Dr Meryl Nass. On Professional Cancellation, Post-Covid Crisis Problems and the New WHO Agreements

Doctors and researchers who critically investigate and speak out about the harmful consequences of the Covid policies or other related issues have experienced professional cancellation, Dr. Nass says.

FREEDOM RESEARCH TV. Dr. Meryl Nass. Persecution of Doctors Who Refused To Parrot Covid Propaganda and Why Nobody Wants To Talk about 'Informed Consent' Any More

Dr Meryl Nass. On Professional Cancellation, Post-Covid Crisis Problems and the New WHO Agreements

Hannes Sarv

Dec 12, 2023

"The worst thing you can do to a doctor is take away their license. A lot of doctors commit suicide when that happens because all of a sudden you're stripped not only of your income but you're stripped of your reputation," says Dr Meryl Nass from Maine, USA. She says that people generally respect doctors, consider them highly educated, trust them, and seek their advice on the most intimate matters. However, when a doctor's license is suspended or revoked, it is always on the grounds that he or she has made a serious mistake in his or her work. And everything changes. "Your whole meaning in life is gone and nobody likes you anymore because they assume you've done something terrible," says Nass.

Freedom Research is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Nass has never done anything terrible. Not one of her patients has filed a single complaint against her. She is not an alcoholic or a drug addict, nor does she suffer from any mental illness that would prevent her from working as a doctor. However, great efforts have been made to ban her from practising and to destroy her reputation. This is directly attributable to her criticism of the government's damaging decisions during the Covid crisis, her opposition to the introduction of vaccine mandates, and speaking out about the problems with Covid vaccines. The Maine Board of Licensure in Medicine suspended her license to practice medicine in early 2022, and it still is suspended. However, such harassment has done nothing to silence her. She continues to speak out on serious health issues, be it the same health risks associated with Covid vaccine side effects or wrong decisions made in the Covid crisis, or the plans to expand the power of the World Health Organisation (WHO) now at the international level.

How to take away a license from a respected doctor?

Nass is an internist with decades of experience. She has dealt with issues such as the spread of anthrax and the problems and side effects of the anthrax vaccine, adverse reactions and side effects associated with other vaccines, Gulf War Syndrome, etc. She has testified seven times before US Congressional Committees and has been a respected physician. At the same time, she has consistently drawn attention to shortcomings and internal corruption in the medical system.

Although Nass was consistently critical of the government's actions in the Covid crisis, the proceedings and her license suspension followed when she pointed out problems with the Covid vaccines. President Joe Biden's administration introduced a wide-ranging vaccine mandate in September 2021 that allowed to fire vaccine refuses. Nass was opposed to such a policy and voiced vocal opposition towards it, writing several articles and blog posts about it and about other problems with those vaccines. "So that was late August and by October, two months later, suddenly strangers were complaining about me spreading misinformation and the medical board investigated my license. And three months later my license was suspended and it's been suspended ever since," Nass says, noting that a similar pattern has operated worldwide. "The governments found a few examples like myself early on and charged us with spreading misinformation if we told the truth about the vaccines," she adds.

In the case of Nass, it was taken care to ensure that more or less everyone was informed that her licence was being suspended. It was reported in the national media in the United States. "So every doctor around the country probably heard about it. There were others too, but mine was kind of, in a way, the most egregious early on," Nass notes.

Initially, her licence was sought to be suspended for spreading "misinformation" because she had vigorously drawn attention to the health risks and potentially fatal consequences associated with the Covid vaccines, i. e. telling the truth and contradicting the constantly repeated narrative that these vaccines are 'safe and effective'.

However, her licence could not be suspended simply because she wrote or said something. In the United States, freedom of speech is written into the First Amendment of the Constitution. It doesn't matter whether someone thinks it is wrong to present a piece of information, as long as it is a matter of a person's right to speak and write it. Nor did her public statements in no way refer to her practice of medicine, offer nothing for sale, or advertise anything. Nor was there a single patient who ever complained about her.

Damaging her reputation

As it was not possible to punish her in this way, other reasons were sought after. One of the charges brought against her was for recommending 'early treatment' for Covid, including the anti-malarial drug hydroxychloroquine and the anti-parasitic ivermectin. At the time, these drugs were widely demonised and every effort was made to show that they did not work for Covid and were even dangerous. If their efficacy had been recognised, the question would have arisen as to whether an emergency authorisation could even be granted for the rapidly produced Covid vaccines. In addition, of course, people might have asked why, in that case, they should be injected with new vaccines at all, if there were already medicines that have been on the market for years with a good safety profile. Indeed, Nass says that most of the research shows the effectiveness of both drugs against Covid. And there has been plenty of research about it (e.g. see here and here).

Nass therefore had done nothing illegal, but her licence was suspended nonetheless. Finally, she was accused of failing to comply with the technical requirements for providing a telemedicine service. In addition, there was an attempt to label her literally demented or insane. If a doctor is proven to be a drug addict, or alcoholic, or to have dementia or insanity, for example, his or her licence can be suspended immediately. An attempt was made to refer Nass to a neuropsychologist of the committee's choosing, but she refused. Significantly, the request itself made the big news again.

Nass's licence has thus been suspended for almost two years. To get it back, she would have to agree to have her work constantly monitored and checked, to undergo a form of training every three months, and to show remorse. "Well, I have no remorse. I did the right thing. I informed the board that by not doing the right thing, other practitioners had committed a crime against humanity. I don't think they liked that," she says.

"The powers that be do not want people to know what the consequences are of the measures they imposed."

Nass is probably right that no one likes to have their continued mistakes pointed out. In reality, we have to acknowledge that the situation is such that there is still no public debate on the problematic issues surrounding the Covid crisis. The majority of scientists and doctors remain silent and avoid issues concerning the wrong decisions made in the crisis, the serious side effects of vaccines, non-Covid excess mortality, and so on. It is Nass and other 'persecuted' doctors like her who draw attention to these issues. "I can because I'm already punished. There's nothing left they can do to me. Pretty much everybody who discusses those issues has lost their job already or been blacklisted in one way or another," she explains.

When we met with Nass for an interview in Tallinn, Estonia, in the second half of November, she had just attended the International Crisis Summit IV in Bucharest, Romania. "Almost every doctor there had already been punished. So I think it's complicated. The powers that be do not want people to know what the consequences are of the measures they imposed (in the Covid crisis – HS)," Nass says.

It is precisely at such meetings that people discuss why fertility rates in different countries are in steep decline – figures estimate 10-20% – and are not afraid to ask why the decline came after large-scale population vaccination campaigns. The same questions are raised about excess mortality, which remains high in various countries. Nass points out that, depending on which data and which country you look at, excess mortality in the 18-65 age group ranges from 20-40%. Nass explains that, of course, not all excess deaths can be attributed to vaccines. Some of it is probably also due to the 'lockdown' policy used in the Covid crisis, where hospitals were closed and people who needed treatment did not get it. There are suicides, overdoses, etc. However, it is important to note that there is no wider public debate about all this in society and no meaningful attempt by any authority to investigate the causes of high excess mortality.

Contaminated vaccines

Nass points out that the latest worrying piece of information, initially about Pfizer vaccines in particular, is that they have not been properly purified. This refers to DNA plasmids, which are needed in the vaccine production process but which eventually have to be removed. According to Nass, this artificial DNA can enter genes and cause mutations. "So it may be that some of the adverse reactions from the vaccine are actually due to these plasmids," she says, adding that in the event of such a problem, vaccines should be removed from the market immediately. However, nothing of the sort has been done and the US Food & Drug Administration (FDA) claims that such DNA contamination is not a problem at all.

The interested reader can read more about this problem in the studies of various researchers, e.g. here and here. The problem has also been convincingly demonstrated by molecular biologist Dr. Phillip Buckhaults, a professor at the University of South Carolina, who has worked for a long time in the field of cancer research. He undertook the research with his team out of a desire to disprove earlier claims of DNA contamination in these vaccines. However, these were confirmed and, according to him, may also be one of the reasons for the serious side effects associated with these vaccines – autoimmunity problems in the body, heart attacks, and eventually cancer. In September, Buckhaults made a presentation on the subject to the South Carolina State Senate as well.

So the problem with this DNA contamination, as well as all the other problems that have emerged with these vaccines, are part of a wider and more general problem. No one denies the fact that these are experimental products. However, we can ask whether all those people who were injected with this experimental product gave their informed consent.

Nass says that nobody really wants to talk about informed consent anymore. Obtaining informed consent from a patient to take part in, for example, drug trials is actually a lengthy procedure. "You have to be able to fully inform them and that means you have to inform them of the risks and the benefits. And if you don't know something about what the risks and benefits are, you have to explain it to them,” Nass says. Typically, a doctor will explain to a patient all the known side effects, and, once he or she has decided to recommend a medicine, he or she will state that it is in the belief that the potential benefits outweigh the risks. "And that is a standard, an acceptable informed consent. However, the laws are much stricter for experimental products," Nass adds. In the US, she says, written consent from the patient is required, so obtaining informed consent is a lengthy and time-consuming procedure. By and large, at least, the US medical system still followed this three years ago, but with the advent of Covid vaccines, as we have seen and experienced, it no longer does.

Breach of the Nuremberg Code

Nass points out that what was important was the 'emergency use authorisation' given to the Covid vaccines. Whereas in the past it was clear for medicines that either they had an authorisation for sale and use and could be used, or they did not have such an authorisation and could not be used. The emergency clause was introduced only in 2005. This made it much easier to use experimental medicines such as the now mRNA vaccines, and it also changed the procedure for seeking informed consent in such cases. Whereas before, according to Nass, a separate committee had to check that patients were not being put at too great a risk in the case of experiments, they could now simply be given a piece of paper stating the known risk factors that the administration of an experimental drug or vaccine might entail. Also, all subjects have always had the option not to take part in the trial, so these drugs cannot be made compulsory. However, patients must be informed of the possible medical consequences of not taking the medicine. "During Covid all of a sudden the government changed the way that language was interpreted as saying we have to tell them the consequences to themselves – the employment consequences, the financial consequences of what would happen. So, yes, you could opt out, but you may lose your job, your child may not be able to go to school, you know, whatever that was, what was interpreted as the consequences. And so the federal government imposed mandates on these experimental products which is a Nuremberg code violation,” Nass says.

So, in short, according to her, people were given experimental Covid vaccines without being asked for their informed consent, and at the same time they were led to believe that these vaccines had passed all the necessary tests and had all the necessary licenses. Which in fact they did not. And one consequence of this is that those who have suffered damage as a result of the vaccines cannot take legal action against the manufacturers, and can seek compensation from the national programme. In the United States, almost 13,000 applications have been filed, but there have been only 8 payouts with an average of $3,856 – a tiny sum given the potential for lasting vaccine damage, Nass says.

Who pays for what the WHO says and does?

However, the ex-post analysis of Covid damage is not the only burning issue at present. Developments in the WHO, in particular discussions on the new WHO treaties, are increasingly provoking opposition in countries around the world. One of these is a brand new treaty, also known as the pandemic treaty, and the other is a debate on amending the already existing International Health Regulations (IHR).

Nass notes that the WHO, founded 75 years ago, has always aimed to provide advice and assistance to countries when they ask for it. She says there have also been problems that the WHO has acted to alleviate, such as the fight against malaria in Africa, where hundreds of thousands of people still die from the disease every year.

However, the problems with the WHO start with its funding models. The organisation should really be run on the basis of fees paid by its members, i.e. the member states. The fact is, however, that year on year, funding from the private sector and from organisations with their own objectives has increased. The best known of these organisations are the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the vaccine promotion organisations Gavi and CEPI, which are directly linked to this foundation. Thus, 85% of the current WHO funding already comes from 'voluntary contributions', or sponsorship, either from countries or organisations of said kind. Of this, 75% is linked to specific projects which are not in the public interest, but in the donors' interest. "So the WHO has switched basically from an organisation that was serving third world nations to an organisation that's serving its donors," Nass says.

The risks of new treaties

As for these contracts, however, this is also driven by a desire to increase the influence of the WHO, or indirectly the WHO's sponsors. To this end, improvements were made to the IHR, and these improvements, which are justified on the grounds that they will help to respond better to pandemics, will transform the WHO from an advisory organisation into an order-giving organisation. "And changing the document into one that issues orders and nations are required to obey the orders – that's called governance. The WHO wants to be the governor of health around the world," Nass says.

For example, under the new rules, the WHO director-general would be able to declare a public health emergency under a simplified procedure, giving the WHO additional power and authority, and the ability to channel more money to tackle a specific disease. Such an emergency was declared to deal with Covid, and the Ethiopian WHO director-general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus declared it for the monkeypox in 2022. With the IHR's additions, the director-general would have the power to declare an international emergency essentially just in case, and since the WHO would then be able to oblige member states to follow the rules they propose, rather than recommend them, this would represent a very large extension to WHO's powers. In the same way, the WHO's powers are also extended by the so-called pandemic agreement. Under this, for example, countries will be obliged to continuously identify and notify the WHO of possible pathogens that have the potential to develop into a pandemic. "What it says is that we don't know all the things that are going to be needed to manage pandemics in the future, so we have to establish a whole new secretariat within the WHO to do this and we have to establish a new conference of the parties that will have meetings to manage this whole pandemic issue. And they will make up their own rules for how they behave in the future. So just sign here, you know, agree with these documents and then these groups will make their own rules," Nass says.

She also points to another important concept, One Health, which the WHO is promoting and will use as a basis for health risk assessment. "It is a theory that human health cannot be looked at in isolation but that the health of animals, plants, and ecosystems must be considered in all health decisions. And that health is not really what we've thought of it as, which is something that affects humans, but we have to contextualize it in terms of climate change, food quality, ecosystems, loss of biodiversity, etc," Nass explains. This means, however, that the WHO can declare an emergency based on essentially anything. "So not only would he be able to declare pandemics and tell us what we must or must not do during a pandemic, but he could declare a climate change emergency and tell us what fuels we must or must not use, whether we need to stop driving our cars for a time, because the atmosphere has too much carbon dioxide or methane in it, etc," Nass says. "It doesn't make any medical sense, but it is in my view a Trojan horse that will allow massive amounts of power and authority to be centered in the WHO and the public is not being told any of this," she adds.

Subscribe to Freedom Research

Launched 9 months ago

Join us & SUBSCRIBE for FREE! Exposing state & corporate overreach. Unmasking authoritarian tendencies. Defending freedom. Done & supported people like you. Subscribe free to support.