186 Comments

i think it is also very important to disallow regulators from sharing patents and profiting from “partnerships” with the pharma entities they regulate directly or indirectly

Expand full comment

Revoke Bayh-Dole. Disallow royalties to govt employees. Increase the time before government regulators can work for the industry they regulated, say 5 years. Is there a simple way to put this?

Expand full comment

Not just Bayh-Dole. Also national childhood vaccine injury act and its ilk

I don’t have a simple sentence yet. Trying to talk it out: Permanent public-private movement ban. (?)

Lifetime permanent bar on regulators from ever profiting from their regulatory targets even after leaving their job as a regulator. Lifetime permanent bar on employees or beneficiaries of regulatory targets from becomng regulators or directly/indirectly influencing/contributing to regulatory action. Full transparency and disclosure requirements on all regulators.

Or do we just abolish fda nih cdc and any other similar federal agencies?, Give it back to the States to define the parameters and tradeoffs of oversight vs free market. Let the marketplaces flourish regarding purveyors of science, laboratories, manufacturers of medical products, and entities that reciew and evaluate the aforementioned. Let the independent and several states determine their level of oversight and public “protection”.

Expand full comment

Personally I would abolish CDC and clean up FDA. I think new #14 gets rid of the onerous parts of the 86 injury act. Change NIH. I also have a great amendment: if any company conducted fraud in any part of its actions for licensure, the product can NEVER be licensed.

Expand full comment

Nice idea about penalties for fraud. Consider a blckout period for the company to file for new products.

Additionally, there can be more potency if individuals are exposed to liability. There were some laws in the business world where CEO and CFO and maybe some other company officers have to personally sign financial statements submitted to SEC and be exposed to personal liability. The same or similar requirements should be made on CEO and Chief Scientists and others of pharma companies for all regulatory filings - sign your name asserting the truthfulness and completeness of the filing, or else face personal consequences including prison.

Expand full comment

The concept of subsidiarity must be taken seriously. All governmental controls must be based at the most local level, unless not able to be performed there. Under that rubric, there is no need (and no constitutional warrant) for any of the health-related alphabet soup agencies.

Expand full comment

The agencies charged with overseeing companies must take financial responsibility for harm done to public and private property and health. Animal welfare and safety should also be strictly enforced.

Employees of important government regulatory agencies must be run by highly qualified administrators, not treated as campaign donor rewards to private sector managers who have conflicts of interest and no training in their area of authority.

As far as I know, the CDC is not a government agency. Fauci acted like it and other agencies ruled the country. He usurped power and control from the government and the president. No one called him on it.

Expand full comment

Bayh/Dole should be revoked. Last paragraph has great merit. They are unconstitutional and violate federalism in any case. Achieving these is likely impossible, however.

Expand full comment

Or require public reporting of ALL benefits and sources (royalties, job/position promises, etc) within 3 months for ALL federal employees or contractors. There was an effort to put in substantial reform in the Bayh-Dole act before, and govt. employees AND lobbyists BOTH screamed bloody murder, and the reform effort dropped. The government said they couldn't hold on to employees without this "legalized bribery" in place. The lobbyists... well, guess who was writing the checks.

Expand full comment

That would be good also but people like the Faux who have no shame would not care if his royalties were reported--he would still take them. But this certainly makes sense.

Expand full comment

He hid behind vague reporting requirements and was able to hide it for quite some time. I'm pushing for more open disclosure that is easily and publicly accessible.

Expand full comment

END PHARMA LIABILITY SHIELD

PROHIBIT GOVT DRUG PROPAGANDA

Expand full comment

#14 added. #3 (in a discussion I did not include here, but was included in the original substack on this topic, prevents govt payments to media and prohibits govt spending on propagandizing citizens).

I feel that once the truth of what just happened gets out, and it will, no one will believe anything anymore. For a generation anyway.

Expand full comment

Revoke parts of the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act that allows this (Obama put this in)

Expand full comment

That was included in the notes on #3

Expand full comment

Yes that would be to reverse Obama's eecutive order allowing this and we need to also re-invigorate the anti trust laws concerning all media and social media and investment companies like Black Rock.

Expand full comment

Would it be possible for you to work with Jeff Childers (or Del Bigtree/Aaron Siri) to put this in legislative form? Meryl, I would be will to help fund the costs.

Expand full comment

Great idea. Attorney Mary Holland, President of Childrens Health Defense, helped me with the original language (#s 1-5) and I definitely want to get legal help as we craft the final shape.

I know Aaron, always very busy, but maybe he would be interested? Maybe Jeff Childrers would be?

If people want to contribute to this effort, please reach out to me @ merylnass@protonmail.com, but please respect that I get hundreds of emails daily and I want to be able to read most of them.

Expand full comment

prohibit drug advertising. US and NZ are only countries in the world to allow. Who opened up that can of worms? Don't know if eliminating drug ads could be possible?!

Expand full comment

how about eliminating drug reps payola visits to doctor's offices as well?

Expand full comment

They are the only ones (I think that is still true) to allow TV ads for drugs--but other countries allow ads in other media.

Expand full comment

Good to know-thank you!

Expand full comment

The medical and science and academic community needs to recommit itself to an updated nuremburg 2.0 code of medical ethics and medical freedoms. Never Again.

Expand full comment

Great piece Meryl. The one thing I would disagree with is having small fines for people that don't vote. I am a single issue medical freedom voter and plan to vote accordingly in elections moving forward. That being said, the only way there should be a law forcing people to vote is if there is a 'None of the Above' option. Trump and Biden were both terrible for different reasons. If it comes down to those two in 2024, I'll have no part of it.

Keep up the great work, Dr Nass!

Expand full comment

I also don't agree with fines or penalties for not voting. I would offer an alternative, which is to recommit our public education to teaching civics and the foundational ideals of America.

Expand full comment

You are a credit to humanity… your unending attempts to help us with all you write is profound and every day I pray for you’

This list to restore our nation is extremely

well written … I am proud of you . You are like a light in the darknessI! I share all you write and encourage others to subscribe!

God bless!

Expand full comment

No self spreading pharmaceuticals. They bypass informed consent. No funding for them.

Expand full comment

Does this include banning the mRNA technology platform that takes over the manufacturing processes within cells to produce foreign proteins and which may run amok esp. since the possibility for degradation may mean the proteins produced can't be guaranteed? You had me at "No...".

Expand full comment

Great observation, HH.

Ban on technologies that subvert or alter the fundamental mechanisms of the human body?

Expand full comment

Great idea. MRNA may need it's own category.

There are so many reasons to ban it, studies that back up its ability to enter DNA, no long term genetic before and after studies done. Many dont eat GMO food yet they line up to become GMO humans.

Expand full comment

I agree and would like to add that anyone even proposing the research or ask for funding shall be "hung in the town square and burn their property to the ground."

I haven't thrown that out since I was kicked off twitter, used it with discussions to the "good Germans" amongst us that were vilifying the dissenters, me being in that category.

https://www.francesoir.fr/opinions-tribunes/the-day-i-understood-good-german

Expand full comment

Thank you for sharing this.

Expand full comment

Already forwarded to my congressman, with additional items included.

I hope others will do so as well. Please share this! (I'd remove the fines for people who don't vote. I'd want all voter registrations to require SPECIFIC and SEPARATE effort to register to vote, and not have people added willy-nilly by default because they use government programs.)

Expand full comment

I added the following:

- End pharmaceutical liability protections for emergency use authorization, when additional methods/medication exist - they existed for Covid, but where censored by government pressure.

- End government pressure for censorship

- Eliminate any provisions within the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act that allows the US to censor or propagandize information to the American public, or do so through government censorship efforts (directly or through agents acting on behalf or at the request of the government)

- Remove protections for Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act if it's being used to censor people.

-Review /remove the ability for the president to enter into treaties that violate constitutional principles for individual rights, due process for prosecution/persecution, etc.

- Registration to vote must be a separate and conscious effort specifically to vote, and not added as a result of use of government services/programs. Along with a requirement to clean voter rolls regularly - not sure of the enforcement mechanism/penalties.

- I previously mentioned requiring public reporting of ALL benefits and sources (royalties, job/position promises, etc) within 3 months for ALL federal employees or contractors. Bayh-Dole Act reforms. 

- Require reporting of (or inability to gain) employment with industries within 2 years of a position where oversight of the company or its products was a component of their government responsibilities.]

- Whistleblower protections or avenues for reporting by contractors for illegal activities being requested within their employment.

Expand full comment

Something needs to be done about the mercenary science that is performed in service of big pharma (or any products that can harm). Because there is a compelling public interest in getting high quality transparent science, we need to put our heads together for a solution. I don’t think declaring public health science to be regulated as a utility is the right approach. We need a decentralized science model where pharma-captured science cannot influence the outcomes.

Expand full comment

Science and technology being put to use to control and abuse is a huge problem. This will only get worse with increasing advances in technology and no real ethical principles/laws to prevent and penalize abuses.

Expand full comment

"10. Consider small fines for those citizens who do not vote." As a Voluntaryist, I am highly opposed to this. Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch.

Expand full comment

In their moral justification, the argument of the lesser evil has played a prominent role. If you are confronted with two evils, the argument runs, it is your duty to opt for the lesser one, whereas it is irresponsible to refuse to choose altogether. Its weakness has always been that those who choose the lesser evil forget quickly that they chose evil. ~Hannah Arendt

(Book: Personal Responsibility Under Dictatorship https://amzn.to/3Z3ng2G)

Expand full comment

Maybe testing the dangerous levels of 5g phone towers and put safety measures into place to protect all life that's exposed

Expand full comment

Number 11 is supposed to cover this. Since we do not know exactly what is being beamed at us, full disclosure is required and then we can deal with it.

Better ideas welcome!

Expand full comment

I think a lot of research has been done on 4,5 and 6G. Industry does not want to acknowledge the harm they do. I believe some of that information is on the CHD website, or information on where to find it. Here's one I saved.

Non-Profits Score Huge Victory In Battle Against 5G Technology

Posted on August 18, 2021

Author Derrick Broze

"In a landmark decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit has ruled that the Federal Communications Commission failed to consider evidence of adverse health impacts from wireless technology, including 5G.

On August 13, circuit judges with the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled in favor of environmental health groups and petitioners, finding that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) ignored thousands of public comments and evidence of adverse harm from wireless technology."

https://www.thelastamericanvagabond.com/non-profits-score-huge-victory-in-battle-against-5g-technology/

Expand full comment

According to www.cellphonetaskforce.org, operating satellites have passed the 7,000 mark. They go on to say that these cell towers in orbit are altering the electromagnetic environment of the entire planet and are debilitating and exterminating all life on it.

I'm sure that this organization is equipped and able, and would be happy to help with valuable information on this issue.

Expand full comment

For #1, there should not even be two weeks. There is no excuse whatsoever to demand of the people lockdowns or social distancing. It's blatantly unconstitutional, and here in Arizona, so many of us ignored that tyrannical idiocy the first time that traffic was only somewhat lighter. Even more will ignore any nonsense coming out of the mouths of the wannabe tyrants in the future. No, they do not get two weeks to violate the Constitution; no time at all.

Expand full comment

Attorney Holland said there needed to be a time period. She said there could be real emergencies that needed an executive to make decisions, and potentially it could knock out power/grid etc. so that it would take some time to be able to get the legislature to convene. The Pennsylvania legislature passed such a law giving them 3 weeks after the governor declares an emergency.

If there is another way to do this I am all ears.

Expand full comment

I appreciate the anticipation of such horrific emergencies (nuclear holocaust, widespread energy grid outage, massive hurricanes, and other disasters) that a full assessment of "good" emergency measures may not be fully appreciated in advance. Yet, even with British invasion, raging smallpox (vastly higher CFR than for COVID), founding fathers did not make exceptions for emergencies. James Madison apparently anticipated the abuse of such in his writing, which unfortunately did not get spelled out more specifically in the Constitution as not a pretext for tyranny. There is no excuse whatsoever for lockdown; recommended evacuation in the face of imminent disaster, yes, but not 'you are locked in your home.' Right after we enable such a thing, set your watch, and we'll get welded in, as in Shanghai. No, it is especially necessary to keep mobile, especially in the face of tyrannical rollout. I agree with Holland on so much, but not that, due to history's very painful lessons. Let's not learn Solzhenitsyn's, Kafka's lessons all over again

Expand full comment

I will revisit this with the next attorney(s) who evaluate the platform. Thanks, Colleen.

Expand full comment

The "your rights are not absolute" is a very slippery slope. Those rights are unalienable and derive from our Creator and not from our government. Our government does not have standing to deny them. IMHO.

Expand full comment

Help me see where 'your rights are not absolute' is found

Expand full comment

Speeches by Joe Biden and other democrats.

Not found in your piece. However, I think it is related to the idea of providing for suspending rights.

I'm trying to articulate a challenge to the idea that constitutional rights can be suspended by our government.

It seems to me that the idea that constitutional rights may be suspended, even for a limited period of time, with justification being a so-called 'emergency' (who determines that?), presumes that the constitutional rights were created by the government and therefore the government has the ability to suspend them for some 'higher purpose' it deems appropriate.

However, the provenance of our constitutional rights is Natural Law, rather than a government.

Going further, the constitution explicitly states that the federal government only has those powers explicitly granted to it. Lacking any explicit empowerment for suspending people's rights in an emergency, the federal government is powerless to do so.

This is my understanding, not as a constitutional lawyer, but as a layman.

Expand full comment

Great principles, in layman’s rather than legalese. Perhaps something should be said about banning synbio though that is alluded to somewhat loosely. Geoengineering is another thing to specifically campaign against.

Yes, it is a daunting challenge to get anyone in power to accept this pledge but it can’t happen if the objectives aren’t clearly stated and pursued.

Happy New Year Dr. N and everyone.

Expand full comment

#11 was intended to include weather warfare--happy to entertain better ways of doing so

Expand full comment

Ernie--YES. Far too many people are blind to weather weaponry.

Expand full comment

Yes. Most people in congress I suspect are not aware of it.

Expand full comment

With Right to Food, it is not only the right to garden but the right to Farm. I am currently working in Vermont to secure the Right to Farm. You already have that in Maine.

Expand full comment

It says the right to sell or trade food locally. I am not sure we want to get into selling food that crosses state lines--which would federalize the issue.

Expand full comment

Each state should secure this right independently. I think the object here is state sovereignty. We also have to include this for local jurisdictions too. The less the ability for central Federal control of anything, the better. To restore liberty and choice, we must rebuild from the local community up through the states. The Federal Government is too captured at this point for any real change to occur at that level. The states have the opportunity to exercise their state rights in all areas and now is the time to secure as many of those as possible. This weakens the Federal Government.

Expand full comment

Thank you for this effort on everyone's behalf!!

Expand full comment

The arsonists are in all three branches. Hence my statement.

Expand full comment

Yeah ... I don't think so. Very nice work writing this. It's an important document and I support it 100%. That said, totalitarians doing tyranny and genocide are acting on the basis of pure raw power. They are committed. They can only double down. They must oppose those goals military else voluntarily cede power. That the will NEVER do. Instead, for several years now they have waged unconventional warfare on their own citizenry. This is not an error.

Our opposing tactics can vary greatly. History tells us that building life-affirming parallel structures is probably our best strategy. Which this document is a start for. It must go way beyond documents, though. Here's some background:

https://corbettreport.substack.com/p/your-guide-to-fifth-generation-warfare

Expand full comment

Let's do both! That is how we win.

Expand full comment
Comment deleted
January 1, 2023Edited
Comment deleted
Expand full comment

Perhaps the bad man is here to teach the good man how.

Expand full comment