on Irish society.

The reversal followed a campaign of by Lawyers for Justice Ireland challenging the policy requiring players, coaches and spectators to produce an EU Digital Covid Certificate in order to play, coach, train or spectate. The group argued that vaccine requirement breached privacy rights under GDPR.

Not yet established on Substack, this reporter followed up by contacting parents and coaches willing to speak up against the policy and a report was published on Gript.ie, the only news outlet that questioned any of the covid policies as they were imposed.

Within days, the policy was quietly reversed. All that was required was for decent people to abandon what O’Malley describes as an ‘eagerness to be seen as helpful.’

O’Malley points out that the concept of democracy utterly failed, stating that:

“Opposition parties fell in line and didn’t want to be seen to profit from a pandemic.”

Again, we are back to ‘not wanting to be seen to’ do anything useful which isn’t actually true, since the system put in place was designed to destroy anyone that spoke out against it. Opposition politicians simply toed the line to save their own skin.

The media wanted to be seen to play its part

“The media wanted to be seen to play its part and so largely abandoned its duty to speak truth to power, or even facilitate debate about whether these measures were reasonable or effective.”

Here again we have this concept of ‘wanting to be seen to’ do whatever was required but this was not actually the case. Wanting to be seen to play a part is very different from imposing blanket censorship on the most controversial topic of our time. The media rendered its reporters useless by imposing this system of censorship and has all but destroyed itself in the process.

It is welcome that these words have been published, six years late, but it is not acceptable that a vaccination program known to be dangerously harmful is still in operation to this day, facilitated by the system of public bodies listed above.

O’Malley argues that the vaccines were “shown be largely safe” which is simply not true. He argues in the same sentence that vaccines were “unnecessary for children” without stating why, because if he did, he would have to concede they were unnecessary for the general population. That’s because Marcus de Brun inquiry proved that known treatments were withheld by the HSE and this is where the entire argument for a vaccine program falls apart. It is a pity O’Malley missed this crucial revelation of the medical council’s campaign against de Brun.

O’Malley does concede that vaccines were not the “game changer initially conceived” He points out that they “did not prevent reinfection or transmission of the virus.”

This is a weak concession but may be demonstrative of continued media censorship of the vaccine issue. O’Malley’s is an opinion article but still subject to editorial control.

Medical authorities can be wrong

His final two paragraphs return to his strongest argument, that medicine is not an exact science. The slogan “follow the science” is misleading, he says, because science “cannot and should not set public policy.” Fair enough.

“If we have learned anything from the pandemic it should be that medical authorities can be wrong. We are not well served by a medical regulator that suppresses necessary debate by charging physicians who speak up to challenge medical orthodoxy.”

Coming a week after a finding of professional misconduct imposed upon Marcus de Brun, this article is too late to be helpful for him. It is too late to be helpful for Dr Gerry Waters. Perhaps it will prove useful for Dr Billy Ralph, Dr Michael McConville and Dr Pat Morrissey. Perhaps it will go someway towards a softening of the abusive, hateful discrimination imposed upon those of us that saw through illogical facade of ‘follow the science’ from the start.

Despite the article’s limitations, to have the words above printed in a newspaper for the general population to peruse is a major step in the right direction, so well done to O’Malley on this achievement.

Thanks to Anna Kavanagh of MCompass Media for alerting me to this Sunday Independent article.

She writes:

“The significance of the article lies not simply in its defence of Dr de Brun, but in where the argument is coming from - media commentators. O’Malley’s intervention is notable because it comes from a highly regarded academic and newspaper columnist with deep roots in the political establishment.”

Share

Buy the author a Coffee

The Bar of Ireland hosted a debate this evening on the topic of removing God from the Judicial oath. The members only event took place at the Law Library and featured conservative Catholic barrister, Maria Steen BL versus Fine Gael TD Barry Ward.

The bill, currently at second stage before the Dáil, was presented by Deputy Ward,(also a barrister) in March 2025.

The current judicial oath reads in English:

“In the presence of Almighty God I do solemnly and sincerely promise and declare that I will duly and faithfully and to the best of my knowledge and power execute the office … without fear or favour, affection or ill-will towards any man, and that I will uphold the Constitution and the laws … May God direct and sustain me.”

Ward’s Thirty-ninth Amendment of the Constitution (Judicial Oath of Office) Bill 2025 seeks to remove references to “God” from both the English and Irish versions of the oath, and change the word “man” to “person” in the English version:

“I do solemnly and sincerely promise and declare that I will duly and faithfully, and to the best of my knowledge and power, execute the office of Chief Justice (or as the case may be) without fear or favour, affection or ill-will towards any person, and that I will uphold the Constitution and the laws of Ireland.”

This evening, he faced a fierce opponent in Maria Steen, known for her sharp intellect and outspoken commitment to the Catholic faith.

In presenting his bill, Deputy Ward told TD’s that requiring “people of a different faith or no faith at all” to make an oath referencing God is “inconsistent with modern Ireland.”

“I am not anti-religion. It is hugely important. Many judges believe in God, but it must also be the case that many do not believe in God.

“As a result, it seems unfair to expect them to take an oath that essentially expresses a belief in God or else is a nonsense,” he said.

Let’s start with the question, is making an oath referencing God inconsistent with modern Ireland?

If God is removed, then to whom or what is the Oath made?

Is the concept of a Christian God inconsistent with modern Ireland?

I don’t believe it is and I expect this bill will go the same way as the attempt to remove the word ‘mother’ from the Irish Constitution in March 2024, a year before Deputy Ward’s proposed amendment was presented.

In its Preamble, the Irish Constitution features a strong devotion to Christian ideals, invoking the Most Holy Trinity.

But who is responsible for the Preamble? How did it get there in the first place?

Dr David Kenny, Assistant Professor of Law at Trinity College Dublin argues that God was invoked in the Irish Constitution to secure the support of the Church and in doing so, the Irish people. He argues that ‘condemnation from the Church would have scuppered its passage.’

“Ireland in 1937 was a very Catholic country—93.6% according to the 1936 Census—and very pious. A constitutional document that was insufficiently Catholic would not have been passed by referendum. The draft Constitution was sent to the Vatican for comment in an attempt to offset criticism from the Catholic Church in Ireland. While the Constitution fell well short of the Catholic ideal, it was sufficient to secure a stance of acquiescence and silence from the Pope, and thus from the Irish Church,” Mr Kenny writes.

But even so, the Constitution passed by only 56.5% of the vote.

“In essence, the document had to be Catholic enough, and its religious rhetoric and pro-religious stance were how this was achieved,” according to Kenny.

He further argues that the authors of the Constitution were mindful of the reunification of Ireland and as such, the document had to ‘accommodate Ireland’s Protestant minority while placating its Catholic majority.’

He also notes that Ireland’s move towards secularism has already removed the more Catholic elements of the Constitution with the introduction of divorce, abortion and gay marriage.

“This process is likely to continue as Ireland becomes a much more secular society,” Mr Kenny writes.

At this point, it might be worth asking the following questions:

Is Ireland’s moving away from our Christian heritage a good thing?

And if so, why is there a need for the Irish media to downplay Jihadist attacks on Irish soil?

Today’s debate in the Law Library took place against the backdrop of what appears to be an attempted beheading of a man on the streets of Belfast.

“We the people of Éire,

Humbly acknowledging all our obligations to our Divine Lord Jesus Christ, Who sustained our fathers through centuries of trial,

Gratefully remembering their heroic and unremitting struggle to regain the rightful independence of our Nation…”

Would it be worth considering that the forefathers of our nation had greater insight than we give them credit for? That our ancestors who survived two centuries of Penal Laws - when Catholicism was outlawed and the death penalty hung over the heads of both priests and faithful - preserved their devotion for a reason?

It is refreshing to read then, in The Bar Review’s October 2025 edition, an article by Elizabeth O’Connell SC, who argues against the proposed amendment on the basis that it is ‘not rational.’

She writes:

“The fundamental rights provisions drafted in 1937 met with widespread approval and have stood the test of time. The edifice of the Constitution and indeed the common law protecting the rights of the citizen, though of course, and thankfully, secular, were built with, or around, the concept of the individual that was shaped by a belief in God, with its deepest roots in medieval Christian culture. It would make sense to remove “God” from the oath, if it were the case that God was also excised from the constitutional frame of reference.”

Ms O’Connell argues that the ‘stakes are high’ and ‘that removing a fundamental part of the philosophy underpinning the Constitution is a radical change.’

She makes the point that we are now living in ‘especially turbulent times’ and, echoing the Preamble itself, humbly suggests our view of what it means to be human ‘animates’ the interpretation of rights within the Constitution - a refreshing nod to the worthiness of our Christian heritage.

She writes:

“Disavowing a fundamental part of the philosophy underpinning the Constitution is a radical change. The stakes are high, as with all societal change but particularly now in these especially turbulent times. I humbly suggest that our view of what it means to be human animates the interpretation of rights and further, that only citing the words “modernity” or “pluralism” as a justification for change to long-developed concepts, without an alternative philosophy for the source of rights, is not rational.”

If the bill becomes law, a referendum would be required for the proposed change to the Constitution to take effect, which means ‘we the people’ will have the final say.

Share

*This Substack has asked Maria Steen for the speech she delivered today and will publish if received.

Subscribe now

Criticism of public health guidelines that isolated elderly patients and left others without treatment, has earned Marcus de Brun a ‘guilty’ verdict from the Irish Medical Council.

The finding does not bode well for the future of Irish medicine nor the general public.

The fitness to practise committee of the IMC returned its guilty verdict today, relating to de Brun’s outspoken criticism of covid policies introduced in 2020 and 2021.

Sanctions attached to the guilty verdict will be decided at a later date.

In his submission at the Talbot Hotel this morning, De Brun made a series of sobering points, offering a summation of the past six years from his perspective.

I have set out his submission in full below.

At the end of the submission, readers can find a chronological list of stories tracking the GP’s case from May 2025 through to his most recent appearance before the IMC committee in February 2026.

At the inquiry today, Marcus de Brun started on the topic of care of the elderly in nursing homes, which caused him to resign from the IMC in April 2020.

He said:

“In February 2020, I had my own GP practice in north Dublin. I was also responsible for the care of a nursing home with some 50 elderly residents. In February and March of 2020, although I followed HSE guidelines, and those issued to me by the Irish College of General Practice, many elderly residents at my nursing home began to die at an alarming rate, and I cared for them as they died.

I broke the news to family members, many of whom stood outside in the rain and the cold and observed what was unfolding through the windows, because they couldn’t get in to see their family members.

And I was responsible, I was the agent of the State who was to exercise these policies, and many of these policies were wrong, fundamentally wrong, but I adhered to themand I followed them.

At the time I was a member of the Irish Medical Council. And throughout my medical career, I have always respected the public health guidance and the Medical Council, and I believed that institutions like the Medical Council were here for the public good, that they’re recommendations and guidelines exist to protect patients and promote public health. That’s what I believed, and that’s why I followed the guidelines at my nursing home, and my patients were dying.

In February 2020, the guidance I was issued in respect of my nursing home residents instructed me not to test them for Covid-19. And indeed if I requested a test from the HSE, I was told that if they had symptoms, I was to presume that everybody had Covid-19, and I wasn’t allowed to test patients, because a wave of Covid was expected in the hospital sector and in the general public and tests were not to be wasted on nursing home residents, they had to be preserved for members of the public. Well, I knew that policy was wrong, because we were testing people who weren’t vulnerable, it was the elderly who were vulnerable.

I was instructed by the HSE that if one resident at my facility had Covid-19 that no more testing would be provided, and I was to assume that they all had it, and testing was the only manner that I had to isolate the vulnerable, to protect the vulnerable within the care home facility, but that was pulled in February of 2020.

In March and February, these policies were instituted in anticipation of a wave that never arrived, and in March of that year some 15 patients were transferred from the hospital, from Beaumont Hospital over the course of a weekend were transferred into my nursing home. And I arrived for work on Monday morning to do a ward round at the nursing home, and I was informed by nursing staff that there were some 12 or 15 patients there from Beaumont Hospital that nobody told me about, nobody negotiated.

And what’s more, they hadn’t even been tested.

And when I called the HSE to request testing, again I was told to assume that they all had it, or organise testing myself. This was the regard that was given to the vulnerable people in our society. These were the guidelines that I was following, I was adhering to, because I had faith, I had faith in the medical establishment, I had faith in the HSE, and I had faith in the Medical Council, which I was a member of. I had faith in the regulatory authority, so I followed those guidelines.

I was advised by my colleagues at the Irish College of General Practice to contact family members of the elderly nursing home residents under my care, and to encourage them to sign “do not resuscitate orders”, so that their elderly relatives might not be transferred to the hospital and become a burden. I repeat “a burden”. That’s what my patients were. That’s what the elderly in the nursing home sector in Ireland were, they were a burden.

End of Life Care

The only treatment that I was advised to give those elderly residents who were dying was end-of-life care, midazolam for sedation and palliation, whilst at the same time, at the same time in the hospitals, my colleagues were instructed, the consultants were instructed to treat patients with steroids and anti-inflammatories and antibiotics andhydroxychloroquine, all of this I made abundantly clear through my hearing, and it is on the record for this Committee.

But no treatments were encouraged or permitted within the community setting where nursing home patients, nursing home residents reside. We were not even encouraged to administer vitamin D, not even natural sunlight, because they were locked indoors. Why is that? These were the questions, this was the question, these were some of the questions that motivated my so-called inappropriate comments in respect of the pandemic.

Why were they deprived of treatments available to patients in the hospital? Why were they simply sedated and allowed to die? Why was there an orchestrated campaign against treatments for Covid-19 in the community? The very place where those treatments mattered the most, where they would have had the greatest benefit, where even through the benefit of the placebo effect they could and would have given families hope, hope, the single most important ingredient to any therapy in times of great pain and suffering, why were they even deprived of hope?

Well, the answer is simple, and it is on the record for this Committee, and it is on the record for this hearing. The Covid vaccine was granted. Emergency use authorisation by the European Medicines Agency on the condition that no treatments were available in the community. I repeat that no treatments were available in the community.

So what was I to think? Not just as a physician, not just as GP caring for nursing homes, so what was I to think? How was I to respond?

Treatments Withheld

Somewhere in the region of 2,000 elderly residents died in Irish nursing homes. Ireland had the second highest number of nursing home fatalities in the world, second to Canada. Many of those elderly patients may have simply had the flu, and yet because of financial incentives they were labelled as Covid patients, they were deprived of treatments, deprived of human contact, deprived of the love and the warmth and the affection that the vast majority of nursing home residents depend upon like oxygen. And more importantly, they were deprived of hope. And the evidence for that atrocity is in this hearing and has been put before the Committee.

When the then President of the Irish Medical Council was asked during this hearing to explain why the elderly were being deprived, or what was her opinion that the elderly residents were being deprived of therapeutics that were being made available at the time to patients in the hospital? She replied, and I quote: “Sometimes not everybody can have what they want when they want it.”

Throughout this hearing I have been accused of inappropriate statements, inappropriate comments, inappropriate emotion, perhaps, or an inappropriate place where I made those comments. But is the Committee not remotely cognisant of the inappropriate content of what has happened throughout this hearing, throughout my hearing of what was said?

Let me repeat:

“Sometimes not everybody can have what they want when they want it.”

Tell that to the families of the 2,000 nursing home residents who died in this country and ask any of them do they find that inappropriate? Neither the question put to former President, Rita Doyle, nor the reply itself were printed anywhere in the media, but those words are recorded in the minutes of this hearing.

In April 2020, when I wrote to Minister Simon Harris, as a consequence of what was going on in my nursing home, and I tendered my resignation from the Irish Medical Council, I informed him of what was occurring in the nursing homes. I wrote to President Doyle.

This Committee has talked about an exchange between myself and President Doyle. I hope this Committee is cognisant of the full record of that exchange. And I hope this Committee is cognisant of my resignation letter and the matters raised in my resignation letter.

I wrote to President Doyle and informed her of what was happening in the nursing homes, of the suffering and unnecessary death; my words were ignored. They weren’t actioned. They weren’t escalated. They didn’t form the basis of any inquiry by the Medical Council. And I was talking about people who were dying. And we are here today and this entire hearing is constructed on the basis of inappropriate tweets, or that Twitter is not the right place to discuss these things, even though there were no other places available to discuss things, because we weren’t listened to, we were pushed out, ignored, vilified.

Why is it that my complaints to the then President of the Medical Council weren’t escalated? Would I be here today if I had have been listened to? I don’t think so.

Ignored

Despite complaints from the public, from myself and several of my colleagues, they ignored us. They ignored those who were suffering. They ignored those families -- they ignored the families of those who died. Throughout this hearing you have continued to ignore them to this very day.

Shortly after my resignation, when I attended this public demonstration, in September 2020, and spoke publicly about the deaths within the nursing homes, I was placed under investigation. And my presence at that rally seems to form the substantive basis, a substantive basis for some of the complaints, so-called complaints against me.

Yes, it was wrong of me to attend a public hearing, to contradict that would be facile. It was entirely wrong of me to attend, to supervene or go beyond public health guidelines, but the question before the Committee here is: Why did I do it? I have been a physician for 30 years. I have explained to you what was happening in the nursing homes, people were dying.

So yes, I didn’t use hand sanitizer, and yes, I may not have social distanced at a public rally, but is there any cognisance here whatsoever of ends justifying means? Is there any cognisance here of perhaps, yes, I did, I fully accept I overstepped the line? But I put it to the Committee, I put it to anyone in this room:

If your grandmother was under my care, or your elderly family member was under my care and died as a consequence of what I was witnessing, would you expect your family physician maybe to speak out, to say something to try and do something?

The crime of speaking out

Because if what happened in my nursing home that I cared for was to happen all over again, I would go to another rally, I would, because the crime, the so-called crime that I committed certainly pales in significance to the crime that I was witnessing.

The formal documents, the directives, the physical evidence of these atrocities have been placed before the Council. The Irish Times, RTÉ, and institutions who pushed a blind adherence to all of these guidelines are not interested in that documentary evidence.

And no politician or expert has been investigated, or even asked to account for any of these atrocities.

On March 4th 2021, my colleague, Dr. Gerry Waters, was suspended by the Medical Council, suspended from the medical register; he was deprived of his livelihood for refusing to administer Covid-19 vaccines to his patients and refusing to refer for PCR testing, which he correctly recognised as not detecting clinically relevant cases, and it was being used to inflate numbers and instill fear into the general public.

The then President of the Medical Council, Dr. Doyle, issued a written directive that was mentioned today. And the written directive was that doctors had a moral and ethical and professional, I quote:

“A professional and ethical duty to promote public health guidelines.”

Not simply to adhere to public health guidelines. And the use of the word promote I have pointed out throughout this hearing was targeted and specific, it was targeted towards me and targeted to my profession.

That single word effectively deprived us doctors of any right of criticism, and obligated every doctor in Ireland to follow orders or face the consequences, because any form of criticism is a failure to promote, any form whatsoever is failure to promote.

And the President of the Medical Council to walk upon the Constitution of Ireland and to rewrite the Guide for Ethical Behaviour for doctor, no doctor is morally obligated or ethically obligated to promote a therapy or a drug or a treatment or a guideline if he or she feels that those guidelines are dangerous or detrimental to the health or wellbeing of their patients.

First do no Harm

But that single rule, that single rule, first do no harm, that’s contradicted exactly in Dr. Doyle’s directive that was issued to all of us.

And Dr. Waters, when he was suspended, what was the purpose of that, if not to send a message to all of us, to all doctors in Ireland, that if you do not administer the Covid vaccine, or you do not promote the public health guidelines, you face similar consequences. So what was happening to the Irish Medical Council? The Irish Medical Council is supposed to exist, when I was a member, according to its raison d’etre is to protect patients, not to order doctors to promote public health guidelines regardless of their conscience and regardless of their understanding of what those guidelines are and their understanding of therapeutics.

But despite the warning issued by the Medical Council in written form and in practical forms of suspending a colleague for refusing to administer the vaccine, a steady stream of my colleagues followed, despite the warning, the censures and despite the erasure, and despite the media slur from RTÉ and The Irish Times and the Independent;

• Dr. Patrick Morrissey,

• the late Dr. Martin Feely,

• Dr. Neville Wilson,

• Dr. Vincent Carroll,

• Dr. Anne McCluskey,

• Dr. William Ralph, sitting here beside me today,

• Dr. Gerry Waters,

• Dr. Mick McConville

So was I in isolation? No, I wasn’t, thankfully and fortunately I wasn’t. Fortunately I think for my profession. Some have already been sanctioned, and some are awaiting their hearings with the expectation -- with the exception, and with the exception of the late Dr. Martin Feely, all of the aforementioned have come to some or all of these hearings and to my hearing to show their support. And I know that Dr. Martin Feely would be here with us today were he still here.

It is ironic, I repeat, beyond ironic that the raison d’etre, the motto of the Irish Medical Council is to protect patients and support doctors.

I have been under investigation by this Council for almost six years now. It is probably one of the longest and protracted investigations in the history of the Irish Medical Council.

During my hearing I have not spoken of the toll this investigation has taken upon my family, my friendships, I will only say that at the height of this investigation, myself and my family felt compelled to close my practice, to sell our home and move from our neighbourhood, in part because some of our neighbours didn’t wish that their children should play with the children of the ‘anti-vax doctor.’

The Medical Council that I served on, I believe, has a role to play in that, because I did resign, I wrote a resignation letter, and I raised the concerns, but they weren’t listened to, they were dismissed, and so I am here today. Yes, my language may have been inappropriate. Yes, Twitter is an inappropriate forum, but that doesn’t get past the fact that I raised my concerns with Dr. Doyle, with the Medical Council, of which I was a member of, and those concerns were flatly dismissed and ignored.

You have decided to issue your findings some six years after the investigation has begun. I can only presume that the Council feels the public have forgotten some of the atrocities that were presided over, that the Medical Council, I feel, has failed or refused to investigate or consider.

Whilst I must accept the findings, and I will accept the findings of this hearing, if I am to continue to work and to pay my bills, I do not see this as an honest hearing.

• Those who died avoidable lonely deaths in the nursing homes have not been heard.

• Those patients who died and were deprived of screening and care during the lockdowns have not been heard.

• Those who suffered mental health depression and suicide as a consequence of unnecessary lockdowns have not been heard.

• Those children who were deprived of two formative years of their education and normal development have not been heard.

• Those who have suffered and died and been injured as a consequence of the so-called vaccines, they have not been heard.

• The increase in medical mortality in this country and beyond, since the introduction of genetic vaccines, they have not been heard.

• The increased incidence of cancers since the introduction of these vaccines, they have not been heard either.

To my mind and to my conscience this hasn’t been a hearing. There has been no hearing, and for as long as those responsible remain within the positions they occupy today, there will be no hearing.

In failing to hear these people, these real people, these patients, the Medical Council, I feel, has utterly failed in its remit. And until those voices are heard, be they alive or be they dead, then I say to you, not as a doctor, but as a man, as a father, as a Christian and as a citizen of the Irish republic, that until there is a full public Inquiry into what has been visited upon the people, it is my honest and humble opinion that the government and its regulatory authorities, who acted on its behalf during this pandemic, have blood on their hands.

No Apologies

And I will finish upon this point; you have issued your findings and your verdict, and whilst I must respectfully accept those findings, I say to you again, I make no apologies for being guided by my conscience. I make no apologies for advocating for my patients. I make no apologies for refusing to administer a drug or a vaccine, which I know in my heart and in my mind and in my education, to be both dangerous and unnecessary.

To paraphrase an old philosopher; one day we will all stand before a different court, a higher court, much higher than this one and any of the Courts of men, and I know in my heart that that is a court where a great many of the verdicts of this world will be resoundingly overturned. And that is my submission.”

Share

Subscribe now

Warm thanks to those supporting my work - much appreciated

* Buy the author a Coffee

It’s hard to fathom how the Irish Medical Council can recover from the devastation wreaked upon it by the beleaguered ‘covid questioning’ doctors called before it to date.

Dr Michael McConville’s savaging of his inquiry last week has been perhaps the most dramatic.

Despite all that’s happened, the IMC’s Fitness to Practise committee gathers tomorrow in Dublin (Talbot Hotel Stillorgan, 9am) to deliver its verdict upon Dr Marcus de Brun.

De Brun signalled an early warning of what was coming in April 2020, by resigning from the same council that has conducted the inquiry against him.

The IMC should be warned however, that in the face of its bizarre and blinkered approach, truth will not back down.

Roy Butler’s inquest made headline news across Irish media in September 2024. The young football star (23) from Waterford died five days after receiving the Janssen ‘clot shot’ in August 2021.

It is worth noting that the legal standard for Irish doctors facing allegations of professional misconduct is the criminal standard, beyond reasonable doubt, which is a 95% surety or higher.

By comparison, the legal standard applied to inquest proceedings, including Roy Butlers’, was the balance of probabilities, with a surety threshold of 51%.

In a chapter for his upcoming book Scandemic Ireland Dr Mick McConville has written a forensic analysis of Roy Butler’s inquest. He has given this chapter the title ‘On the Balance of Probabilities.’

In his research, Dr McConville relied heavily on the information reported on this Substack detailing Roy Butler’s story. The coverage here began in 2022, with news that Roy’s inquest was being delayed because pharma giant Johnson and Johnson was withholding information sought by the coroner. Behind the scenes, this Substack has been actively investigating Roy’s case since the day of his funeral, when the PR company responsible for media communications for Ireland’s Health Products Regulatory Authority (HPRA) made a fatal mistake in its dealings with me personally.

I do not use the word ‘fatal’ lightly. Roy Butler’s family know its meaning all too well.

In the emotional fall out that followed the coroner’s findings at inquest, readers and commentators seized upon the word ‘baffled,’ casting judgement upon the various professions involved. But judgements don’t solve mysteries.

In his analysis of the inquest Dr McConville applies clinical precision alongside medical and scientific methodologies to illustrate how Roy’s post-mortem result can not be true.

I have selected the following excerpts to demonstrate why.

At the top of the chapter, McConville states:

“This analysis is not a criticism of the coroner personally. It was an unenviable task.”

Spontaneous haemorrhage?

There are two strands to Dr McConville’s analysis, medical and legal. We will deal first with the medical evidence, in particular, the evidence heard at inquest that Roy’s catastrophic brain bleed was ‘spontaneous.’

The final day of inquest evidence heard from Assistance State Pathologist Dr Margaret Bolster, who described Roy’s death as ‘baffling’. She said a direct link to the Janssen vaccine could not be ruled out.

McConville argues that given his early symptoms (what McConville describes as prodomal) Roy’s haemorrhage could not have been spontaneous.

He writes:

“The Cork City Coroner’s Court returned a narrative verdict. The vaccine, the court concluded, had not been shown on the balance of probabilities to have caused Roy’s death. This conclusion is not supported by mathematical analysis, established medical evidence, or the legal precedent the coroner cited in reaching it.

“Before examining causation, we need to examine the diagnosis itself. ‘Spontaneous intracerebral haemorrhage’ is a clinical classification with a specific medical meaning: a sudden, non-traumatic brain bleed occurring without warning, in the absence of prodromal (early) symptoms.

“The word ‘spontaneous’ is not a synonym for ‘unexplained.’ It carries a precise implication — that the event arose acutely, without a preceding illness.

“Roy Butler had a five-day prodrome of escalating headache, fever, and malaise, documented in real time, which he and those around him attributed to the vaccine. The neurosurgeon who testified at the inquest described signs consistent with elevated intracranial pressure. A prodromal syndrome of this nature is structurally incompatible with the diagnosis of spontaneous ICH. Spontaneous haemorrhages do not announce themselves for over five days.

“They arrive without warning.”

Roy received the ‘one shot’ Janssen Covid vaccine on August 12 2021 at Mulligans Pharmacy in Waterford.

“He looked a bit shook after coming back from the vaccine centre,” Roy’s father Martin Butler told Coroner Philip Comyn.

Over the next four days, Roy sent texts to six different individuals telling them he wasn’t feeling well since taking the shot.

“I’m f*cked after the vaccine,” Roy told his brother Aaron in a text conversation on August 15th. Aaron was concerned that Roy was ‘putting on a brave face’ so as not to cause his parents concern.

“I’m not dying, I’m just not well,” Roy sent in another text to his brother.

In another text message, Roy said he was sweating and groggy, he had a headache, a sore neck and a sore jaw.

“The vaccine has me shook,” he texted a friend.

Raised D-Dimer

Roy’s raised D-dimer results, according to Dr McConville is ‘the single most important objective clinical finding.’

He writes:

“For a general reader, understanding why the elevated D-dimer is the most important single finding in Roy Butler’s case requires a brief explanation of what it actually measures — because the inquest itself got this wrong.

“D-dimer is not a test for deep vein thrombosis, as it was characterised at the inquest. That description confuses a test with one of its applications. D-dimer is a fibrin degradation product — a molecular fragment produced whenever a blood clot forms anywhere in the body and is subsequently broken down. It is, in effect, the chemical footprint of an active clotting process.

“When D-dimer is elevated, it indicates that the body is forming and dissolving clots at present within the vascular system.

“In Roy Butler’s case, one laboratory finding does something no other piece of evidence in the inquest could do: it provides objective, measurable, contemporaneous proof of an active pathological process occurring inside his body during the days between his vaccination and his death. It is not a symptom he reported. It is not a clinical observation subject to interpretation. It is a number on a laboratory printout, generated by his own biochemistry, indicating that his coagulation system was in an active, abnormal state.

“Here is why this matters so profoundly in context:

“In a healthy 23-year-old at rest, D-dimer should be effectively undetectable. There is no physiological reason for a fit young man with no injury, no surgery, no infection, and no known clotting disorder to have elevated D-dimer. The finding is, in isolation, already anomalous and already demands explanation.

“In the context of Janssen vaccination, elevated D-dimer is a cardinal marker of vaccine-induced immunothrombotic disease. It reflects exactly what the mechanistic evidence predicts: the innate immune and endothelial activation cascade triggered by the adenoviral vector and spike protein produces a systemic procoagulant state — thrombin generation, fibrin formation, microthrombus deposition across the vascular bed — which the body simultaneously attempts to dissolve, generating D-dimer as the measurable by-product. This process does not require anti-PF4 antibodies. It does not require thrombocytopenia. It does not require a visible clot on imaging. It requires only that the coagulation cascade has been pathologically activated, which is precisely what the D-dimer confirmed.

“The elevated D-dimer also directly contradicts the spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) hypothesis. Classical spontaneous intracerebral haemorrhage — the hypertensive small vessel rupture, the ruptured AVM, the amyloid angiopathy bleed — does not cause systemic D-dimer elevation as a preceding or accompanying feature. A focal vascular rupture produces a local haematoma; it does not activate the entire coagulation system. If Roy’s SICH were truly spontaneous and structurally caused, his D-dimer should have been normal before the bleed and only mildly elevated after it as a consequence of the haemorrhage itself — not elevated during the prodromal days, not elevated in a pattern consistent with a preceding systemic coagulopathy.

“The D-dimer finding, therefore, accomplishes something the rest of the clinical evidence cannot do alone: it physically places a vaccine-consistent pathological process inside Roy Butler’s body during the days between vaccination and death. It transforms the temporal association from a statistical argument into a biological one. It is the bridge between the vaccine as an event and the haemorrhage as an outcome.”

McConville cites the legal standard applied at inquests and examines the case of Best v Wellcome Foundation Ltd, a 1994 Irish Supreme Court judgement involving the DTP vaccine (diphtheria, tetanus and polio), which the Coroner cited in his verdict.

In offering his verdict, the Coroner described the principle established in Best V Wellcome Ireland Ltd as ‘noteworthy.’ The case revealed ‘evidence that clearly identified a particular batch of vaccine given to the Plaintiff in that case was both excessively high in potency and toxicity and that these two features in that Vaccine were, as are a matter of scientific proof, linked to the injuries suffered by the Plaintiff in that action.’

Here is the relevant section of the Coroner’s verdict:

Below is Dr McConville’s argument, which begins with temporal connection (Roy died five days after the Jannsen shot) and widens to include the absense of any alternative cause.

“The coroner cited Best v Wellcome Foundation Ltd in reaching his conclusion. His reading of that case inverts its logic.

“In Best, the Supreme Court was confronted with conflicting expert opinion on whether a pertussis vaccine could cause the plaintiff’s encephalopathy. The Court, per Finlay CJ, held that it was ‘not possible for a court to take upon itself the role of a determining scientific authority resolving disputes between distinguished scientists.’ The function of the court was ‘to apply common sense and a careful understanding of the logic and likelihood of events.’

“The original trial judge had rejected the claim solely because temporal proximity had not been proved. The Supreme Court resolved that in the plaintiff’s favour: close temporal proximity between vaccine administration and onset of symptoms was sufficient to infer causality, once the pathology was established and no alternative explanation was identified.

“Best proceeded on a binary: either the encephalopathy was a naturally occurring pathology, or it was vaccine-related, and resolved it using three pillars: the child’s initial good health, the close temporal relationship, and the absence of an alternative cause.

“Roy Butler’s case satisfies every element:

• Known product adverse effect: ICH documented in Janssen’s own pharmacovigilance data

• Good preceding health: healthy, active young man with no identifiable risk factors

• Close temporal onset: symptoms beginning on the day of vaccination, fatal haemorrhage on day four

• No alternative cause: the pathologist could not identify one after 20,000 autopsies

“The coroner used Best to raise the evidential bar. The Supreme Court used it to lower the standard, to justify inferential causation from circumstances, without requiring complete mechanistic proof. Consistently applying Best to Roy Butler’s case makes a finding of vaccine causation not merely permissible but, on the evidence presented, effectively compelled.”

Dr McConville concludes:

“The probability that Roy Butler’s SICH was a random background event occurring by coincidence within five days of vaccination is approximately 1 in 3 million. The vaccine-proximate rate of ICH following Janssen vaccination, derived from the manufacturer’s own undisclosed data, is approximately 1 in 125,000 to 250,000 doses.

“The clinical picture, prodrome, D-dimer, no alternative cause, day-four collapse, is consistent with vaccine causation and inconsistent with spontaneous haemorrhage. The legal precedent cited by the coroner supports inferential causation from temporal proximity in precisely these circumstances.

“A verdict of medical misadventure was not merely available on this evidence. It was demanded by it.”

The Butler family continue to seek justice for Roy.

Marcus de Brun’s decision is due at 9am tomorrow, June 4 at the Talbot Hotel, Stillorgan, Co Dublin.

Share

Click here to buy the author a coffee. Thank you for supporting this work.

Subscribe now

Dr Michael McConville delivered a detailed speech to an Irish Medical Council fitness to practise inquiry today before exiting the hearing abruptly.

“Nothing in my attendance is to be taken as acceptance of this committee as lawfully constituted,” he told the IMC assembly.

The GP, who ran a surgery in Cavan town, retired two years ago. He began his submission by outlining his GP history and retirement on January 1st 2024.

“I had no patient complaint against me in my entire career in either the United Kingdom or Ireland.”

“I am here today not out of obligation, for there is no misconduct, but by my own choice to place this record in the only forum that I know, or that I have found, where it can be heard,” he said.

Dr McConville (76) faces five allegations of professional misconduct before a fitness to practise hearing that got underway at the Talbot Hotel in Dublin this morning.

The allegations concern tweets posted on X (formerly Twitter) between January 2021 and February 2022.

The allegations against him concern posts on social media relating to Covid-19 ‘in circumstances when he knew or ought to have known that the content of said posts was inappropriate and/or undermined public health guidelines and/or public health authorities and/or was not in accordance with the Guide to Professional Conduct and Ethics’ for registered medical professionals.

The tweets posted by Dr McConville relate to the following topics:

• Grants issued to GP’s which he described as ‘blood money’

• The inefficiency of masks, lockdowns and PCR tests

• The inefficiency and potential deadly effects of covid vaccines

• The use of ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine as treatments

• The widespread use of propaganda regarding a ‘pandemic’ and ‘vaccines’

• A call to describe vaccines as ‘experimental biological agents’

At the inquiry this morning Dr McConville tackled topics including the constitutional protection of freedom of expression, the details of how the complaint about him came about and the meaning of professional misconduct.

“The complaint in substance is that I acted to undermine the State’s efforts during the global Covid 19 pandemic. That is why I do not know why I am here,” he said.

“I have no idea what that means. I do not understand what the State’s efforts have to do with me as a citizen. Somebody somewhere has to put it on the record. For all of us here, we do not understand the charge,” he said.

At the inquiry function room this morning Dr McConville was accompanied by his GP colleagues Drs Gerry Waters, Billy Ralph and Marcus de Brun.

“I am here because the Medical Council of Ireland has accused me of professional misconduct, allegedly for publishing medical, scientific and social opinions on a public media platform during Covid 19,” he said.

“As I said, I do not know how, in Europe, especially in a period during which the civil liberties of the people of Ireland and Europe were so gravely violated, criticising that, which is a human right, can be defined as misconduct.”

“That right is also protected by Article 40.6.1 of the Irish Constitution and Article 10 of the ECHR. The European Court of Human Rights held that freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society and one of the basic conditions for its progress.”

“There are many other precedents in Europe that, particularly at a time when civil liberties were so violated, it is not only the duty of a medical practitioner to stand up and tell the truth. It is the right to do so, and that right cannot be turned into misconduct, which is what this committee or the Medical Council is trying to do.

“It is also not within the jurisdiction of this council to determine whether or not this is misconduct, because these are laws from a higher source than you. You cannot overturn the Constitution. You cannot overturn the European Court of Human Rights to create an offence of undermining the public health message or undermining the State,” he said.

“I also name others in this submission. Dr Gerry Waters, Dr Neville Wilson, Dr Marcus de Brún, who stood where I stood, and whose inclusion is necessary so that a fair minded person might determine if there is bias in these proceedings.

Dr McConville received a standing ovation from members of the public as he exited the inquiry room having completed his submission. The hearing continued in his absense, with Neasa Bird BL for the CEO of the IMC reading through the tweets as outlined in the allegations against the retired GP.

The hearing is due to continue tomorrow with evidence from the IMC’s expert witness Dr Nick Flynn. Dr McConville refuted this witness evidence in his submission this morning, describing it as ‘hearsay.’

Share

Below is a sample of Dr McConville’s posts on X as outlined in the IMC’s fitness to practise inquiry documentation:

“It’s all a lie”

On or around 4 January 2021 posted:

“Today I received the offer of a ‘Covid Grant’ of €3450 from the HSE. I have no idea what it’s for. Needless to say I’ll not take this blood money. In my opinion it’s a thank you to my profession for keeping their mouths shut”

On or around 7 January 2021 posted:

“The only fact about Covid 19 is that it’s all based on a lie. You don’t really need to know more than that. I hope when we recover from this insanity we’ll not forget that and refuse absolutely to live the rest of our lives based on a lie”

On or around 22 May 2021 posted:

“We now know EMPIRICALLY: lockdowns don’t work, masks don’t work and PCR is a joke. 90% of those vaccinated didn’t need it. What is this really all about? You can bet with certainty that money and power are the real motives. But as history shows this crap rarely ends well”

On or around 16 January 2022 posted:

“Covid was a ‘pandemic’ driven by patients with no symptoms, diagnosed by a test that’s 97% wrong and killed patients already dying. It was cured by a vaccine that could kill you but not Covid, which we also forced on [child emoji] who don’t get Covid”

PCR

On or around 12 May 2021:

“PCR, especially Drosten Gorman PCR, is not suitable for anything except generating ‘cases’. Infections have life spans, like everything. 14 days in the case of Sars Cov 2. If you’re not dead or in ICU by then, you’re healed”

On or around 17 February 2022:

“The PCR test was invented to create and sustain a pandemic to promote the suspension of human rights and the sale of an experimental ‘vaccine’ by coercion. That’s my opinion, which I think the facts support. No PCR, no pandemic, no pandemic no coercion, no coercion, no vaccine”

Treatments

On or around 5 April 2021:

“Lockdowns do nothing except make the poor poorer. Ivermectin saves lives. So why are the people we elected choosing one over the other? Why not have both if we must have either? There is simply no logic to this other than the desire to do harm”

On or around 23 May 2021

“Everyone should take time out this week to write to their respective ministers for health asking why they did not promote early treatment, such as Ivermectin, Vitamin D, C and hydroxychloroquine, for Covid 19. This was a serious failing worldwide and should see heads roll”

Vaccines

On or around 13 January 2021:

“I ask people when referencing these so called vaccines to refer to them as experimental biological agents. At the very least experimental vaccines. Not just vaccines, experimental vaccines. Not my words but those of the people who authorised their use”

On or around 19 May 2021 posted:

“I have more and more people coming to me for advice about these vaccines. My answer is simple: I would not take one myself, I would not administer one myself. I would not give it to those I love. Because, the infection is extremely unlikely to harm them, but the jab may”

On or around 9 January 2022 posted:

“How can any sane doctor advocate a failed ‘vaccine’ for children, when the ‘vaccines’ for them are hundreds of times more dangerous than the disease, have zero safety data and have actually killed and permanently maimed people”

The fitness to practise committee consists of Ronan Quirke (Chair), Audry Deane and Dr Mary Davin-Power with Patricia Dillon SC as legal assessor.

Anna Kavanagh of MCompass Media, a former patient of Dr McConville, travelled to the hearing to support him this morning.

Ms Kavanagh said she found the GP to be ‘one of the kindest, most caring and most conscientious doctors’ she has experienced.

“During the Covid period, when many people found access to face to face medical care difficult, Dr McConville continued to see patients in person. In my own experience and observation, people who were struggling to obtain direct consultations elsewhere turned to him for help. He assessed, treated and referred patients when necessary, including arranging hospital appointments where required.”

“Dr McConville retired in January 2024 after more than four decades in medicine. I can honestly say that I am still grieving his retirement. Finding a doctor you trust completely, who knows you, listens to you and makes you feel genuinely cared for, is not something to be taken for granted,” she said.

“I travelled today because I wanted, in a modest way, to acknowledge the care, commitment and humanity that I personally experienced as his patient,” she said.

There were two freelance reporters present for this morning’s proceedings. There has been no published main media coverage as yet.

*Update - Dr McConville’s inquiry has been covered on Breaking News.

The hearing is due to continue tomorrow.

Share

Thanks to those that support and share this work - much appreciated.

Buy the author a Coffee

Subscribe now

I wrote about a Wexford farmer that stood to address the Irish Medical Council committee at Billy Ralph’s hearing last week.

He is 71 years old, a life long farmer and married to a retired chief superintendent. He knows the law. More importantly, he knows what is right and wrong.

His name is Paddy Kehoe.

His story struck me because he was near tears when the exchange between himself, Committee Chair Paul Harkin and Senior Counsel Patricia Dillon culminated in his resuming his seat.

It is important to remember, that Billy Ralph’s family were present through the day’s proceedings, when Dr Clare Craig gave her expert evidence in the morning session. During closing statements from the IMC CEO’s barrister Neasa Bird, Billy’s wife Paula took a seat outside the function room.

This sight reminded me of families that have lost loved ones during inquests, who are often invited to sit outside during pathology evidence, because the clinical details of post-mortem can be overwhelming for them.

Billy Ralph isn’t dead thank God, but the calculated attempt to kill off his conscience has continued for five years.

Paddy Kehoe - not an activist, journalist nor expert in anything apart from his farm - captures what’s really at stake here. This isn’t about point scoring, nor issuing judgements or taking sides, it’s beyond that. We have a duty to speak up against the dangerous creep of a totalitarian onslaught that is threatening us literally, to the point of life and death.

I asked Paddy why he felt so strongly about what is happening to Billy Ralph.

“My biggest concern is that if we - any of us, a member of a profession or not - if we cannot give our opinion on a situation, we might as well be under Stalin. That’s how serious this is,” he said.

“We are depending on people like Billy Ralph for guidance and we depend on his feeling free to criticise the government, especially given the seriousness of what was happening in the country at the time.

“Do you remember how dangerous it was at the time? That there was a risk of people being vaccinated against their will? If we are on our own, without people like him, then we are in the dark. It’s that serious,” Paddy said.

The Enniscorthy based farmer is a praying man, his life’s work rooted in the soil. He is someone who likes to probe deeper issues. He said he was disgusted by the things he heard Patricia Dillon SC say in her legal advice to the committee, for how they may find Dr Ralph guilty of professional misconduct without ever harming a patient.

Paddy Kehoe described the legal advice as biased and leading.

“I wasn’t happy with any of it. That barrister was out of order. It’s crazy stuff she was saying.

"She was leading the committee down a narrow path to where the government wants their decision. She was trying to deny the committee the opportunity to decide that Billy Ralph was right,” he said.

“We had two fantastic testimonies that day and I thought it looked very good for Billy. Then the barrister began to speak and gave all these examples of people that had been found guilty of professional misconduct, she gave an example of a doctor who sexually assaulted his daugher - how dare she talk like that? I felt at the time that it was so completely wrong."

“I stood up because none of it makes any sense. Surely Billy Ralph has been proven to be even more right now than he was six years ago?”

“It is the hypocrisy of the whole thing. The chairman set the tone from the start, telling people how to behave when people were objecting because they we were restricted from hearing. He was extraordinarily rude without any good reason. He spoke down to the people that had travelled in there to listen. He just dismissed them. It just set the wrong tone from the start,” he said.

Paddy was referring here to the beginning of last Monday’s session, when members of the public gallery said they couldn’t hear.

The Chairman Paul Harkin responded that if they would be quiet they would hear.

The people responded that the microphones weren’t loud enough.

The Chairman said that was because he could hear voices talking.

“So could you just please show some respect to this Committee,” Mr Harkin said.

Paddy felt that in comparison, the chairman showed great courtesy to Dr Clare Craig for her evidence.

“Clare Craig gave such clear, compelling evidence despite being questioned for hours and he showed such courtesy to her. Was that all a charade?” he asked.

Paddy believes that at the heart of the matter lies the ability to speak one’s mind freely. He sees a bigger picture in the methodology being used to silence doctors and members of other professions.

“This isn’t just about Billy Ralph, it’s about other doctors feeling free to speak up now and in the future, it’s incredibly important,” he said.

“Doctors don’t need to listen to a barrister to know what is right and wrong. God gave us a conscience. We certainly don’t need the government to tell us what is right and wrong. Particularly this government,” he said.

“And it’s not just doctors. We all need to feel we are free to speak what we sincerely believe. If that stops then we are in Stalin territory. It’s that serious. It’s even more serious for doctors, it is more important for a doctor to be able to speak freely than Paddy Kehoe. If you are a trained medical professional and you feel you need to speak for the good of your patients, you have got to be able to speak.”

“You might not be right but it is extraordinarily important that he or she has the right to speak up. If he sincerely feels he needs to speak up, he is taking a risk doing that, because he might not be right. The risk of being wrong should be enough protection. Then it’s up to us as reasonably intelligent people to make the best judgement we can with the information available,” he said.

“That is the way it has always been and it has got to be preserved,” he said.

The Fitness to Practise Committee has set a date of June 5th to return their findings.

Meanwhile, Dr Michael McConville’s IMC hearing begins tomorrow, Tuesday May 26th at the Talbot Hotel in Stillorgan at 10am. He will be joined by Drs Marcus de Brun and Billy Ralph and members of the public are welcome to support.

Share

With thanks to Paddy Kehoe for his candid interview

Thanks to those that support and share this work - much appreciated.

Buy the author a Coffee

Subscribe now

Previously:

Intro - this article is an in-depth look at the legal advice offered to the Irish Medical Council (IMC) Committee at Monday’s hearing. This advice prompted a visceral reaction among members of the public gathered in support of Dr Ralph, who is facing six allegations of professional misconduct for tweets posted on social media between Oct 2020 and June 2022.

In the final few minutes of Monday’s fitness to practise session something unusual happened. The time was 5.05pm. An elderly gentleman in the public gallery rose to his feet.

Closing submissions had concluded and the final contribution, from legal advisor to the IMC Committee, Senior Counsel Patricia Dillon, had been underway for more than 30 minutes.

“Excuse me, could you just stop, just stop,” a member of the public said.

Committee Chairman Paul Harkin asked the man to resume his seat.

“This is my job, my job is to advise the committee, and that’s the job I do, I am not here to advise the public,” Ms Dillon said.

The man at the back of the room addressed the chairman directly.

“Mr. Chairman, could I object? I am a citizen of --”

“No, you can’t object,” Mr Harkin said.

The man on his feet becoming visibly upset.

“That is all propaganda, that is out -- I have never heard anything like it in my life, this is disgraceful, I want that put on the record, it’s a disgrace.”

“I really don’t care what you think,” the Chairman responded.

Throughout the five day hearing, a stenographer was present, documenting everything that was heard at the inquiry. The transcript does not include the fact that at this point, multiple members the public gallery had risen from their seats, turned their chairs and were sitting with their backs to the top table.

Three aspects of legal advice offered by Ms Dillon appear to have prompted this quiet protest. These were examples of case law selected by Ms Dillon to illustrate gross professional misconduct.

One concerned the case of a doctor that had sexually abused his daughter. (A County Council v W and Others, England and Wales, 1996.)

Another was the case of a farmer who was a qualified vet (but not practising) that did not dispose of dead animals correctly. (Martin v. Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, England, 1945)

A third example was that of an actuary accused of misconduct while managing the financial affairs of the estate of his deceased brother and mother. (E.G v Society of Actuaries in Ireland, 2017)

In outlining details of these cases, the legal assessor was using established case law regarding professional discipline and the legal threshold for professional misconduct.

The nature of the chosen examples prompted Dr Billy Ralph himself to object.

“Can I just make a point? I find those examples grossly insulting,” he said.

“I’m sorry, can I ..I didn’t…” Ms Dillon responded.

“Grossly insulting to me as a person,” Dr Ralph said.

“I’m very sorry, Chair… I’ll continue,” Ms Dillon said.

To this Chairman Harkin replied ‘yes please do.’

Addressing Dr Ralph he said:

“I am not sure why you should feel the evidence and law, case law is grossly insulting.”

“Financial impropriety, sexual abuse and dead animals,” Dr Ralph said.

“The purpose of these cases is to demonstrate to the Committee that professional misconduct is not confined to clinical practice and that it doesn’t necessarily involve patient harm,” Ms Dillon said.

She went on to outline two cases involving covid and freedom of expression. The first, Bielau v. Austria addressed the legal conflict surrounding the limits of online free speech in the context of medical professionals providing public information. It concerned Dr. Klaus Bielau, an Austrian GP and advocate of holistic medicine, who was subjected to disciplinary proceedings for publishing controversial statements about the ineffectiveness of vaccines on his website.

“This gentleman was a GP who had a website for holistic medicine and he published an article on his website concerning the ineffectiveness of vaccines and that bacteria and viruses don’t cause illnesses. He was disciplined by his disciplinary committee and fined 2,000 and suspended for a probationary period and he appealed to the ECHR, and the Court set out Article 10 and set out that there can be restrictions and said that there can be limitations or interference on your right for free speech where it is proportionate to a legitimate aim to do so, and the Court had to consider whether it was a legitimate aim,” Ms Dillon said.

Quoting the Austrian court ruling, she read out the reasons why the sanction against Dr Bielau was upheld. Readers might be particularly interested in this ruling excerpt in the context of Billy Ralph’s objection to the use of trial phase covid vaccines on children.

“...the special duties by doctors, including the special relationship of medical practitioners with patients based on trust, confidentiality and confidence that the medical practitioners will use all available knowledge and means for ensuring the well-being of their patients, implying also a need to preserve solidarity among members of the profession, and the doctors’ obligation to provide their patients with an objective view of their state of health and treatment.”

The second covid era case used by Ms Dillon to advise the committee was Avagyan v. Russia, a European Court of Human Rights case in which a beautician in southwestern Russia was charged by with ‘disseminating untrue information’ by local police in May 2020. She had posted the following statement on her Instagram account which had 2,600 followers.

“There have been no reported cases of coronavirus in Krasnodar or its surrounding region, and no patients with a coronavirus diagnosis have received test results confirming it. Think about why our government would need this.”

In a reply to that comment, she posted the following:

“People are afraid to speak up about it because they fear for their jobs or even lives. Everyone knows that there is money to be had for reporting coronavirus as the cause of death on official death certificates.”

The ECHR found in her favour, citing inappropriate interference with her Article 10 rights.

The difference between the two cases, Ms Dillon said, was that because Bileau was a GP his opinion was likely to engender more credence than the Russian beautician’s.

“The Court said that because she was a hand therapist, because she was not a doctor, that the principles that they had set out didn’t apply. In other words people would not place as much reliance on what she had to say as they would have placed on when a doctor says something and that’s an important point for the Committee to remember.”

Ms Dillon was outlining a third case, that of Adil V the General Medical Council (2022) in the UK, when the elderly objector rose to his feet just after 5pm at the Talbot Hotel in Stillorgan, Dublin.

The case was an appeal brought by Mr Adil pursuant to section 40 of the Medical Act 1983, against a Medical Practitioners Tribunal’s decision of 29 June 2022 that his registration be suspended for six months. The Tribunal had sanctioned Mr Adil because, between April and October 2020, he appeared in a number of YouTube videos stating words to the effect that:

Covid-19 did not exist, it was a conspiracy brought by the UK, Israel and America, that it was a multibillion scam for the benefit of various persons, organisations and companies, that it was being used to impose a new world order, was made as part of a wider global conspiracy and that Bill Gates infected the world with Covid-19 in order to sell vaccines.

As to Covid-19 vaccines, they would be given to everyone, by force if necessary and that they could potentially contain microchips that affect the human body and further the 5G mobile phone technology agenda, the vaccine will transform human 3 psychology and beliefs and could be used to control and/or reduce the world’s population.

Mr Adil had given assurance that he would remove the videos, but failed to do so, and instead uploaded further videos.

Ms Dillon then drew the committee’s attention to the following words issued in the court ruling against Mr Adil.

“It might be a lawful exercise of freedom of expression for a member of the public to deny the existence of the virus or disease. But for a doctor to do so invoking his medical experience and expertise brings into play different considerations, in a disciplinary context, when considering the effect it may have in trust and confidence in the profession and on public health. People will take medical views from doctors on trust and may reasonably take them as representing the views of the profession more widely.”

And she selected the following paragraph:

“The views expressed by the appellant were not dangerous because they contradicted public health messages on restrictions, as such, but because they undermined the public health messages about the existence, and virulence of the virus.”

Readers will be aware that Billy Ralph did not argue the existence of ‘covid’, but did argue the virulence of it, advocating for the use of treatments instead of isolation measures. The IMC itself heard, in its case against Dr Marcus de Brun at Kings Inns last September, that former IMC president Dr Rita Doyle admitted in relation to a HSE document on hydroxychloroquin that it had beneficial effects on covid.

Dr de Brun asked again if this amounted to the withholding of medication that had been identified by the HSE as beneficial in the treatment of covid.

“I think this is just a general advice, not everybody can have what they want when they want it, when you have a limited supply....” Dr Doyle replied.

Returning to Monday’s proceedings, Ms Dillon told the committee that the details of the ruling against Mr Adil were ‘something that I should remind the Committee about.’

The objector that rose to his feet to interrupt had been growing quietly more concerned with the legal assessor’s advice. This Substack can identify the man as Paddy Kehoe, a farmer from Enniscorthy, the husband of a retired Chief Superintendant and a man of faith. He had been listening closely. And what he heard had caused him to become frustrated to the point of addressing the committee directly.

Here is the full interaction:

Paddy Kehoe (PK): Excuse me, could you just stop, just stop.

Chairman Paul Harkin (PH): Sorry, can I just ask you to resume your seat please.

Ms Dillon: This is my job, my job is to advise the Committee, and that’s the job I do, I am not here to advise the public.

PK: Mr. Chairman, could I object? I am a citizen of --

PH: No, you can’t object.

PK: That is all propaganda, that is out -- I have never heard anything like it in my life, this is disgraceful, I want that put on the record, it’s a disgrace.

PH: I really don’t care what you think.

PK: I am speaking for myself, and I am saying that’s disgraceful. I am sorry I didn’t say it sooner.

PH: Sit down with your disgrace

PK: It’s a disgrace.

PH: That’s fine, you are a member of the public, you are entitled to hold any view you like.

PK: Is this propaganda or is it science or is it a hearing, what is it?

PK: It is propaganda.

PH: It’s not, it’s not, so please don’t interrupt the proceedings. It is challenging enough for us to have a Fitness to Practise Inquiry, and we want to make sure that we are as fair as possible to Dr. Ralph --

PK: It is not an Inquiry.

PH: It is an Inquiry --

PK: It is not an Inquiry.

PH: That’s your opinion, but please --

PK: That’s right.

PH: -- just keep it to yourself, because you are a member of the public, you are not a participant of this Inquiry process. And if --

PK: -- criminal activities such as sexual abuse and theft, how are they appropriate?

PH: You can continue to interrupt and disrupt this Inquiry if you wish --

PK: Are you going to stand over everything that was said here? Is this all loaded, everything that was said --

PH: I don’t know who you are --

PK: This is disgraceful.

PH: I don’t know who you are and I don’t really care, you are not a participant --

PK: I don’t care if you don’t know who I am, I am a citizen of the State, and I object to what is going on here today.

PH: You are entitled to object.

Ms Dillon: If I can finish in relation to the piece, I found the document now in relation to that. All of those cases that I have quoted are cases that are real and can be found in any of the textbooks on this area. It is my job not to advise the public, it is my job to advise the Committee, that is what my job is, and if I didn’t draw the Committee’s attention to those cases I would be derelict in my duty. And all the shouting and roaring in the world will not deflect me now.

It is not an easy thing to stand, interrupt proceedings and express one’s opinion in this manner. It is akin to interrupting proceedings in a courtroom. This Substack was curious about the man’s motivations so I followed up and conducted an interview with him. He is from Co Wexford but he is not a patient of Billy Ralph’s. In the interest of clarity for readers (to separate the reporting of official proceedings), I will publish his interview seperately.

I can reveal that Mr Kehoe’s frustration had not arisen with the citing of case law that involved sexual abuse or dead animals, though certainly this had caused him much grievance. It was earlier comments from the Ms Dillon, that had caused him to question her legal advice for the Committee.

Here is what she said:

“The first thing to remind the Committee about is that an Inquiry, which is what this is, is not a criminal trial and it is not a criminal process, and the Courts have regularly held that the standard of proof is equivalent to the criminal standard of proof but that does not mean that an Inquiry such as this is a replica of a criminal process. While the standard of proof in both processes are the same, that is beyond reasonable doubt, matters that would offend a criminal trial can and have taken place here today. For example the introduction of the video evidence wouldn’t be allowed in The Four Courts, it certainly wouldn’t be allowed in a criminal trial without all the appropriate notification. The late production of witnesses is also something that mightn’t be allowed,” Ms Dillon said.

“But none of that is to take away from the fundamental thing that it is important to remember, which is that the standard of proof in these cases is beyond a reasonable doubt, and the obligation to prove the case to that standard, which is a very high standard, rests at all times on the shoulders of the CEO.”

Ms Dillon selected another English case, often cited in Irish law, Miller v. Minister for Pensions [1947] to illustrate ‘beyond reasonable doubt.’

She said:

“And beyond a reasonable doubt means in a very old case called Miller v. Minister for Pensions, the criminal courts said:

“'Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean beyond a shadow of a doubt. The law would fail to protect the community if it admitted fanciful possibilities to deflect the course of justice. If the evidence is so strong against a man as to leave only a remote possibility in his favour, this can be dismissed with the sentence ‘Of course it is possible but not in the least probable’, and the case is thereby proven beyond reasonable doubt.”

In her legal advice to the committee Ms Dillon continued:

“It is often in criminal cases a jury is directed about what is meant by beyond a reasonable doubt by saying the level of certainty you would have when you were making a very serious life decision. Some people would say buying a house, other people might say getting married. It is just something where you can’t say certain because that’s not possible but it is to the higher level. Balance of probabilities is 51% wins the case on the balance of probabilities.

The Committee has to decide this case to that satisfaction. They have to be satisfied before they can make a finding against Dr. Ralph that the case or part of it has been proven against him beyond a reasonable doubt.”

In fitness to practise inquiries, the standard applied is the same that applies in criminal law, ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. The highest standard of proof is required for a finding of guilt to be applied. It means the prosecution must present evidence so conclusive that a judge or jury has no logical or probable alternative explanation other than the accused's guilt. It requires near certainty of an accepted legal threshold of 96% or higher.

The balance of probabilities is an entirely separate standard of proof.

The committee made up of Chairman Paul Harkin, Ms Jill Long and Dr Liam Conroy (a medical practitioner) must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the allegations against Dr Ralph before making a negative finding.

Patricia Dillon SC is a highly experienced senior counsel, she served as a core member of the Mahon Tribunal. Financial disclosures highlighted her as the highest-paid barrister on the Tribunal's 35-person legal team, earning approximately €5.59 million in legal fees for her extensive work.

This Substack finds that there appears to be a subtle anomaly in her legal advice, a certain lack of clarity in differentiating between two legal standards - beyond reasonable doubt and balance of probabilities.

Was this deliberate?

Why mention the 51% rate required for balance of probabilities without mentioning the accept legal standard of 96% for beyond reasonable doubt which is the standard required for a finding of guilt in an Irish Medical Council inquiry?

Ms Dillon points out that the standard of proof required to prove the IMC’s case against Dr Ralph ‘is equivalent to the criminal standard of proof’ but she went on to point out that the inquiry is not ‘a replica of a criminal process’ citing the introduction of video evidence and late production of witnesses (Dr Clare Craig and Dr Angus Dalgelish.)

Is there a very subtle inflection here, that because the video and the witnesses were allowed by the inquiry, that the burden of proof drops to the balance of probabilities?

Would it be more useful to cite an Irish example of case law and discuss this in the context of the Irish Constitution? We know that in Ireland, the right to free expression is bound to state oversight, being ‘subject to public order and morality.’

Certainly, the concepts of public order and morality apply to the public health guidance that Billy Ralph was critical of in his series of tweets posted on X.

But why no mention of the Proportionality Test, the primary legal tool used by Irish courts to decide if a law that restricts a constitutional right (such as freedom of speech) is legally permissible?

The Billy Ralph case presented a unique opportunity to do so, particularly because of the passage of time since the entire country’s constitutional rights were waived for public order purposes.

But what of morality?

I asked AI to define morality in the context of the Irish Constitution. It states that ‘morality’ in this context in not static, it is fluid and evolving. And in relation to the case against Billy Ralph, if he is found guilty of professional misconduct, we must ask, in what direction is public morality evolving?

Something in Ms Dillon’s delivery hit a nerve with those assembled in the public gallery. I will explore this further in my next article.

The Fitness to Practise Committee has set a date of June 5th to return their findings.

For today I will leave the last word to Dr Billy Ralph, who (representing himself) offered this analysis of the concept of professional misconduct.

“Professional misconduct is not established by reference to whether views are easy or difficult for others to manage, or whether they align with the expectation of colleagues, it is established by reference to a defined standard of conduct, that standard has not been identified.”

“Once the concepts are properly separated, the position becomes clear. What is established at its height is disagreement, criticism and the possibility of influence. What is not established is a principled basis, upon which those matters amount to professional misconduct. Without a clear distinction between these concepts, the analysis cannot safely proceed, because the boundary between legitimate professional expression and regulatory breach has not been drawn. And without that boundary the threshold cannot be met.”

Share

Below are the two reports of Monday’s proceedings in Irish newspapers, the Irish Independent and the Irish Daily Mail. There was a freelance reporter in attendance for the Irish Times but his work was not published.

Thanks to those that support and share this work - much appreciated.

Buy the author a Coffee

Previously:

Subscribe now

Coercion, informed consent and vaccine manufacturing methods were some of the topics covered by Dr Clare Craig at today’s Irish Medical Council hearing.

Educated at Cambridge and Oxford, Dr Craig - a pathologist - travelled from the UK to give evidence at the fifth and final day of of Dr Billy Ralph’s fitness to practise inquiry.

“Medical ethics is clear that there can be no coercion - no bribery and no blackmail - and yet there were both,” Dr Craig told the inquiry of the covid jab roll out.

The airing of a controversial clip from the Late Late Toy Show of November 2021, set the tone for Dr Ralph’s questions to Dr Craig.

The show prompted the following tweet from Dr Ralph:

Introducing the clip to Dr Craig, Dr Ralph described the Late Late as an ‘iconic’ show in Ireland. He asked Dr Craig for her opinion of the clip as a doctor.

Dr Craig said children should not have been part of that process. She said that in order to fully achieve informed consent, ‘children should not be involved.’

“The risk to children of covid was negligible,” Dr Craig told the inquiry.

“Apart from that, there was an issue whereby these products could never have prevented infection. It was not that they didn’t, it was that they could not prevent infection,” she said.

Dr Craig described how patients were signing consent forms at vaccination centres before they ever saw or spoke to a health professional.

“The usual standards were not happening,” she said.

Under cross examination by Neasa Bird BL, barrister for the CEO of the IMC, Dr Craig answered questions about Billy Ralph’s tweets.

In response to the tweet above, she described how doctors in the UK were given ‘extra money’ when the roll out phase reached the 12-15 age year old age group.

“In the UK when they started the 12-15 year olds, the fact was they were given extra money to do it and I think that speaks for itself.”

“Money should not be part of the decision making process when it comes to vaccines,” she said.

Dr Craig was quizzed in detail on the following post, in which Billy Ralph referred to a parent signing their child up for vaccination as a ‘vile individual.’

Dr Craig said she agreed with the tweet, she said it was factually correct, but said the word 'vile' was not a great choice of word to use.

"It is an emotive word....not a great choice of word...but I think if you are putting children at risk...you should be able to use harsh words," she said.

Neasa Bird BL asked Dr Craig if she accepted that X (formerly twitter) was not the appropriate forum for such a post.

”Would you accept a tweet like is not the appropriate forum?” she asked Dr Craig.
”I do know that Dr Ralph had done everything he could through the proper channels," Dr Craig said.

“The public health officials used it (Twitter) a lot – that was the medium that was used,” she said.

Dr Craig said during 2020 and 2021, the media was used to terrify people ‘to the point there were people that weren’t leaving the house for years after.’ She said the most affected age cohort were people in their thirties.

She described the entire era as a ‘mass hysteria event’ and said doctors had a duty to speak out.

“People were crying when they got their vaccines back in 2021 like it was some sort of religious sacrament. It was incredibly weird,” she told the committee.

On covid, Dr Craig said the virus was spreading via aerosol and not droplets, as was suggested by the World Health Organisation ahead of the introduction of masks.

“If there is a disease spread by droplets then social distancing ought to be able to impact on that disease. But if its spread by aerosols, you just can’t control it.

“And you don’t really have to – we have a natural barrier – the mucosal layer in the respiratory tract. We are protected,” she said.

On ivermectin, Dr Craig said it was absolutely effective. She cited a study presented to the US Senate that found the anti-viral drug reduced mortality between 65 and 92 per cent. She said elderly patients would have benefited from its use.

“We had an inverted situation – where people were sick and could have benefitted from drugs that were being smeared and demonised by the media.

“The reason that was happening, was because the EMA here and the FDA in America, both have rules around pre-approval of vaccines. So there was a situation where there was motivation to smear treatments, because otherwise the vaccines wouldn’t have received emergency authorisation,” she said.

Dr Craig’s evidence concluded at 1.30pm and the session broke for lunch. The afternoon was taken up with closing statements from both sides and legal advice from the committee.

"In effect the committee is being asked to treat divergence from public health guidance as misconduct – that cannot be the case" - Dr Billy Ralph said in his closing statement.

Readers can follow the live tweet series from today’s session here.

There were two freelance reporters present at today’s inquiry so readers should be able to read further accounts of the hearing in main media later today.

This substack is on the road back to the west of Ireland and will revisit the case again for analysis.

Share

Subscribe now

Thanks to those that support and share this work - much appreciated.

Buy the author a Coffee

Previously:

Specialist diagnostic pathologist Dr Clare Craig is due to appear in person at Monday’s resumed fitness to practise hearing at the Irish Medical Council.

Dr Craig will be the final witness to give evidence at the inquiry into allegations of professional misconduct against Wexford GP Dr Billy Ralph.

The hearing is scheduled to take place at the Talbot Hotel in Stillorgan, Co Dublin at 10am.

Dr Craig was previously scheduled to give evidence to the inquiry via video link on Friday May 1st but that process ran into technical difficulties, prompting the witness to appear in person next week.

Monday’s scheduled hearing will be the fifth and final date of the inquiry examining tweets critical of the official response to covid posted by Dr Ralph on X (formerly Twitter) between October 2020 and June 2022.

Dr Clare Craig is the author of two books on the topic of covid and mRNA jabs, Expired - Covid, the Untold story and her latest book, Spiked - a Shot in the Dark published last December.

Posting on X earlier today on the topic of media reports of a ‘Hantavirus outbreak’ on board a cruise ship, Dr Craig described the pushing of the idea of ‘super spreader events’ as ‘terrifying.’

She argued that the precautionary principle must be applied.

“The precautionary principle is that you do nothing without good evidence,” Dr Craig said.

Challenging the developing narrative on hantavirus, Dr Craig outlined the dangers at play, particularly in relation to basic individual rights such as liberty.

Dr Craig’s evidence follows the attendance on day four of Dr Ralph’s fitness to practise inquiry of UK cancer specialist Prof Angus Dalgleish.

The Irish Medical Council committee examining allegations against Dr Ralph, consists of Chairman Paul Harkin, Jill Long and Dr Liam Conroy. They will hear evidence from Dr Craig on Monday (May 18th), followed by closing submissions from both sides.

Below is a selection of Dr Ralph’s tweets on the topic of covid and covid ‘vaccines’, which he posted to his X account between 2020 and 2022:

“The pandemic is over, NPHET lack the expertise to analyse current data....” (Oct ‘20)

“NPHET are a liability” (Oct ‘20)

“No change in deaths so lockdown a complete waste of people’s time” (Nov ‘20)

“There is no public health emergency, no need for mass vaccinations, no need for coercive population control measures. There is a dire need for Irish people to wake up and take back their freedom.” (July ‘21)

“Health services would be overwhelmed if everyone wasn’t vaccinated -not true –vaccinate the vulnerable, everyone else gets a cold.” (Aug ‘21)

The case brought by the CEO for the IMC alleges that Dr Ralph’s criticism of the covid response was ‘not in accordance with’ sections 20 and 44 of the Guide to Professional Conduct and Ethics for Registered Medical Practitioners and his tweets were ‘inappropriate’ and/or ‘undermined’ public health guidelines:

The case against Dr Ralph bears many similarities to that taken against his colleague, Dr Marcus de Brun, who is still awaiting the outcome of his fitness to practise inquiry.

Dr Ralph is representing himself, as Dr de Brun did throughout his own hearing.

The inquiry resumes on Monday May 18th at the Talbot Hotel, Stillorgan, Co Dublin at 10am.

Share

Previously:

Buy the author a Coffee

Subscribe now

“the government had made it very clear that they considered it a crime to publish anything that might make the public lose confidence in the vaccine” - Prof Angus Dalgleish at the Irish Medical Council, May 1, 2026.

In his sworn testimony at the Irish Medical Council (IMC), Professor Angus Dalgleish said something that struck a nerve.

Undergoing questions from barrister Neasa Bird, he spoke about how he changed his mind from a pro-vaccine position published under his name in the Daily Mail to seeing people ‘damaged by it’ to ‘fighting and screaming’ against the vaccines.

He told the IMC committee that once he had changed his mind, the newspapers refused to publish.

“But when I realised it was wrong, I was the first, you know, fight and scream. And it’s very interesting when I did fight and scream about it, they refused to publish,” he said.

Prof Dalgeish was giving evidence on day four of the fitness to practise hearing against Wexford GP Dr Billy Ralph. Dr Ralph is under investigation for tweets he posted on X (formerly Twitter) between October 2020 and June 2022 that were critical of the authorities response to covid, including vaccines.

“And what I was told by the editor, and also I used to do a lot in GB News interviews for these things, is that, there was the producer on the television, and the editor on the Daily Mail said, the government had made it very clear that they considered it a crime to publish anything that might make the public lose confidence in the vaccine,” he said.

Who in government is responsible for this decision?

Who communicated this decision to the newspaper editor?

I have a particular interest in obtaining answers to these questions because of my own experience of ‘they refused to publish’ here in Ireland.

Did the Irish government make a similar position clear to Irish newspapers editors?

That would explain a lot. I am interested in names, dates, accountability.

In essence, the same logic applies to the case against Billy Ralph.

He is not being investigated for any wrong-doing concerning his medical practice or patient care. He is being investigated for undermining public health guidelines.

Prof Dalgleish’s experience with the Daily Mail aligns with my own attempts to document mounting evidence of vaccine damage during the roll out.

One such effort was for the Irish Times, for whom I had been working almost ten years. A feature length article on adverse effects post vaccine was written by myself and Paul Cullen (then Health Editor) for the paper in June 2021.

It was never published.

Cullen and I worked together on a series of articles from concerned medical professionals citing what they believed to be vaccine induced harms they were witnessing in patients, back in June and July of 2021. These reports were written up and completed but never published.

One of the contributors, a nurse employed by the HSE, cited blood clots, tremors, neurological problems, chronic fatigue and persistent vomiting and diarrhoea among a list of issues she observed in patients post Covid 19 vaccination.

“We are seeing strange presentations post vaccination and we need to talk about this,” she said, back in 2021.

(You can read the full article here:)

We know that there was widespread censorship, but we don’t know who instigated this censorship. Certainly, the European Commission played a role, as documented here. But it doesn’t explain the UK government’s position.

The following exchange between Barrister Neasa Bird for the Irish Medical Council and Angus Dalgleish, oncologist and Professor Emeritus at St George’s University of London.

It documents Prof Dalgeish’s dealing with the Daily Mail, his change of mind on covid vaccines and his defence of the language used by Dr Billy Ralph on social media.

In the end, the discussion found it’s way to ‘humanity.’ Committee chairman Paul Harkin agreed ‘we are all human, we can all make mistakes.’

“… and Dr. Ralph is not being accused of making a mistake and not being human, he clearly has given very good evidence that he cares about his patients,” Mr Harkin said.

But there was no humanity shown to the wider public by the faceless entities that ‘considered it a crime to publish anything that might make the public lose confidence in the vaccine’.

Who are they?

Neasa Bird: You wrote a number of articles for the Daily Mail during the pandemic, isn’t that correct?

Angus Dalgleish: Which article are you referring to now?

NB Well, did you write a number of arms for the Daily Mail during the pandemic?

AD I wrote lots of articles

NB Okay.

AD -- all bar that one, I wrote and signed off myself.

NB Okay, so that one, you feel the Daily Mail misrepresented you in that one?

AD Yes, and I pointed it out that I was very annoyed.

NB Okay. I am just going to hand in another article, which I think you wrote for the Daily Mail, so this will be Exhibit 22. So this was from 18th February 2021, and I think you are writing on delays in cancer diagnosis during Covid?

AD Mm-hmm.

NB Then I think we can see on the -- sorry, there is a lot of adverts with this, but can you see page 4 of 21, it is just actually the end of the article, so at the very bottom of the page it says:

“Angus Dalgleish is a Professor of Oncology at a London Teaching Hospital.”

Do you see that?

AD. Yeah.

NB And do you see just above that, two paragraphs up, you wrote:

“The success of the vaccination programme, accompanied by the enormous drop in Covid infections, hospital admissions and deaths means we are well placed to adopt this course.”

So you were referring there to the success of the vaccination programme?

AD Yeah, and that was written in very early 2021 based on the data that we were being given.

NB Sure.

AD And it was very clear that this was what everyone wanted to hear. But at an individual level, it was very clear it was not. And this was just before we made -- we had absolutely been lied to and misrepresented. So, yeah, which reads --

NB So you don’t stand over your published words there?

AD Hmm?

NB You don’t stand over your published words there, is that correct?

AD Based on -- this article, that bit was put in at the end, this article --

NB Sorry, is this something that was misattributed to you again?

AD Yes.

NB Oh, okay.

AD. But I mean I did -- I did see this -- I did see this article and signed off on it.

NB Sure.

‘We started to see damage’

AD: But it was very much -- it is a success, this is the story that was being given. But at the same time we started to see people who had been damaged by it, and that’s when we started to challenge all this. So it is very important that, you know, we basically went along initially with the data before we realised we had been lied to. And I gave the data that they said all their effective 95%, and we thought, well, that would appear to be the case, they have done big trials, but then we hadn’t realised this gross misrepresentation of the data, and we could see in front of our eyes people being damaged with it. So to me, it didn’t matter then. I mean I changed very, very quickly after these articles, and with averments realising I couldn’t have been further wrong than to have gone along with this.

And people still attack me for that now. It basically meant, I was prepared to go along with the guidelines and what have you, but when I saw it with my own eyes that this did not match up, then I was -- I turned on it, because I had already predicted this would happen.

And then, you know, for a short time I thought the authorities and these massive trials they must know something I didn’t know, and perhaps I could have been wrong, you have a bit of doubt about that. And it is only when I started seeing it with my own eyes, I realised I should have had the faith to stop this all along.

What I did do, as I presented it all to the Cabinet, and it went through Michael Gove and to Johnson, it was given to all the others, so they saw, they saw everything like I said and predicted, and they decided to ignore it, with one comment, on the grounds I was a cancer doctor, what did I know.

NB: Thank you very much for answering my questions, Prof. Dalgleish. Dr. Ralph might have some further questions for you, as may the Committee members.

AD Thank you.

Dr Ralph I have no further questions, thank you, Prof. Dalgleish.

This exchange brought proceedings almost to lunchtime. At this point the inquiry switched from legal cross-examination of Professor Dalgleish to questions from the committee itself, made up of Chairman Paul Harkin, Jill Long and Dr Liam Conroy, who are tasked with deciding whether Dr Ralph’s criticisms of the response to Covid amount to professional misconduct.

‘They refused to publish’

Chair Paul Harkin: I might start off with the last point of the exchange you had with Ms. Bird, I want to be clear in the evidence you gave; so the article, this article, Exhibit 22, was an article that you wrote, you said you wrote?

AD Which one are we talking about this time?

PH Exhibit 22, it’s just this -- Ms. Bird --the Daily Mail article, Ms. Bird took you to the end of it, the success of the vaccination programme.

AD That was very early ‘21.

PH Yeah, and I think I am clear that you said that the evidence changed, and you are a reasonable person who changes his opinion when the facts change, so I am clear about. I just want to clarify, I think, so I understand, are you saying that that the last sentence “the success of the vaccination programme” was inserted by somebody else and it wasn’t written by you?

AD You know, to be quite honest, I doubt that. These get edited and subbed an unbelievable amount of times. When you write for the Mail and the Telegraph, they edit it and they push you to go along with certain views, which initially I was happy to do so. But when I realised it was wrong, I was the first, you know, fight and scream. And it’s very interesting when I did fight and scream about it, they refused to publish.

And if you notice I haven’t published very much the Mail, not about vaccines, because they wouldn’t let me. And what I was told by the editor, and also I used to do a lot in GB News interviews for these things, is that, there was the producer on the television, and the editor on the Daily Mail said, the government had made it very clear that they considered it a crime to publish anything that might make the public lose confidence in the vaccine.

PH Okay.

A. I will leave it at that, because that tells you everything. This was being censored at the highest level.

PH I am just trying to clarify your evidence so I don’t misunderstand you, and I think you have been consistent and clear, so I understand your position. I just wanted to make sure I understood, and it quickly changed, I think Ms. Bird asked you, did they misrepresent you there, did somebody else write that article, and you don’t --

AD Do you know, it is so long ago --

PH I accept that.

AD -- and I think that conclusion may well have been written by somebody else to be quite honest, because the one thing I did write, and I have a big conscience about, I let them do the one about pushing the vaccine very early on. And what I did discuss was, if it was to be effective, rather than do everybody, you’d want to do people at the cold face, that was my... assuming it worked. And I said, of course, we don’t know that that it worked. So I was misrepresented. But the one thing that they did do, they allowed me to write articles on the lockdown many, many times, because they totally utterly agreed with that. And the Telegraph allowed me to write articles pointing out that early treatment with this ordinary thing would save a lot of lives, why wasn’t it being approved.

And I had correspondence with Michael Gove over this who said he would look into it. That’s the last I heard of it.

PH No, that’s clear, you have clarified something I was slightly concerned about, I just wanted to make sure that I was absolutely clear, so thank you for that. Ms. Long I think has a question for you.

Jill Long (IMC Committee member) Good afternoon, Prof. Dalgleish. My question is have you read the Notice of Inquiry?

AD The notice of...

JL Inquiry, in which the allegations against Dr. Ralph are set out?

AD Yes, yes.

JL And have you considered the appropriateness of Dr. Ralph’s tweets?

AD Well, yes, I have. I have and I totally understand them, because I have known lots of people in this position, you just get exacerbated with replies and the trolls; people give you total abuse if you try and say anything. And so they are pushed, and I know he is not alone, there are a lot of doctors like this. And then there are people out there who will focus on this as, this is inappropriate language for a doctor, when you have got to put it in context, this is, you know, trying to be normal and rational and reasonable, and then you get this constant abuse, you are bound to -- I mean I am very, very guilty of this myself, of using words which other people might find offensive in order to get my point across when standard English vernacular seems to fail. So I would defend that. I think a lot of other doctors are driven to distraction for this. I mean this is one of the reasons that I won’t do social media, because I know that I would be very susceptible to getting annoyed with people if they persist with inane accusations, and often with language that leads to -- you know it is not -- it is hard to be -- use barrister speak when you are on Twitter or Facebook, so I would defend that.

‘We are all human at the end of the day’

JL What are you exactly defending, the tweets that Dr. Ralph posted, is that what you are defending?

AD I am defending his -- the things that he said. But one of the things was the language, and that’s what I am defending is, it can be so exacerbating the way people attack you on these things, yet people are driven to upping the language to get the point across. I completely concur with that, and I am guilty of it myself in discussions, so I rest -- I rest that answer on both points. You know, I agree with what he said on everything, but this part, the language, is, I understand, is something you say. But what I am defending is, sometimes you get so exacerbated, so overwhelmed with what you know is completely and utterly wrong. We are all human at the end of the day.

Chairman Paul Harkin: So I will pick up on that point, which I think is actually a fair point to make, that we are all human, we can all make mistakes, and Dr. Ralph is not being accused of making a mistake and not being human, he clearly has given very good evidence that he cares about his patients.

Share

Billy Ralph’s hearing continues at the IMC Dublin on May 18th.

Thanks to those that support and share this work - much appreciated.

Buy the author a Coffee

Previously:

Subscribe now

Eminent and internationally respected cancer specialist Prof Angus Dalgleish strode to the witness box and took an oath to tell the truth.

He is the third witness to give evidence at the Irish Medical Council’s (IMC) fitness to practise hearing into allegations of professional misconduct against Wexford GP Dr Billy Ralph.

Before him, the committee’s expert witness Dr Rukshan Goonewardena gave evidence on March 26 last. Billy Ralph was next to enter the witness box and earlier today, he answered final questions from the committee itself, consisting of Chair Paul Harkin, Jill Long and Dr Liam Conroy.

Chairman Harkin asked Billy Ralph to explain how he would assess when it is necessary to move from a position of fundamental adherence to medical guidelines to a ‘more nuanced position where you are interpreting with a degree of flexibility.’

Billy Ralph replied that once the medical guidelines begin to diverge from his core principles, then he will fall back on his personal and ethical values.

“If there’s a clash, coming from a Christian background and from a working class background and a humanitarian background, they all inform me over and above any other guidelines,” he said.

The committee thanked Dr Ralph for his evidence and then Prof Angus Dalgleish was called to the witness box.

“I swear by almighty God the evidence I shall give this committee to be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth,” he said.

Billy Ralph explained that since the professor’s CV is over a hundred pages long, he would abbreviate for the inquiry.

“You are Professor Emeritus at St George’s University of London?”

“Correct.”

“And in your career you have held four senior medical speciality positions, one in internal medicine, virology, immunology and now oncology, correct?”

“Correct.”

“You’ve also been and currently are principal of the Institute of Cancer Vaccines Immunotherapy since the year 2,000 and you’ve published over 500 peer reviewed articles, correct?

“Correct.”

“And your articles have been cited over 20,000 times, correct?”

“Yes.”

“You’ve given presentations to the All Party Parliamentary Committee in the UK, is that correct?

“Correct.”

“And you’ve been invited by Senator Ron Johnson and RFK Jr to present to the US Congressional Committee on Covid, correct?”

“Correct.”

Opening his series of questions, Billy Ralph set the scene by asking if there was a single consensus among medics concerning covid during 2020 and 2021?

“No. They tried to make out there was a single consensus but there was anything but a single consensus and it was obfuscated by such phrases as ‘following the science’ when no science was followed,” he said.

One of the most important exercises in challenging the presentation of a single consensus he said, was the Great Barrington Declaration, which he was one of the first to sign.

“This challenged the whole narrative of consensus and it was basically shouted down in the UK parliament by Matt Hancock and others because they had already decided what they were going to do and this was rather inconvenient,” he said.

Prof Dalgleish told the inquiry that the declaration - now with almost 1 million signatures - implied there was no need for the population to be ‘rescued by vaccines’ because herd immunity was far more important.

“This was something that was obvious,” he said. “But we were essentially shouted down.”

The professor noted the Diamond Princess cruise ship as an important ‘petri dish experiment’ that showed the virus was airborne, that of those who got covid very few became ill and even fewer died. Those that did were over 70, he said.

“This showed early on that restrictions need not be applied and covid should have been treated like any other airborne respiratory virus,” he said.

The professor was scathing in his criticism of the use of masks and lockdowns.

“A whole generation of children were affected by lockdowns,” he said and these effects can be seen today right up to college age students. He said lockdowns caused massive societal damage and raised the issue of suicides linked to lockdowns, noting that isolation is not natural or beneficial for society.

“Humans are social animals,” he said.
"I personally am aware of four suicides during lockdown, one was a close friend."

This information may well have touched a nerve with Billy Ralph, who has written previously about an attempt he made on his own life on July 25 2022. What emerged from that point on, he wrote, was ‘not the same person and certainly not the same doctor.’

Amid the legal setting drama of revelations from Prof Dalgleish on the topics of the suppresion of ivermectin as treatment, vaccines as gene therapy, booster shots causing cancer, continued censorship, Pfizer lobbying of journal editors in a bid to hold market value, this Substack was reading posts in a Whatsapp conversation among injured Irish vaccine recipients, who have no help, no acknowledgement and no means of support.

It is his perhaps his personal understanding of this damage that prompted Professor Dalgleish to become animated in his scathing remarks on vaccines as gene therapies that integrate into people’s DNA.

"The very concept of using this was absolutely heinous" he said of mRNA technology.

The tweets posted by Billy Ralph between October 2020 and June 2022 were critical of several aspects of official covid public health policy – in particular, the vaccination of children.

On that topic, Prof Dalgleish declared robustly:

“Children should never have been vaccinated.” He said there were no safety checks completed and that he has lost faith in the MHRA, the UK’s medicines and healthcare regulatory authority.

“I have lost total faith in all the authorities particularly the MHRA,” he said.

The professor raised the issue of excess deaths and the signing of the Hope Accord by more than 65,000 medics, scientists and members of the public calling for the suspension of mRNA ‘vaccines.’

In lively exchanges with barrister Neasa Bird, BL for the IMC committee, Professor Dalgleish pointed to interference by pharmaceutical companies amounting to censorship that continues today. He said a paper he has worked on based on his own cancer patients that received booster shots will be published imminently, but it’s release is being hampered by Pfizer.

He said giving boosters to cancer patients was “unbelievably negligent” because the vaccine only reponds to the original variant, he said.

"There is no way these vaccines should be given to cancer patients" Prof Dalgleish said.

”Is your view shared by most oncologists in the UK?” Ms Bird asked.

"It is not a mainstream view but it is rapidly becoming one," he replied.

His scientific paper that is ‘coming down the line’ will show evidence of boosters linked to cancer, the professor said.

"The more vaccines you have the more likely you are to go down with cancer," he said.

“I can assure you that Pfizer does not want these pre-prints published. They are lobbying editors to label it as ‘misinformation’. Pfizer do not want their market interfered with," he said.

Breaking for lunch, the hearing was due to resume with Billy Ralph's second witness, NHS pathologist, doctor, co chair of HART group and author of two books on covid, Dr Clare Craig.

However, it emerged over lunch that Dr Craig, who was due to appear via videolink, would not be available for the afternoon session. Adjourning proceedings for today, the committee selected the date of May 18 to resume with Dr Craig’s evidence and closing submissions from both sides.

This Substack live tweeted proceedings in detail earlier and readers can follow that thread here.

Irish Times coverage of the hearing is online now and readers can see that report here.

There is much more detail to parse through and since today’s proceedings may be the closest we get to an actual covid inquiry, I will return to the topic again before May 18.

Prior to the opening of this morning’s session, at morning Mass, this Substack learned that today is the Feast of St Joseph the Worker, marking the dignity of human work, equity and fairness.

Is that a coincidence?

Pope John Paul II put forward a strangely apt explanation of the concept in his encyclical Laborem Exercens.

“… the Church considers it her task always to call attention to the dignity and rights of those who work, to condemn situations in which that dignity and those rights are violated, and to help to guide (social) changes so as to ensure authentic progress by man and society.”

Share

Thanks to those that support and share this work - much appreciated.

Buy the author a Coffee

Subscribe now

Previously:

Two international experts are set to give evidence before the Irish Medical Council in defence of Dr Billy Ralph this week. Renowned cancer specialist Angus Dalgleish, Professor of Oncology at St George’s, University of London and specialist Diagnostic Pathologist Dr Clare Craig are due to appear at a resumed fitness to practise inquiry on Friday.

Last month at the UK’s All-Party Parliamentary Group on Pandemic Response and Recovery, Prof Dalgleish called for an urgent investigation into aggressive cancers and cancer relapses linked to covid boosters.

“In my opinion, this is no longer a hypothesis. The data are in. The mechanisms are understood. The signal is screaming. It is time to act,” he said.

Dr Clare Craig is the author of two books on the topic of covid and mRNA jabs, Expired - Covid, the Untold story and her latest book, Spiked - a Shot in the Dark published last December.

The hearing into allegations of professional misconduct against the Wexford GP is due to enter its fourth day on Friday, when Dr Billy Ralph will re-enter the witness box to answer questions about tweets he posted on X (formerly Twitter) between October 2020 and June 2022.

The Irish Medical Council committee consisting of Chairman Paul Harkin, Jill Long and Dr Liam Conroy, are tasked with deciding whether Dr Ralph’s criticisms of the response to Covid - particularly the vaccination programme - amount to professional misconduct.

Previously, on day three of the hearing, Dr Ralph made an application to have the case struck out on multiple grounds, including the lack of any clinical harm or adverse outcomes for patients. This application was considered but not accepted by the committee and the hearing continued. Dr Ralph set out his defense by reading his own statement into the record.

“My primary responsibility has always been to my patients, their welfare, their dignity and my duty to exercise professional judgment on their behalf this. This has included a responsibility to practise evidence-based medicine, especially where matters are complex or evolving, and not simply to adopt a single prevailing position without question,” he said.

“At the outset, I accepted the public health advice that was being given. I adjusted my practice accordingly, including closing my doors and following the guidance as it stood at that time. However, as the pandemic progressed, I began to have concerns about certain aspects of public health response and the wider management of the situation. Before expressing those concerns publicly, I sought to raise them through what I understood to be appropriate professional and institutional channels,” he said.

Dr Ralph told the hearing that he wrote more than 70 emails to public health representatives, media outlets and politicians while attempting to engage with colleagues.

“It was in that context that I began to express my views more publicly, including through written articles and social media,” he said.

“There was at the time a range of views among medical professions, internationally, in relation to aspects of Covid-19 policy and management. And my comments reflected my interpretation of the available evidence within the broader landscape of professional debate. The statements referred to in the Notice of Inquiry reflect views I held at the time on issue such as lockdowns, masks and vaccination policy. Some of those views were strongly expressed,” Dr Ralph said.

Over the course of several hours on March 27 last, Dr Ralph answered a series of questions put to him by barrister Neasa Bird BL for the CEO of the Irish Medical Council (IMC) arising from tweets he posted on X.

This exchange allowed for a legal record to be made of multiple critical issues including excess deaths, the altered official meaning of the word ‘pandemic,’ and the gene altering nature of ‘covid vaccines.’

“Pandemic”

Ms Bird questioned Dr Ralph on the following tweet, posted November 26 2020.

“There is no pandemic just a lot of misguided fascist professionals who have lost the run of themselves.”

Neasa Bird: So doctor, how do we square that with you acknowledging that there was a pandemic, but you are now telling members of the public, anyone who might read the tweet, that there is no pandemic?

Billy Ralph: Okay. I have been practising medicine 32 years, and for most of that time the definition of a pandemic contained the phrases “huge numbers of deaths and illnesses”. That was the definition prior to 2009. And it was conveniently changed to take out “huge numbers of deaths and illnesses”, and we won’t go into the reasons why it was taken out, but there are economic as well as medical reasons.

So, what we were experiencing in 2020 were not huge numbers of deaths. There weren’t huge number of deaths. If you look at the Society of Actuaries, their numbers of excess deaths that year is approximately 50. And if you -- the CSO have a slightly different number. And the OECD stated “we no excess deaths in that year”.

So how does no excess deaths fit with the previous definition, that I know the pandemic to be, which is huge numbers of deaths? Where were all the deaths?

Vaccination

Neasa Bird: Did you vaccinate any children in your practice?

Billy Ralph: Not with the covid vaccine. And actually it is not a vaccine. That’s a definition change, back to the pandemic definition change, so we are into subtleties of language here; it is not a vaccine, it is a piece of mRNA in a lipid nanoparticle, which actually is a piece of genetic material.

Neasa Bird: Okay. And you tweeted various tweets concerning vaccination and children, we can see these set out at page 7 of the Notice of Inquiry. You said (via tweet): “Your children do not need this product. Pfizer, the government and their puppet masters need you to get it. I will not be giving this to children in my practice.”

Billy Ralph: I am actually quite proud of that tweet.

Neasa Bird: And is that just in relation to the Pfizer vaccine, or was it your view that children shouldn’t get any of the vaccines for Covid-19?

Billy Ralph: SARS-CoV-2 infection was a very low risk to a healthy child. These “vaccines”, in inverted commas, were rushed through, never been given before, and developed in a very, very short period of time. The average length of time for a development of a vaccine is somewhere like ten years. This was apparently rushed through in less than a year.

…So, naturally, a novel product, rushed through, which is mislabeled as a vaccine, when in fact it’s a piece of genetic material, and it’s supposed to be given to children who are at very low risk, under the spurious guise of protecting elderly people in the population, you do not -- in medicine, you do not use the treatment of one individual to protect another individual. The treatments of an individual are for the individual. This spreading indications for the use of a pharmaceutical product is obscene.

‘A Million Questions’

Shortly before 4pm, Ms Bird indicated that she had completed her cross-examination of Dr Ralph. The session was running out of time but Chairman Paul Harkin said he had 'a million questions' to put to the witness. It was agreed by all parties that the inquiry should resume at a later date and Friday May 1st was subsequently selected.

It is understood that Prof Angus Dalgleish will appear at Friday’s hearing in person while Dr Clare Craig will appear via videolink.

The inquiry is scheduled to resume at 10am, at the Irish Medical Council, Kingram House, Dublin 2.

Share

Previously:

Buy the author a Coffee

Subscribe now

Queues for diesel at the Co-op in Ennistymon were backing up through town as morning mass goers emerged from church on Thursday.

An air of anticipation amid quiet murmurs.

“RTE is saying the government will send in the army to break up protests…”

“Oh I don’t listen to RTE. I don’t want to be contaminated.”

Contamination of the public mind is key. It’s how the media operates. Medical appointments? After what they unleashed on an unsuspecting population during covid? That ship has sailed.

Tánaiste Simon Harris sent a clear message on Wednesday night, notifying the Irish nation of their subordinate status as slaves to the all important economy.

As Health Minister during covid - the greatest ‘sinister and despicable’ attack on Irish society in the history of the State - Harris certainly has neck. It’s clear that in the eyes of the current cabinet members, the working people serve the economy, which in turn serves a beast that can never be satisfied.

Queues through Ennistymon quietly dispersed once the co-op ran out of fuel. News filtered through of replenished stock at the Circle K. As motorists endured two hour tailbacks for the pumps, people went about their business round town, at the butchers, the bakery, the coffee shops. There’s an air of quiet resolve. Support for those out on protest, blocking entry points to ports, motorways, and critical infrastructure across the country. The people are ready to take a short term hit - if that’s what it takes - to reign in a rogue government.

Real Men

And what a sight to behold - trucks and tractors blocking entry points onto motorways - traffic re-routed. The real back bone workers of this country, real men standing guard, not to be messed with. The womenfolk provide back-up, delivering food and supplies.

Contract workers out in the fields, animal feed, production, deliveries, farm maintenance. The entire fabric of the country - at stake. These protestors have a skill set that is particular to and essential for rural Ireland. These are the men who mobilised their machinery to clear roads and debris in the wake of devastation wreaked by Storm Éowyn last year. The lads who show up, do the necessary work and disappear again, without fanfare.

Foynes

Over at the Port of Foynes on Thursday afternoon, the roads were lined with vehicles - trucks, tractors, trailers, busses, jeeps, vans and cars. Bollards manned by a collection of up to fifty men blocked the port entrance. They ranged in age from late teens to early sixties. The Gardaí were present and Independent Ireland TD Richard O’Donoghue stood by, phone fixed to his hear. The atmosphere was cordial, even jovial at times, but it’s clear, these men mean business.

In the line of vehicles parked along the entrance to the port, one young farmer took advantage of a quiet moment in the cab of his tractor. He travelled from Killorglin, Co Kerry to Cork on Wednesday and onto Foynes early Thursday. The max speed in his Massey Ferguson is 57mph.

“I’m here because the price of fuel affects everything. People have no idea what’s coming if the government doesn’t cut the level tax they are charging on diesel,” he said.

“Whether people understand it or not, we are here for the future of our country,” he said. “We are doing this for Ireland.”

Meanwhile, by late afternoon over the road at the filling station, stocks were down to the wire.

“We have about half an hour’s worth left at most,” the shop assistant said with a shrug. There was an unspoken energy behind the statement. Something steadfast.

Rattled

The government have begun to realise what was happening. The protest has the full backing of the Irish people. Despite the continuous platforming of critics - none of whom this Substack has met in reality - the ordinary people are unified in defiance. They know the young farmer in Kerry is speaking the truth.

At a government press conference this morning, the Taoiseach and his cabinet looked rattled. And rightly so. Note the ashen faces, the downturned mouths, the tightly clasped hands .

“Taoiseach your way in was blocked by a protestor who asked you to do something about the price of diesel, who accused you of walking away from Ireland. What do you say to people like that, who are feeling really under pressure?” a reporter asked.

The response included the following line:

“Every citizen is entitled to move about freely in our country.”

Except for when the government decides to remove that entitlement, limiting the people to a 2km, 5km or county boundary limit. No mention of missed medical appointments in 2020.

Bizarrely, as businesses across the country cite energy costs as the key threat to their survival, the Irish Business and Employers Confederation (IBEC) emerged to condemn what it calls ‘illegal’ fuel protests and encourage army deployment. Why? Because their pharmaceutical interests are threatened. Neither IBEC nor the Business Post name the affected company. Why not?

The article states:

“Ibec is already aware of one site that has ceased production as a result of the protests, “as it cannot guarantee regulatory required health and safety conditions,” McCoy wrote. He did not specify which site has had to cease production.”

On RTE’s Drivetime, David Hall, CEO of Lifeline Ambulances called it straight. The bus lanes through Dublin city ‘remain open for emergency vehicles’, he said. There is ‘no issue.’

“This is one of those protests that generally affects everybody. I think many people looking on today don’t want to be inconvenienced but understand why. This has ripple effects through every member of society,” he said.

Hall called for immediate action on price caps for fuel. His diesel bill for a fleet of ambulances serviced by 200 staff has skyrocketed from €67,000 in January to €87,000 in March.

“We are under immense pressure. Many businesses won’t be open after the summer. Many businesses will be closed,” he said. He told listeners the government is taking in an additional €40 million per week in exise since introducing it’s €250m package to alleviate energy costs, on March 24.

As we await the outcome of a meeting between protest groups and government (currently underway) this Substack is reminded of the last time Ireland saw a seismic, powerful, en masse mobilisation of the people against appalling governance by puppet politicians implementing EU policy with an iron fist.

At the national water protest on O’Connell Street on Oct 14 2014, the government were told to stick their water charges where the sun don’t shine.

And it worked.

Thanks for supporting! Buy the author a Coffee

Share

Subscribe now

After the Mass of the Lord’s Supper on Holy Thursday the tabernacle is left empty, signifying Jesus’ departure on his mission to save humanity.

For me, this is the most moving and jarring moment of all Masses throughout the year. It is all ahead of Jesus at this point - betrayal, arrest, torture and death.

This is the Easter Triduum, the Lord’s Passion, Crucifixion and Resurrection.

Yesterday, Kerry based priest Fr Sean Sheehy talked me through the meaning and symbolism of some of the central rituals and characters of Easter - the empty tabernacle, the washing of feet, Judas, Peter and Mary Magdalene.

Fr Sean previously spoke candidly to this Substack on the topic of covid and the church, vaccines and aborted foetal cells.

He writes his own Substack and the interview below is based on his latest article titled, “Jesus Won.”

Mystery is the great beauty of Catholicism, we just never stop learning - Happy Easter.

Watch here:

Share

Watch our previous interview here:

Subscribe now

Is it possible the Treasurer of an organisation is not aware of its funding sources?

Yesterday at the Irish Medical Council, Dr Rukshan Goonewardena sat as a witness and under oath, claimed he is 'not aware of any sponsorship' from pharma companies to the organisation he serves, the ICGP.

Yet, on May 18 2024 the Irish College of General Practitioners (ICGP), which represents around 5,000 GP’s in Ireland, voted on a motion at their Annual General Meeting ‘to gradually reduce its pharmaceutical industry sponsorship over the next 10 years.’

The ICGP members voted by 73% to adopt a plan to ‘eliminate all (pharma) sponsorship by 2034.’

Did Dr Goonewardena participate in this vote?

He has been serving on the board of the ICGP since 2020.

At the inquiry yesterday, Dr Billy Ralph had an opportunity to cross examine the medical council’s ‘expert witness.’

Treasurer?

Using information revealed on this Substack, Dr Ralph asked if his role as Treasurer of ICGP represents a conflict of interest?

Dr Goonewardena replied that he was ‘Honourary Treasurer’, though the ICGP lists him plainly as Treasurer on its website. Is there a difference?

“Not Aware”

Billy Ralph asked the witness if it is true that the ICGP received E118k in funding from pharma companies in 2023.

Dr Goonewardena replied:
"I wouldn't be aware regarding college sponsorship agreements."

The witness said he was working ‘on the ground at the time of covid’ and had ‘very little time to be involved in any other roles.’

In response, Dr Ralph said this presented a situation which he described as ‘institutional alignment.’ The committee, made up of three members and a legal advisor, asked for clarification of the term ‘institutional alignment.’

Dr Ralph replied that he saw it as “a close connection beween this doctor - who is supposed to be an independent witness to the ICGP - NPHET and pharmaceutical companies.”

By way of response, Dr Goonewardena repeated again that he is 'not aware of any sponsorship' from pharma companies.

His answer begs the following questions:

Did Dr Goonewardena attend the ICGP AGM of May 18 2024?

Did he participate in the vote regarding pharma funding?

Which way did he vote - to eliminate pharma funding or retain it?

As ICGP board member and Treasurer, it is likely he did attend the AGM and therefore, how could he ‘not be aware’ of pharmaceutical funding for the ICGP?

If the expert witness for the inquiry is not credible on the critical issue of funding from business interests, that raises questions about the entirety of his evidence. Is any of what he says credible? Is he a reliable witness?

This should form the central substance of Billy Ralph’s closing submission, due to be delivered at the inquiry later today.

Let’s not forget that similar issues arose as the Marcus de Brun case descended into farce on the final day, when de Brun revealed that a key complainant in the case against him - UK based sheep farmer Graham Bottley - was described by the committee’s own expert witness as ‘unreliable.’

The Precautionary Principle

As Billy Ralph was putting questions to the witness at the inquiry in Dublin yesterday, over in Athens a conference involving diplomats at the European Commission was taking place.

The conference discussed the role played by industry interests and lobbying at policy decison level in the EU. The reccommendations of yesterday’s conference will be discussed at the EU in the coming weeks, which makes MEP Michael McNamara’s ‘inquisition’ interjection on the medical council’s fitness to practise inquiry against Billy Ralph all the more timely.

The press release from the conference, organised by the European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility (ENSSER) landed in my inbox at 3.39am.

Much of the event’s discussion centred around strong criticism regarding the ‘unacceptable abandonment’ of the Precautionary Principle in ongoing legislative propositions.

Here’s the opening paragraph of the press release:

“Many scientists claim that their evidence and conclusions are not heard by policy makers, while policy makers often claim that their policies and actions are “science-based”. At the heart of this paradox lies a Gordian knot of relationships between science and politics, in which industrial interests and scientific advisors to policy makers play a crucial role.”

Among those in attendance was Prof John Ioannidis, MD, DSc, is a prominent Professor of Medicine, Epidemiology, and Biomedical Data Science at Stanford University. When Billy Ralph was conducting research into ‘covid’ early in 2020, this is the Professor he identified as trustworthy.

In a letter response to an Irish Times article penned by Kathy Sheridan promoting the publication of former Chief Medical Officer Tony Holohan’s book, Billy Ralph wrote the following (published on this Substack in September 2023):

Kathy I read your review of Tony Holohan’s book. His personal tragedy was
obviously very painful for him and his family, but I do not wish to comment on
those matters.

I am one of those doctors who criticised NPHET’s approach. However I did it
with a lot more information to hand than a ‘member of the public’.
I received my information from Prof Karl Heneghan (Epidemiologist,Oxford) as
did Dáil Eireann, who subsequently chose to ignore his expert advice on
masks. Prof John Ioannidis (Epidemiologist, Stanford) who as early as April, 2020
had established the age profile at risk and the infection fatality rate. As had
Prof Michael Levitt (Nobel laureate) even earlier, but his communications with
the infamous Prof Niall Ferguson were ignored.

How unusual it is that while Billy Ralph was in Dublin asking the medical council’s expert witness what he knew about phase three trials for vaccines, Prof Ioannidis was in Athens at a conference calling out violations of the Precautionary Principle, which was adopted by the EC itself in the year 2,000.

Here is the EU’s own legal definition of the Precautionary Principle

The precautionary principle is an approach to risk management, where, if it is possible that a given policy or action might cause harm to the public or the environment and if there is still no scientific agreement on the issue, the policy or action in question should not be carried out.

The concept of the precautionary principle was first set out in a European Commission communication adopted in February 2000, which defined the concept and envisaged how it would be applied.

Readers might be interested in the expert witness’ reply to Billy Ralph on the question of his understanding of phase three trials?

“I do not want to go into it,” Dr Gooewardena said.

When pushed by Billy Ralph to provide an answer to a ‘basic question’, the witness replied:

“No, I do not want to elaborate on something I am not an expert on.”

Billy Ralph pushed further on the topic of covid vaccine safety. He notified the committee that in his report, the witness had used post dated references that did not exist at the time of NPHET and NIAC guidance on vaccine safety.

“You referred to them as being known to be safe in 2021. But there was no trial data available until 2023,” Dr Ralph said.

This Substack has proven previously, that NIAC (National Immunisation Advisory Committee, whom Dr Goonewardena quoted as the trusted authority on vaccine guidance) was giving false information regarding covid injections. The tweet below was posted on July 21 2021. Less than four weeks later, Waterford footballer Roy Butler was dead, aged 23, five days after receiving the Janssen shot.

NIAC had described the risk of clots as one in 50,000.

Billy Ralph’s hearing continues this morning at 10am, where he will read his own statement and evidence, before both sides offer closing submissions to the inquiry committee. The committee consists of Paul Harkin (Chair), Jill Long and Dr Liam Conroy, with legal assessor Patricia Dillon SC. This is the committee that will decide (over the coming weeks or possibly, months) whether or not to sanction Billy Ralph.

Share

Thanks for supporting! Buy the author a Coffee

Read about the ENNSER conference here

Read previous coverage of Billy Ralph’s Fitness to Practise inquiry:

Subscribe now