A particularly vivid account of technocrat fellow-traveller official-line-toeing mass-formed goodthinkers trying to cancel Meryl - because of actually curing people - gasp! blasphemy! - using hydroxychloroquine:
Thanks Rhis - two heavyweights there! Dr Meryl Nass is a top notch doctor who has always spoken out. She is uniquely placed as an expert in bioweapons (stems from the anthrax fals flags) and vaccines.
Here she is with a little known campaigner Tessa Lena (who goes under the interesting name of Tessa Fights Robots, at https://tessa.substack.com/)
From Dr Cremola, who seems to be trying to burn off all the spooks by cunningly putting up more material than they can read.
The encounter can be viewed at
Dr. Meryl Nass Under Attack for 'Spreading Misinformation' where there is a video - but only up on Mercola for another day and a half.
Transcript below.
Cheers
Transcript
Tessa Lena:
Hello, and welcome to āMake Language Great Again.ā Today it is my tremendous honor to welcome Dr. Meryl Nass ā who doesnāt need much introduction ā but just to say a few words, she is a prominent physician, and sheās an expert on bioweapons, anthrax specifically. In 2001, Dr. Nass testified in Congress about anthrax, and she has had a stellar career.
And for me personally, it would be an honor to interview Dr. Nass at any point, but the occasion is really strange. And Iām frankly rubbing my eyes still that this is happening. So what happened to Dr. Nass recently is that her medical license was suspended by the medical board, and she was ordered to undergo psychological evaluation, like, Soviet style, because she has been a good doctor. Letās just take it from there.
Dr. Meryl Nass:
So ā¦ Well, Iām a physician in internal medicine. Iāve been practicing medicine for 41 years, and Iāve been in Maine 24 years. And I basically have two tracks. One track is that I take care of patients who have chronic illnesses that are hard to diagnose and hard to treat, like chronic Lyme disease, chronic fatigue syndrome, and other ā¦ Gulf War Syndrome, other things that other doctors have not been able to manage successfully.
And I changed my practice so that it mainly focused on treating COVID and giving people prescriptions for ivermectin, and vitamins and other things, when COVID came around.
Because I have a strong background in biological warfare, and pandemics, and pandemic response, I started doing a lot of research at the beginning of 2020 ā and keeping a blog, and telling people, trying to explain the pandemic to them: explain SARS-CoV-2, explain SARS-CoV-1, try to put things into perspective. I talked about masks, talked about tests, you know how to protect yourself, how to clean your vegetables, for example. I talked about every aspect of the pandemic in this blog.
And so as things evolved ā¦ and also what I did by chance was I read articles, the Nature Medicine article, an article in The Lancet, and other things. And I came to conclude very early back in the end of March of 2020, that there was a cover-up going on regarding the origin of COVID. And that it certainly came from a lab there was no question about that.
So ā¦ so that Iāve written about also over time, and I, in fact, am ā¦ I was the only person who said regarding the Nature Medicine article that I donāt believe the five authors actually wrote that article. It was an article that lacked scientific validity, it was clearly propaganda ā and I said, these guys would not have come up with this by themselves.
Either someone else wrote it, or they were told to write it. And, in fact, when we got the Fauci emails early in 2021, we found out that Fauci and Francis Collins and Jeremy Farrar, whoās the head of the Wellcome Trust in the UK, in fact, did direct them to write this article ā¦ and assisted ā¦ Fauci edited it, and people from the Wellcome Trust were who ā¦ so Fauci was an a ā¦ he was a ghost writer, and, and staff at the Wellcome Trust, were also ghost writers on that paper.
So anyway, so Iāve sort of been stuck into many aspects of this. And then when the vaccines came out, I of course, being also an expert in vaccines, I took a close look at the vaccines ā and as evidence became obvious that they were not working the way they should, and were causing a lot of side effects, I made that very plain as well.
What happened after that was that national organizations that are involved with the licensing or the certification, a board specialty certification of doctors started issuing advice to their members, that they should not use āmisinformationā or ādisinformationā regarding treatments and vaccines for COVID and threatening them with loss of their specialty certification or even loss of their license.
And this started in mid 2021, and it was broad ā¦ it came from the AMA, the American Medical Association, the American Board of Internal Medicine, Family Practice, and Pediatrics, and the Federation of State Medical Boards, which is an organization that all the licensing boards for all the states and territories belong to.
So for some reason, all these organizations that are allegedly nonprofit, but earn a great deal of money, their CEOs, in general earn more than a million dollars a year ā¦ all these organizations at the same time started threatening doctors not to spread āmisinformation,ā and basically follow the government program on the evaluation and treatment of COVID.
Well, I wrote to several of them and said, you know, you have no authority to issue these threats. Guess what, we have a First Amendment. Itās ā¦ it gives us freedom of speech. And I also challenged my own licensing board and said, you know, what, who, who created a new crime of āmisinformationā? I, you know, I donāt see that on the statute. The legislature didnāt vote on this, you know, does the board of licensure and medicine get to invent new crimes?
So all these things happened. And so I wasnāt surprised when they went after me. But I felt like this was such a fundamental issue, because itās not only happening in Maine, itās happening throughout the country. So this Federation of State Medical Boards has managed to exhort 15 different medical boards to actually go after, to challenge the licenses of doctors in 15 states.
Luckily, the other 50 or so boards, 55 have not, they have a little they actually maybe read the law. Maybe they know thereās a First Amendment, and they havenāt done it, but 15 of the boards have started threatening or even removing the licenses of doctors force free speech.
And as I said, I mean, weāre going through a really apocalyptic time in history. And this is a fundamental constitutional freedom of speech issue, Iām out towards the end of my career, I donāt need the money to practice. Iām not supporting a family anymore.
And I felt that if anyone could take a risk to challenge this, what I thought was totalitarian, Soviet style approach to controlling medicine, then I, you know, would be ā¦ and I have a stellar record, Iāve never had a malpractice case, Iāve never had an adverse board action, you know, my medical career is so clean, I thought they canāt possibly go after me for my treatment of patients. And in fact, they havenāt. So ā¦ so thatās my story.
Tessa Lena:
Oh, that is such a stunning situation that youāre dealing with, especially the psychological evaluation ā¦ like, as Iām saying, that Iām still rubbing my eyes, because that is straight back to the USSR, before my days, actually. And so your response on your blog to the complaints and to the suspension of your license is stellar, I think. So if you want to go over the points?
Dr. Meryl Nass:
Okay. So, the Board ā¦ hereās what happened. So the Board said, we got two complaints from citizens. They are not your patients. Theyāve never met you. But they saw videos of you online, and they complain that you were spreading āmisinformation.ā Respond. Which was very Soviet in itself.
So I said, Look, whatās the āmisinformationā? Be specific! And they wouldnāt answer. So I said, you expect me to defend myself against anything Iāve ever said, online or outside the office? I said, what right do you have to even investigate my private life? Of course, they didnāt answer that, either.
So then they ā¦ one of the complaints was the interview that Dr. Mercola did with me. So they got it transcribed, and they just put, you know, they just threw the transcript into my docket, as if I have to ā¦ now ā¦ Iām expected to provide evidence for every single statement I made in an hour plus interview.
Well, you know, again, that doesnāt sound very legal. You know, they havenāt actually accused me of a crime. They havenāt said one statement is wrong, but I have to defend myself. So another Soviet tactic.
That was the first two complaints. The third one was ā¦ so what the Board of Medicine and the Board of Pharmacy have done in my state, and I suspect has happened in many other states, is because they donāt have the authority to stop the prescribing by doctors and the dispensing by pharmacists of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, they have instead sent out letters, memos and other things, indicating that these are not FDA approved for purpose, and implying that doctors and pharmacists who do provide these to patients could be investigated, could have their licenses removed.
And they didnāt say that in so many words. They implied it in several warnings. And so what happened is almost every pharmacist in the state of Maine will no longer dispense these medications, even though theyāre legal, that they have licenses, they are for humans. I can write prescriptions. And the governor of the state even made an order in 2020 that hydroxychloroquine cannot be used for prophylaxis but can be used for the treatment of acute COVID.
So I had a patient about six weeks ago, who was a very high risk patient. I was very frightened of what might happen to him if he got COVID. And I had prescribed ivermectin previously, which was legal, but not hydroxychloroquine because it wasnāt legal in my state. And when he got COVID, I then said, well, we better give you the hydroxychloroquine now, and I knew there were no pharmacies in his area that were willing to dispense it.
So I called it in any way. And I didnāt state the reason which you ā¦ they want you to stay so that they can decide whether or not to dispense it. And the pharmacist, I left a message and the pharmacist called me back and said whatās itās for. And so I could either say COVID, and the patient wouldnāt receive the medication. Or I could say something else. So I said something else.
I said Lyme disease, and the pharmacist dispensed the medication, the patient took it, he eventually wound up in the hospital on a ventilator anyway. Thatās how high risk he was. He survived. Heās much better now. But thatās what happened.
And I immediately informed the board and I said, Look, your policies and the policies of the pharmacy board have forced me to lie to a pharmacist in order to get a patient a sorely needed medication. And you need to change your policies. This is not acceptable.
So ā¦ so the third complaint was that I lied to a pharmacist. Now I had told them five minutes after I did it that I had lied to a pharmacist, they had forced me to lie to a pharmacist because it was perfectly legal to do what I had done to prescribe this drug and have it dispensed. But only because of these whispers and veiled threats we couldnāt get it for the patient, and I had to lie.
So that was complaint three. There were two more complaints from health care professionals. Both of ā¦ one said, this doctor prescribed hydroxychloroquine to a patient she was pregnant. And I should have I should have been called. And I would have given the patient monoclonal antibodies.
The second doctor said, this doctor prescribed ivermectin to a patient and the patient didnāt recover and wound up in the hospital. And this could have delayed care, proper care. So those were the complaints, not one from a patient or a patientās family. Not one, not a single one of these five complaints really alleging that I had harmed a patient.
But that was enough for them to start a witch hunt, a fishing expedition. And so, by ā¦ so then they said, Well, youāre immediately a danger to your patients. So we summarily suspend your license, and we direct you to a neuro psychological examination.
Now, they had nothing, really they had nothing on me, just these, you know, things that are not really crimes. So itās not a crime to prescribe a licensed drug. And when youāre a licensed doctor, and it was off label, well guess what, 20 to 40% of all drugs are prescribed off label. Itās nothing wrong with that. So ā¦
What they really wanted to do was to ruin my life as much as possible. By ordering the psychological exam, they then were able to put these records in the public domain and smear me. So the national news then reported on me, implying that I had a substance abuse problem, and this is why I needed a neuropsych exam. And Iāve never been a substance abuser.
The other thing the board did ā¦ so, once youāre reported to the National Practitioner Data Bank, basically you canāt get a license in another state, and you canāt get a job. So thatās also ā¦ by ordering the psych exam, that sends me into the National Practitioner Data Bank.
The other thing they did was said we want ā¦ because they needed a patient ā¦ they needed to find something Iāve done wrong, and they still didnāt have anything ā¦ they said, we want a list of every patient youāve seen in the last six months. So ā¦ and Iāve had two lawyers who are assigned to me by my malpractice insurer, and both of them, when they got into this case, they quit. So at the moment, I donāt even have a lawyer. The lawyers donāt want to handle it. Yeah, so thatās the situation.
Tessa Lena:
But itās stunning. The amount of ignorance ā¦ because even though I am not a doctor ā¦ my closest relationship to medicine is I grew up with doctors, and I helped my mom translate her thesis when I was a kid. But even I knew, before reading your blog, that hydroxychloroquine was safe in pregnancy. I mean, I knew that being a layman, and they did not know that?
Dr. Meryl Nass:
The midwife apparently did not know that. She also didnāt know that the monoclonal antibodies she wanted to give the patient are not approved or authorized in pregnancy, and the risk is completely unknown.
You know ā¦ but this is ā¦ people have drunk the Kool Aid, they donāt realize that they cannot any longer trust the advice from federal agencies, you know, and especially someone like a midwife whoās a nurse, a nurse practitioner, basically, they are ā¦ their whole career has been taking orders from the medical establishment and from doctors.
They donāt realize they have the ability to actually look things up, and they donāt have to just do what theyāre told.
So ā¦ with the electronic medical record, now, if you type in āCOVID,ā you know, the electronic medical record will come up and spit out what youāre supposed to give the patient and it will say Remdesivir, or itāll say monoclonal antibodies, or, you know, another experimental antiviral ā¦ it doesnāt say, hydroxychloroquine, or ivermectin ā and doctors who are using these electronic medical records donāt even, you know, realize that there are other options out there.
Tessa Lena:
But your record of treating patients has been extremely successful. And, as you said, none of your patients complained, none of their family members complained.
Dr. Meryl Nass:
Correct.
Tessa Lena:
That is just stunning. And you know, what I was thinking as I was preparing for this interview, probably the same people who are complaining, or at least their higher ups, if they were in a critical condition, they would probably choose you as a doctor. And not Dr. Fauci.
Dr. Meryl Nass:
Yes. Because ā¦
Tessa Lena:
Yeah. Sorry, go ahead.
Dr. Meryl Nass:
Thatās true. I know Peter McCullough has said he has treated, you know, many legislators, for example. And I met a lawyer who then became an Attorney General in one of the states. And he and his wife told me that they had to smuggle ivermectin into their son ā¦ in the hospital, with COVID, because the doctors wouldnāt give it. So, I mean, itās an amazing story.
This this person whoās now an Attorney General, not in New England, had to smuggle ivermectin in for his son, to keep him alive.
So yes, many of the officials do know that these drugs are effective and want them for themselves, and get them for themselves. But they go along with the narrative. They donāt challenge it. And, you know, their career is more important.
And I felt that, you know, truth and the First Amendment, and changing medicine ā¦ medicine should ā¦ medicine is supposed to be about a relationship between a doctor and a patient and helping an individual patient get the best care they need, not enforcing government diktats on patients, not ā¦ not bringing in a new normal via ā¦ sorry ā¦ a new normal via enforced medical care and enforced medical lockdowns, masks, etc.
The I think the whole medical profession the medical establishment has been used to make profound changes in our society, you know, under the guise of dealing with a pandemic. And so, you know, I feel like I have to stand up for that. Thatās much more important than preserving my career.
Tessa Lena:
I admire you, and the situation in medicine ā¦ Well, several things to say here. One, it reminds me of the early Nazi Germany where as we know, the doctors and the nurses were at the forefront of the psychological change, where the nurses would, you know, hug a baby with a disability, and then inject them with a lethal injection and kill them.
And they knew they were doing that, and they did it kind of from love. And it took seemingly not that much to convince them that that was an act of goodness, to kill that baby with disability. And that says a lot.
And ā¦ and doctors, from what I hear, in Nazi Germany were very, very highly represented in the Nazi Party.
Dr. Meryl Nass:
Yes.
Tessa Lena:
They were joining in high numbers and other professions. And these were educated people who well, presumably, joined the profession in order to help people. So, what can be done to human head with ideology is just horrifying and stunning. And just ā¦
Dr. Meryl Nass:
Tessa, there is a ā¦ there is a very disturbing movie ā¦ there have been rumors about euthanasia in the UK, during the pandemic. And thereās a disturbing movie called āA good deathā that has just been released, about the fact that doctors and nurses in hospitals in the UK have been injecting patients with COVID, with a mix of midazolam, which is like Valium, but stronger, and morphine, and sometimes other drugs, to give them also a good death, as quick and easy death.
And itās very disturbing, there are documents showing that the UK bought a couple of years worth of midazolam, this drug, like Valium, that is used for euthanasia, and ā¦ at the beginning of the pandemic, and went through this two years stockpile in a couple of months, two or three months, and then wound up buying some more.
I canāt vouch for the total veracity of this, but it is extreme ā¦ there are many families interviewed ā¦ Itās very disturbing. And one can see that under ā¦ again, in the UK, in the US under the guise of protecting the National Health Service or protecting our hospitals, you know, people had to put off their surgeries had to do various things, so they wouldnāt disturb the hospital so they could take care of COVID patients.
And if youāre in a hospital, and you run out of beds, it may make sense that you have to kill off the older COVID patients. So you have room for the younger ones, or something like that. These are, you know, the obviously against the law, very troubling.
One of the ways that this can be ushered in is if drugs or if drugs or ventilators are used that are emergency use authorized, all liability is taken away from the doctors, nurses and others who are making use of these products. So if you give a patient, for example, Remdesivir was authorized, now itās approved, or monoclonal antibodies, and the patient dies, you canāt be sued. If the patientās injured, you canāt be sued, the manufacturer canāt be sued, the hospital canāt be sued.
Everybody has had their liability waived as long as youāre using one of these experimental products. And when you go into the hospital with COVID, those experimental products are what the doctor has been told to use. So this is a legal mechanism that enables very bad things to happen in a way where nobody is afraid they will be punished afterwards.
Tessa Lena:
That is a frightening thought. And Iāve also heard about it, I havenāt seen the documentary, so thank you for mentioning, I will definitely watch it. But it is stunning to think about the slide towards evil.
Like, it does not have to start with a person desiring to do evil, it can start in an entirely different place. And then, by peer pressure, and just seeing evil happening and gradually normalizing it in own head, somebody who started with the greatest intentions, can become a messenger of evil without even realizing that, and then itās too late. And itās really, really stunning to think about it.
Like I know, for example, that after the fall of the Soviet Union, what was happening in the hospitals there, I donāt know about euthanasia or anything like that, but I know for a fact that they would sometimes tie a patient to a bed or not allow relatives to come in, and then the person might die, and things like that that are just unthinkable cruelty.
And this is something Iāve been thinking about for years just because of my family history over there, and It stunned me back then. And it seems like now, it is almost the norm in hospitals. I donāt want to say āthe norm,ā itās too scary, itās too dark ā¦ maybe not. But at least much more of a norm. And ā¦
Dr. Meryl Nass:
It actually is the norm. Most hospitals will not let family in anymore. What someone told me, I donāt know if this is true, either. They said the family was only led in once they had agreed basically to let the patient go. Once they agreed to disconnect them from a ventilator, then the family was allowed in to say their goodbyes ā¦ Sorry ā¦
Tessa Lena:
I donāt know ā¦ I am like, what is happening to peopleās heads? Because the concept of medical murder, I think, is something that is so hard for many average citizens, and I mean," average" as in, just like normal people ā¦ so hard to accept.
Because if you think about, say, an American, a regular American who had a somewhat successful career, or very successful career, they made money, they had their prime time, they went to parties, they had relationships, they, I donāt know, gave interviews ā¦ they did all those things that are glorious and pleasant.
And then all of a sudden, theyāre old. And theyāre locked in the hospital room. And all of a sudden, they see the face of the machine, and thatās it. And their families are not allowed in, and theyāre being murdered. And maybe they even realize at that point, in those last few days, that theyāre being murdered, or maybe not, but that that is it. And nobody sees that. Talking about it is suspicious, it makes you sound crazy because it just ācanāt be happening.ā And that is a horrifying thought.
And so many people had even their family members who died from COVID in the hospital. And then that was used to frighten everybody else, and to justify all the draconian measures, and ā¦
Dr. Meryl Nass:
Or the families who begged the hospital to give their family member ivermectin, and they wonāt. And then ā¦ and then they have to bring in a lawyer and sue the hospital. And the hospitals are paying lawyers to fight back to not give patients a drug that could be life-saving. Who is who is paying the hospital, to spend money to try to prevent patients from getting a perfectly safe drug that might be life-saving?
I mean, weāre in a very, very dark situation. As I said, the medical industry is being used to bring in the new normal, and the new normal is not looking very nice.
And people donāt really know whatās going on, even I donāt know, Iām not working in a hospital any longer, so I donāt know whatās happening. But I do have people call me, begging me to help, you know, get their relative medications. But once youāre in the hospital, I canāt help.
I can help as a ā¦ I could have helped as an outpatient ā¦ I cannot now do anything. But before, you can treat patients as long as there are outpatients ā¦ once they enter the hospital. You have no ā¦ no say over them. Itās the doctors who are assigned to them there.
Tessa Lena:
It is frightening. I know one good story where a friendās relative in her 90s was in the hospital for another reason ā¦ she developed pneumonia, then she was diagnosed with COVID. And nobody knows whether COVID was the reason or what but she ended up surviving, and they treated her as a human being, as in ā¦ I donāt think they were giving her COVID medications per se, but that probably wasnāt even the reason, so they treated her with care.
(continues below)
1 Like
(Transcript, continued)
And they treated her pneumonia properly, and she survived, and she was out, and sheās fine. So that is one story because I was terrified when she was in the hospital. But there are so many stories that are the opposite of that, unfortunately. So the hospital ā¦
Dr. Meryl Nass:
You know, another thing that happened early on, and I ā¦ I wrote widely about this mean, I probably wrote the seminal article, was that there were several clinical trials, which gave patients excessive doses of hydroxychloroquine that were potentially lethal.
And one of these trials was done throughout the UK and enrolled 1600 people in the arm of the trial that gave a dose of hydroxychloroquine that was several times higher than normal. Itās ā¦ that those has never been used therapeutically before for anything. There was no justification for it. And 25% of the patients in that trial died.
They ā¦ WHO had a trial, and they enrolled about 1000 patients, and they overdose hydroxychloroquine arm, and a bit over 100 patients died.
These trials persisted even after a Brazilian trial had overdosed people on the cousin of hydroxychloroquine, which is Chloroquine ā¦ had shown that they had an enormous number of deaths, 40% in in a small trial of overdosed Chloroquine, and they, the Brazilians told the world about it, they immediately reported it, it was published in the Jama in April of last year, as soon as it happened ā and yet the UK trial, and the WHO trial persisted and continued until June, and the WHO trial only stopped three days after I had written to Tedros and others at the WHO and told them, If you have not disclosed to your subjects that youāre giving them a potentially lethal dose of this drug, you will be liable. And then the trial stopped.
But the fact that, you know, many doctors in different countries were involved with these trials, and none of them apparently bothered to look up the dose and find out that they were giving a borderline lethal dose to patients ā¦ when you think about it ā¦ think of ā¦
I mean, over 2600 people in these large clinical trials in multiple countries were overdosed with hydroxychloroquine, apparently, for the purpose of making the ā¦ giving the drug such a bad name, that nobody would use it. And this is April, May 2020.
Tessa Lena:
I remember when you just wrote about it, I was stunned. And the fact that the medication that is so old, and, I donāt know, people at the WHO didnāt know the correct dosage? With the doctors, they probably just complied, even though it would have helped to read about the dosage, but ā¦ stunning.
Dr. Meryl Nass:
So ā¦ you canāt ā¦ you canāt make a mistake, I donāt think you can make a mistake like this when the WHO had committees designed to figure out what those to use, right? And the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation had people on all the committees of the WHO, determining what drugs and doses should be used to ā¦ in the trials for COVID, early on, starting in March, two years ago.
And Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has a group of scientists who work on malaria drugs, Chloroquine, hydroxychloroquine are malaria drugs. So this group actually models dosing for malaria drugs, and members of this group were in the group at WHO determined the doses. So I donāt think this was a mistake.
Tessa Lena:
It is so dark. Because then, there is no other explanation than murder. And it is so dark. And even when the evidence points at that ā¦ it is like, even for me, and I write about those things, I research those things, it is very hard to accept. Something in me wants to find another explanation, there has to be another explanation ā¦ itās just too dark!
Dr. Meryl Nass:
I donāt think there were too many people who actually knew, I think. I think most people in, you know, Western Europe, In the UK, they donāt deal with malaria, right. Iāve had malaria. I have familiarity with these drugs. I spent six months in Africa, six months in India. So I know all the malaria drugs, but most doctors donāt.
I think a few people came up with the dosing, for whatever reason, and everybody else simply went along, they were all busy, it was the beginning of the COVID pandemic, right? Everybody was scratching their heads, trying to figure out what to do, didnāt have PPE, everybody was frightened out of their wits, the doctors and the nurses were wearing garbage bags instead of PPE. And everybody did what they were told.
And these trials were set up, certainly the WHO trial was set up, such that the, the doctors and nurses did not select the doses, you just typed in a little bit of demographic information on the patient, and then WHO would say which drug to be used, and the dose, so it kind of took those decisions out of the hands of the local doctors.
There also was ā¦ was not formal, informed consent in that WHO trial. They claimed that they ā¦ some of the consent was obtained afterwards, and that theyād given the informed consent forms to the patient. Well, of course, you donāt do that. Youāll have to keep them for the trial. Itās a legal document.
They say they gave them to the patient, so ā¦ they did not get informed consent from ā¦ for the patients in the WHO clinical trial. I donāt know ā¦ itās a very difficult time. There are a few bad people and a lot of people who donāt know any better. They probably donāt know what the laws are. They donāt know how the system works and theyāre, you know, putting one foot in front of the other.
Itās very hard to be a doctor today. You donāt have very much autonomy, you donāt have much authority, everybodyās looking over your shoulder. And theyāre, I think most of them are just trying to keep their nose clean and just keep on marching until they can retire.
Tessa Lena:
That is so sad. And now, switching towards philosophy for a second, I remember the time prior to the pandemic, a few years before the pandemic, when there were so many warnings, saying that if algorithmic thinking and algorithmic technology takes over medicine or aviation, itās not going to be pretty, because eventually doctors are going to be slaves to the algorithm, and theyāre going to be afraid for their licenses, because theyāre going to be sued if they step a little bit away from the algorithm, and theyāre going to be trapped, and not really practicing medicine anymore. But a few years ago, it was just philosophy, kind of, a conversation over a glass of wine.
Dr. Meryl Nass:
Right. Exactly. Theoretical,
Tessa Lena:
Theoretical. And ā¦ and I had those conversations, and I even led some of those conversations ā and I could not imagine in my wildest dreams that this would be happening in 2020 and on. It is really scary.
Dr. Meryl Nass:
Well, so ā¦ so you can see. I mean, from my perspective, when all these things are happening, it makes sense that you have to stand up and say no, you know, I canāt be a silent German. Whatever the risk, you know ā¦ you have to say enough is enough.
Tessa Lena:
Good for you! And I actually suspect that when the darkness passes, which it will, even though we donāt know when, but those doctors who are compliant, many of them might be thrown under the bus. Because thatās how it usually works in history.
Dr. Meryl Nass:
Yeah ā¦ I mean, I ā¦ Iām not so sure thatās what happens in history. I think the ā¦ the obedient people continue to be obedient and usually get by, but I, I have nothing ā¦ you know, I think everybody is doing their best.
I think thereās very few people who have the background I have, who have ā¦ you know, Iāve consulted for the Director of National Intelligence here in the United States. And Iāve consulted for the Ministry of Health in Cuba. You know, as I said, Iāve traveled to many countries. Iāve seen how things work. And I, you know, so I have a broader perspective.
I know ā¦ I know, the law because I was very much involved with the legal work around the anthrax vaccine for years. So I learned what the law was regarding drugs and vaccines, and almost no doctors have that kind of background.
So when ā¦ when a board tells them they canāt, you know, spread āmisinformation,ā they assume the board has the authority to say that, and they assume they better not spread āmisinformation.ā And they, you know, try ā¦ try to do the right thing, so ā¦
I donāt have ā¦ Iām, Iām not really angry at anyone, I think this is a combination of a lot of ignorance, and a few bad actors. And I do hope the bad actors will be, you know, taken to task. But I think for the rest, we need to start teaching people the Constitution, the law, you know, your ā¦ your country has guaranteed you rights, and you must not give them up.
You know, a lot of people fought and died for these rights, and you canāt walk away from them. And freedom of speech is the First Amendment as is freedom of religion. The states are not allowed to take these rights away from you, thatās the 14th amendment.
So, hopefully, people will learn, theyāll learn what their rights are, they learn what the right thing is, and theyāll learn that thereās something sacred about the doctor patient relationship. Itās not the doctor patient government relationship, or the doctor patient pharma relationship. Itās the doctor patient relationship. And unless the patient is the only thing the doctor cares about, that trust is broken, and the whole edifice of medicine will collapse.
Tessa Lena:
Well, thank you for being so wonderful and courageous. I really admire you as a human being and your work and your stance. It is really, really admirable. And I hope that a lot more people will follow in your footsteps, and stop complying if theyāre compliant today, it is very important.
Dr. Meryl Nass:
Thank you, Tessa. Thank you. Good to meet you.
Tessa Lena:
Good to meet you, too. So, is there anything that you want to add before we wrap up, and also where can people find you? Iām sure people know, but just the mention it here.
Dr. Meryl Nass:
So I have two blogs. The one I update most frequently is anthraxvaccine.blogspot.com. My other blog is merylnassmd.com. And if I have time, I will make a Substack. Thank you.
Tessa Lena:
Oh thank you. And good luck! I hope you win very very soon and gloriously.
Dr. Meryl Nass:
I appreciate it, thank you, bye-bye.
Tessa Lena:
Bye-bye.
1 Like
Meryl Nassās Board hearing is coming up tomorrow. True to form Dr Nass will be streaming it live, can be watched here:
Up first, I expect her to sock it to them. Here is her opening statement.
The āchargesā were a mixture of āmisinformationā and trivia desperately trawled from patients that she cured of covid. There have been no patients complaints against her.
To call the āmisinformationā charges vague would be to elevate them from non-existence.
Now all the misinformation charges have been deleted.
Meaning, she hasnāt said anything of any note that wasnāt true, or at least strongly backed up by evidence that her hunters could not refute.
Whatās left seems to be the kangaroo droppings 
.
Allegations of āunprofessionalā conduct in prescribing hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, and whatever they may dredge up from dredged up text messages sent when she seems to have been doing exactly what she was supposed to be doing - helping patients diagnosed with covid during the covid pandemic. Her team have said they could find no fault with these communications.
This was at a time when in the UK at least, you couldnāt see your GP for love nor money, whether you had covid or not.
Presumably the āUnprofessionalā charge is the great hope remaining for the pirates. Disagreeing with politicians about medicine, or unlawfully curing a patient.
Dr Nass is strongly represented and supported and really this assault ought to hit the buffers. But itās a Medical Board hearing. Certainly without a strong showing the result could reasonably be considered predetermined. Itās a smart move to air the hearing publicly. But so much is potentially riding on it that there is no guarantee that the Board, with most of the mainstream on their side, will not try to brazen it out. Headed for the courts, most likely.
10/11/22 - 6:00 pmā¢Upcoming
Maine Medical Board ā Meryl Nass, M.D. Official Hearing
Maine Board Licensure in Medicine Suddenly Withdraws āMisinformationā Allegations Against Dr. Meryl Nass
Augusta, ME ā On Sept. 26, the Maine Board of Licensure in Medicine (Board) suddenly withdrew six accusations alleging misinformation against Dr. Meryl Nass. On Sept. 30, the Board withdrew more factual allegations regarding āmisinformation.ā The board has now dropped all charges regarding so-called āmisinformationā on the cusp of the hearing set for Oct. 11, 2022, at 1 p.m. (EDT). With no patient complaints, the Board is now resting its prosecution on the prescribing of hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin and on picayune record-keeping issues that are well within the standard of care.
The Board suspended Nass, a physician of impeccable credentials, on Jan. 12, 2021, without even a hearing. The Board accused Nass, a scientific advisory board member of Childrenās Health Defense (CHD), of āunprofessionalā and ādisruptiveā behavior based on her public criticism of government COVID-19 policies and early treatment of COVID-19.
Prior to her suspension, Nass never had a malpractice case or a prior Board action against her in over forty years of practice. Between October and December 2021, there were four complaints to the Maine Board of Licensure in Medicine. Two from strangers regarding āmisinformationā they saw on the internet, one complaint from a physician regarding prescribing a ādeworming medicationā (ivermectin) and one from a midwife regarding her prescribing hydroxychloroquine. Without a hearing, the Board ordered her license immediately suspended, demanded a neuropsychological evaluation and implied that she was mentally impaired or a substance abuser and incompetent to practice medicine.
Nassās Maine counsel, Gene Libby and Tyler Smith, have moved to dismiss all charges and asked the Board to apologize to her for its unfounded case intended only to silence Nass and like-minded physicians who used effective early treatments for COVID-19 ā as opposed to no treatment at all until patients were hospitalized.
Nassās testifying experts will include Professor Emeritus in Epidemiology at Yale Harvey Risch, M.D., Ph.D., pulmonary and critical care specialist Paul Marik, M.D., inventor of mRNA vaccine technology Robert Malone, M.D., intensive care specialist Pierre Kory, M.D. and surgeon Steven Katsis, M.D. of the Oklahoma Medical Board.
You can read two of the Boardās recent notices withdrawing various complaints (second and third notices), Nassās opening statement to the Medical Board, and defense counselās timeline of events that led to her suspension.
Childrenās Health Defense is supporting Nassās defense. āThe Boardās attempts to censor physicians like Nass have no role in medicine or science; they present a grave danger to the health and human rights of all Americans,ā said CHD president and general counsel Mary Holland.
Tune in on Tuesday, Oct. 11, 2022, at 1:00 p.m. eastern
Itās worth remembering the real reason Dr Meryl Nass is up before the Beaks.
How a false hydroxychloroquine narrative was created, and more
WHO and UK trials use potentially lethal hydroxychloroquine dose ā according to WHO consultant
How CDC massages its data in order to terrify parents into vaccinating their babies and preschoolers
My testimony on legislation to remove vaccine exemptions in Massachusetts, Dec. 3, 2019
In other words,
Thorn in My Side
(at least this will not be censored)
From the links to notices withdrawing various complaintsā¦
āā¦failure to conduct appropriate an appropriate medical interview to obtain relevant medical history and/or perform an appropriate examination for patients 1,2 and 3ā
While Drs in the US and around the world were telling their patients to let the virus replicate in their lungs until they turn blue, in prescribing effective and safe medication she was supposed to go and test them for remote, theoretical risks that only apply, rarely, to long term treatment, if at all.
I just hope justice prevails. Iāll be saying a MNass for her.
3 Likes
End of Day one (I presume), too early for news.
They are rummaging among the text messages for evidence of āfailing to keep proper medical recordsā.
Nothing missing so far
Any disgracefullly crumpled bustickets and illegible till receipts? Public Health awaits with bated breath (do NOT take antivirals for this).
One of the patients seems to have been also speaking for two others in the family that also had covid. These communications were a bit of a challenge. Yet the Dr seemed to have not let anything slip.
Reminder - no patients complained about Dr Meryl Nass.
What a disgrace that having gone guns blazing for for āMisinformationā and been forced to pull all of that, the Board perseveres with this trumped-up nothing crap.
If there was any misinformation Dr Nassās goose would already have been cooked.
Some supportive comments:
It seems she gave the patients her cell phone number! That for me would outweigh a lot of bad admin, if there was anyā¦
2 Likes
Hi folks,
The persecution of Meryl Nass MD continues:
Day 4 of the hearing seems to symbolize the insanity of todayās US bureaucracy - a kangaroo hearing which will be judged by 6 of the people who are being accused by the defendant, Meryl Nash, of suppressing and abusing Doctors!
I listened, gobsmacked, to the slithering and snivveling Faust MD as he used every trick in the rhetorical handbook ( ably assisted, imo, by the āhearing officerā ) to avoid committing himself to a straight answer - day 4 is over 7 hours in this video:
it might be best to wait for a summary review of this, if just to retain your sanity!
cheers
3 Likes
Thanks @CJ1
Itās pretty painful to sit through at the pace (edit: probably like this post, sorry about that 
) I managed to kind of get a third of the way through. A few kangaroos leaping around would have made it more watchable, but thatās not the visual effect they want. Early signs are that the theatre is there, and that far from being decided by heavyweight medical argument, a few key moments amongst the drudgery, involving carpets and a brush, will decide this, and these are solely at the disposal of the prosecutionā¦
Theyāre onto Ivermectin now. Bright young thing Dr Faust seems to be the star witness. He seems a bit of a newbie on the epidemiological scene, with only a few recent studies about covid to his name. Though an ER doctor, his studies are more of a counting nature - mortality, suicides etc. He is up against epidemiology heavyweights like Dr Harvey Risch; there are likely to be many moments where Faustās testimony will be blown away. After all, he doesnāt have the evidence behind him, he has to mislead.
But these moments will likely be buried in the records as the board āfindsā that he is right. The lack of an apparent heavyweight on the board side isnāt a good sign IMO - like the arguments donāt matter.
Faust was arguing that you need to focus on quality studies. At a stroke this tosses out most of the evidence (from 100 studies), and subjectifies the judgement.
Asked to define this quality (apart from Randomized Controlled Trials themselves), he gave a few āindicatorsā - not objective yarsticks that you can measure yourself of course. Superficial ones, it seemed to me. Of course, it so happens he tends to favour industry studies.
One of these memes, waved about as if they were yardsticks, was about the quality and transparency of the blinding of a study. This became interesting when he selected five or six āqualityā ivermectin studies and the first one of his was one of the known rogues, already known to be greviously flawed in Faustās favourite characteristic - the blinding was hopeless.
Not only that the study was carried out in a town where Ivm was available and heavily used, making it likely that the placebo group, even if they complied, had had ivermectin recent to the study. This may have shown in significant numbers of both the placebo and ivermectin groups getting ivermectin symptoms.
A third of the patients in both arms of the study had dizziness and a third had diarrhea during the studyā¦
A link to one of the critical analyses is https://osf.io/u7ewz/ (you can download the whole thing from here), abstract below. There are other criticisms of the study.
Just before I stopped, Mr Libby (Nassās solicitor) asked Faust if he was a promoter of vaccines (he is, of course). The chair ruled the question inadmissible, even though they were talking about biases.
I donāt know what Faust said when/if he was asked to declare any conflicts of interest but imagine a VHS CEO testifying to the quality of Betamax videos.
I expect Libbyās dilemma will be whether to play along to the very end and try to somehow win this despite the predetermined appearance, or bail out at some chosen point and denounce the process as a sham.
Cheers
ED
Abstract
A randomized controlled trial for treatment of mild cases of COVID-19 conducted in Cali, Colombia reported no statistically significant differences in outcomes for its ivermectin (IVM) and placebo arms. A striking anomaly, however, was that certain adverse events (AEs) that are distinctive for the studyās high-dose IVM use occurred at nearly identical rates in its IVM and placebo arms.
The backdrop for these indicators of IVM use in study controls was widespread sales of IVM for COVID-19 in the Cali area during the study period, with 1.6 IVM doses sold over the counter for each case of COVID-19. The study compounded these risks of contamination of the control arm with critical errors in blinding and segregation of IVM v. placebo doses. A labeling error substituted IVM for placebo doses of 38 patients. Also, 5% dextrose solution was used for the first 64 patients in the placebo group, easily distinguishable from bitter tasting IVM. Given widespread availability and sales of IVM in Cali, lapses in segregation and blinding of IVM and control doses, and IVM-characteristic AEs in controls, the integrity of the studyās control arm was violated. Some useful information can nevertheless be salvaged from outcomes of this studyās IVM treatment arm, which had 0 deaths and generally mild symptoms, with AEs typical for high-dose IVM (replicated in the control group) that were generally mild and transient.
4 Likes
I also meant to say that this format and forum, which necessitates a lot of bumbling while documents are identified (two numbering systems in play, in a multi-zoom meeting lasting many hours), agreed, and someone says a few words about them, is hardly adequate for a serious judgement on the issue of the effectiveness of a drug with 100 studies, particularly with a view to then ādeterminingā whether a physician is therefore neglectful of their duty for prescribing it.
It is very suitable, however, for a prosecution witness to sail forth upon a few buoyant memes which are aimed at the medical and science media, which will find their way into mainstream news - irrespective of the force with which they may be refuted - and into the heads of physicians most of whom wonāt be paying close attention to the actual deliberations but will note the outcome and headlines.
3 Likes
Hi @Evvy_dense , what struck me was that there seemed to be a deal between both parties on talking about vaccines - why would the Nass side agree to that given the known and well documented failures in the ātrialsā of pharma to prove they were in any way safe and effective. Iām thinking of the trial that was supposed to compare an injected group with a blinded placebo group where the pharma trial managers completely removed the control placebo arm by injecting the placebo victims with covid jabs after just a few weeks - resulting in no ability at all to reveal the failure of the covid jabs! As you say there is a complete lack of consistency with this hypocracy.
The other point about ignoring a so-called āsecondaryā result apart from using it as an hypothesis on which to base future studies - Faust actually stated that the death of a participant given the jab in one trial was āonlyā a secondary result and yet he went outside the parameters of another trial to look at 2 individuals after the trial had been ended to check whether they had died after the trial ( which of course they had, otherwise I guess this little foray would not have been mentioned!). So if your aim is only to look for differences between the jabbed arm and the placebo arm in relation to case numbers, or hospital admissions, if deaths were incidentally observed amongst the jabbed but not unjabbed, these would be considered secondary and could not be relied upon as a danger signal - FFS!!
Nor did I notice that anyone mentioned the observational studies of the success of HCQ or IVM amongst large populations in India and Mexico when compared to deaths and hospitalisations in populations in neighbouring states or counties not using such treatments.
Finally did anyone mention the fact that Nassā patients survived at a time when so-called covid victims under mainstream health care were dropping dead from āventillator syndromeā or midazolam or just doing nothing! Although I believe one of the witnesses suggested that HCQ was not the reason patients survived it was something else like a better immune system ( something of course which is never acknowledged when it comes to claiming āvaccineā success!), the fact that they did survive when most didnāt following mainstream guidelines should surely be shouted from the rooftops! Itās the constant refrain when looking at injuries of those with the jab - their death was just a coincidence, and the survival of HCQ users was just a coincidence!
I think this appeal process is totally flawed from start to finish but it seems the only way to get to real court action at later appeals - this could go on for years!
But is just another example of the Rule of Claw to which we are all subject!
cheers
4 Likes
Another round, probably missed one. The last day of evidence. Threepatients are speaking for Nass, along with Dr Paul Marik and Pierre Kory. They are most accomplished; Marik with 800 publications, many thousands of citations. According to the most common numerical yardstick of merit or influence, he is in the top 0.01%.
Iāve not followed most of this but I tuned in for a bit.
As per my post above, Dr Paul Marik confirmed that the standard of care was indeed āWait till you turn blueā. Lol!
Hatchet faces didnāt crack a smile.
Paul Marik confirms standard care wasā¦wait until you turn blue.
PM: The EUA has no significance. Drs can prescribe approved drugs.
(So the aim was to intimidate Drs.
In fact it did have significance - prescribe HCQ and you can end up here, like Dr Nass).
They had claimed Nass should not have diagnosed a patient by phone (telemedicine) but done a physical exam. And a PCR test.
PM: # PCR is not a diagnosis; up to 40% false pos and also false neg.
Flu numbers dropped during covid.
PM was asked the basis for his false positive figure, said due to Cycles=40 being way too high and also test could pick up flu molecules.
PMās tone at some of these questions gives the impression he thinks the interrogators (the board, six members in attendance) havenāt a medical clue.
Board charges MN failed to do physical exam.
PM: They seem to misunderstand the situation with covid (!).
(I wondered about this! In the UK you couldnāt see a Dr for love nor money. If you spoke to one they would say go to the NHS website or call 911 if youāre sick enough. Yet Dr Nass was taking calls from them on her cell phone, and is accused of substandard care.)
PM added, there is no physical exam that would help
PM: # Astonished at the family claim / lack of consent allegation (speaking to relative; both had covid, Board alleged did not have proper consent)
PM: # Speaking with the family is integral. essential, always has been/.
Spelled it out, in some surprise.
On Board # Assertion - pt. not getting the benefit of monoclonal antibodies?
PM: # Blatantly false.
Further explains: # The MA didnāt work with Omicron. And it has to be given within 3 days. And it only makes a difference of a few percent. No difference in mortality.
The whole MA thing is completely erroneous.
It was alleged that the prescription of ivermectin delayed hospital?
Absolutely not.
What about failing to consult the midwife?
No obligation - especially as the midwife was so hostile to her. Unfounded allegation.
Or failing to consult other Drs?
Nice idea but Drs wouldnāt get through their patients.
Maybe if there is something particular.
(Seems Board are just ā¦alleging. Trying their luck. Maybe hoping for one bad response to pounce on, and make 'crucial. One wrong busticketā¦)
DId she meet the standard of care?
ā¦Oh my goodness she went higher than the standard of care.
To PM # You Wrote that all 3 telem consultations were performed to the highest levels?
PM:# There is nothing different that I would have done.
Allegation No documentation ofā¦informed consent, PM wrote preposterous?
Were the other two patient consultationsā¦
PM: ā¦not sure what else Dr N could have done.
Telem rulesā¦
Rule 6 A2 and A3, TM standards. Did TM need consent?
The patient had initiated it! It would be ridiculous to document that.
These Board questions were put by Nassās attorney Libby. The prosecuting attorney can come back on the answers - but didnāt. He asked how much Marik was paid.
The content - ie allegations - that I have seen so far has been just embarrassing. My simple-minded concerns about these allegations have been echoed by Paul Marik. With no comeback, from six members of the board that made them, and an attorney.
That means they are a lot of bull!
You wonder if it really was ordinary board members that made them.
The allegations brought initially against Nass - misinformation - fell apart and were dropped.
Now today Marik said there was a lot of misinformation - from the FDA!
Unfortunately there was no referee to stop this unseemly affair.
As I say, 6 board members, and it goes to a vote. Probably need 4-2 to beat Nass down.
However I expect the intent is there, may be already agreed.
The main question might be if they throw Dr Nass off, how embarrassing might the fallout be, given they have nothing on her?
The media will be supportive of a hitjob - actually some have been on sterioids already; as in this (s)hit piece, published just two days before Nassās hearing (and which mentions her by name) where the once respectable (in its own terms) Washington Post goes to an awful lot of trouble to mislead its readers:
Doctors who put lives at risk with covid misinformation rarely punished
https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2023/07/26/covid-misinformation-doctor-discipline/
WaPo is owned by Jeff Bezos who has plenty of billionaire and Startrekkietechie ((c) RG ) involvement; it has been dancing to the narrative all along.
I think the evidence will have closed today or spilled to tomorrow. Thatās the last round of conflict, but I think the board can then take as long as they want to make a decision.
If they donāt throw Dr Nass off they will owe her about 18m of back pay.