My story became Chapter 3 in Robert Malone's book "Lies my Government Told Me"

I cite 4 papers (2 by USG scientists) which showed in 2004, 2005 and 2014 that repurposed drugs could kill SARS-1 and MERS at usual safe doses. This should have prevented the EUAs for COVID vaccines

 First is Robert’s introduction     

I first met Meryl when she came to our farm to work on a strategic plan for the Children’s Health Defense in the summer of 2021. We quickly become friends, as we both enjoy conversing intensely on bio-ethics and vaccines.  Meryl has a quick wit, with an intellectual curiosity that cuts through even the toughest of defenses. Her boundless enthusiasm for both her patients and for the practice of medicine is combined with bravery that few can match. This makes her one of the few physicians willing to take on the establishment regarding early treatment for COVID-19 and vaccines. She always willing to engage in a conversation about science or medicine and she does not back down to authority. She has most definitely been radicalized by her experiences with the US government and her writing below reflects that.  I admire her ability to get to the heart of any problem and to says things as she sees them.  She has a long history of confronting the issues and most importantly, put her own career on the line for what is right.

Meryl has been persecuted by her medical board for her stance on giving life-saving treatments to her patients, and for being willing to talk about those treatments to the press.  For her “crimes” of saving lives, her medical board suspended her license to practice medicine in the state of Maine.  This, despite the fact that no patient actually filed a complaint against her. Furthermore, they required that she undergo a neuropsychological exam, with a psychologist of the board’s choosing, before she could have a hearing. I do not know if any state medical board has acted in such a manner before in the USA. It is truly draconian and most likely illegal.  Meryl is taking the fight to the courts. As far as I am concerned, she is a true medical freedom warrior.

Meryl has allowed me to modify and print her essay on the suppression of early treatments for COVID-19.

The extraordinary story of how patient access to COVID treatments was denied, eventually involving witch hunts of physicians who dared to treat patients

By Dr. Meryl Nass

I have an unusual professional background.  My day job is an internal medicine physician.  But I also have a strong background in biological warfare.  I am the first person to have proven that an epidemic (actually an epizootic, in which people catch a disease from animals) was due to biological warfare, way back in 1992.  I did this by examining every aspect of the outbreak and showing that none of them conformed to what would be expected from a natural event.  This happened during the Rhodesian civil war, and it was a form of low intensity warfare.  Anthrax was spread to kill cattle mostly.  It was designed to impoverish and starve the black population, who provided support to a guerrilla movement.  There was actually an official "food control" program being carried out by the Rhodesian white minority during the guerrilla war.

I am a really good problem solver.  In 1993, Cuba was suffering from an epidemic of blindness and peripheral neuropathy.  Asked to investigate, I discovered (as did a few others) that the illness was due to cyanide, coupled with nutritional deficiencies that inhibited the body's natural processes for detoxifying the cyanide.

I also have a compulsive streak regarding "First do no harm."  When Defense Secretary Cohen announced in November 1997 that all members of the armed services would be receiving anthrax vaccinations, my ears perked up.  I knew the vaccine had never been shown to actually work for inhalation anthrax.  I also knew there had been a Congressional hearing in which it had been suggested that soldiers who received anthrax vaccinations were more likely to develop Gulf War syndrome than those who had not.  So, I wrote a very short paper about this, finishing it in half a day, for an email mailing list I was on.  Unexpectedly the paper went viral.  I was soon recognized as an expert on anthrax and anthrax vaccine (basically because it was such an arcane area that almost no one else knew anything about it). 

I really hadn't expected it, but the anthrax vaccine started causing grievous injuries in a considerable minority of those vaccinated.  I was contacted by thousands of ill soldiers.  I wound up helping to lead a coalition of service members and their families to try and stop anthrax vaccine mandates.  There were a dozen Congressional hearings that looked into the vaccine and the vaccination program.  It almost was cancelled, but then the anthrax letters appeared, and the program roared back to life.  This gave me a profound experience in how the system of government works, and how federal agencies knowingly create fraudulent scientific studies in order to fulfill their "mission."  The same shaming and punishing of vaccine refusers went on then.  Even though almost everyone in the military knew how bad the vaccines were, giving in and getting jabbed became a biological loyalty oath.  You had to take it or be docked a month's pay, be given extra duties, or even be court-martialed.  Some soldiers were held down and vaccinated.  Nothing was allowed to stop the program, even though the vaccine wasn't safe and probably didn't even work.

My colleagues (some of the most amazing people on this planet) organized a dream team of attorneys, did immense research, worked closely with members of Congress, and eventually brought suit against the vaccine.  In 2004 we won!  DC District Court Judge Emmett Sullivan threw out the anthrax vaccine license, because the vaccine had never met the FDA requirements and had skated through an FDA review, probably as a special favor FDA gave to DOD.

I learned then that DOD did not care about Congress, public opinion or bad press--and they tried to ignore Judge Sullivan too.  Almost as soon as he pulled the vaccine's license, DOD slapped an Emergency Use Authorization on the vaccine.  And DOD attempted to mandate anthrax vaccinations again.  Our team went back to court, and Judge Sullivan told the Defense Department, in no uncertain terms, that while soldiers may risk their lives fighting for the US, they could not be forced to risk their lives as guinea pigs for an experimental vaccine.

While there were more shenanigans to come, I learned an important lesson:  it is possibly to finally end a grievous injustice in the courts.  I also learned the win might not last.  You see, the government has an army of lawyers, and so there is no real cost to them to fight you.  They will fight forever if necessary.  While you, on the other hand, are spending tons of time and money to try and prosecute a case.  Justice can be achieved sometimes, but the costs are high, and victory may be brief.

In 2005 FDA rubberstamped the anthrax vaccine license.  There was still no evidence of whether it worked, and plenty of evidence it was not safe.  No matter.  The courts, when we appealed said FDA had deference.  What that meant is even if the vaccine falls far short of FDA's standards for licensure, it doesn't matter.  FDA doesn't have to obey its own rules.  You do; it doesn't. 

After that I investigated the 2009 swine flu pandemic and the vaccines rushed out for it.  I learned that pandemics are like wars:  when there are a lot of experimental drugs and vaccines or vaccine components sitting on a shelf, you grab the opportunity to try them out when there is an emergency.  This happened during the Gulf War.  Swine Flu. Ebola. Zika.

You see, it is very expensive to test a new drug or vaccine in a randomized clinical trial.  It generally costs thousands of dollars per human subject.  You have to test the product in animals first, you need 3 human trial phases, and the entire process takes many years.

Not so in an emergency.  Patients become free human subjects. Regulation gets condensed to almost nothing.  Billionaires are minted.

First came the Chloroquine and Hydroxychloroquine suppression

Then came the “Novel Coronavirus,” now named SARS-CoV-2 or COVID-19, in 2020.  As usual, I tried to find solutions.  I discovered that the chloroquine drugs had been tested against SARS and MERS (successfully!) and the history behind the logic for using these cheap, re-purposed drugs is compelling.

The next paragraph is Roberts’:

The drug looked very promising for both prevention and treatment of the first SARS virus. Chloroquine is an interesting drug; it has been used for many decades both to prevent and to treat malaria. It is used as an anti-inflammatory against rheumatoid arthritis, it is used as an anti-parasitic by changing the body’s pH for malaria and other parasitic diseases and it has antiviral properties.  The mechanisms of action as an anti-viral include Chloroquine has antiviral effects whereby it increases the pH of the lysosomes and the late endosome, causing the impaired release of viruses from the lysosome or the endosome. This makes the virus unable to release its genetic material into the cell and replicate. Chloroquine also acts as a zinc ionophore that allows extracellular zinc to enter the cell and inhibit viral RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (Zabion 2022). So, it is no surprise that this drug would be considered a viable anti-viral treatment against beta-coronaviruses, such as SARS-CoV-2.

In 2005, five CDC (US government) scientists published a paper, along with three Canadian government scientists in the Journal of Virology, showing that chloroquine was an effective drug against SARS coronaviruses (Vincent et al. 2005).  The CDC paper is entitled “Chloroquine is a potent inhibitor of SARS coronavirus infection and spread” and concludes with the following quote: “chloroquine has strong antiviral effects on SARS-CoV infection… suggesting both prophylactic and therapeutic advantage.”  A similar study was conducted in 2004 by a group of European scientists (Keyaerts et al. 2004).

In 2014, scientists working at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), showed the same results.  Not only did chloroquine work in vitro against the MERS coronavirus, but dozens of existing drugs, which could have been tested in patients as soon as the pandemic started, were also effective against SARS and MERS coronaviruses. The study was published in the journal “Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy” and was called “Repurposing of Clinically Developed Drugs for Treatment of Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus Infection.” (Dyall et al. 2014). The NIAID authors wrote:

Here we found that 66 of the screened drugs were effective at inhibiting either MERS-CoV or SARS-CoV infection in vitro and that 27 of these compounds were effective against both MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV. These data demonstrate the efficiency of screening approved or clinically developed drugs for identification of potential therapeutic options for emerging viral diseases, and also provide an expedited approach for supporting off-label use of approved therapeutics.

Just in case you think these papers were flukes, two unrelated groups of European scientists found essentially the same thing.  The 2014 European paper entitled “Screening of an FDA-approved compound library identifies four small-molecule inhibitors of Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus replication in cell culture” was published back-to-back with the NIAID paper above (de Wilde et al. 2014).

I have to repeat myself, because the information is so shocking and I don't want you to miss it: our governments already knew of options for treating COVID before it appeared, but instead of immediately trying these already identified, safe, cheap, and available repurposed drugs, and offering early treatments, they did everything they could to stop people obtaining the chloroquine drugs.  I have written two reports on this topic, one is called “WHO and UK trials use potentially lethal hydroxychloroquine dose — according to WHO consultant” (Nass 2020c) and the other is “Even worse than ‘Recovery,’ potentially lethal hydroxychloroquine study in patients near death” (Nass 2020a).  They are about how patients were administered borderline lethal doses of hydroxychloroquine to give the drug a black eye. In my opinion, these are medical crimes against humanity.  Yet this has never been investigated by mainstream media, bio-ethicists or regulatory or licensing agencies.

In 2020, I compiled a list of over 50 ways authorities and pharma companies in multiple countries stopped the use of the chloroquine drugs for COVID (Nass 2020b). This was (and is) a stunning collection, which has been widely read and reproduced on many websites.  It is astounding to learn that all the US (and many international) public health agencies took many different actions to increase deaths and destruction from COVID and prolong the pandemic by suppressing information on life saving early treatments.  Taking hydroxychloroquine for COVID was equated to drinking bleach and "avoiding the Trump drug" served as a great cover story. But here's the kicker: the authorities knew all about chloroquine and other treatments for COVID, before there was a COVID (Devaux et al. 2020) as well as early data showing efficacy against COVID in 2020 (Million et al. 2020). Chloroquine was first used as an effective anti-viral against HIV and its anti-viral properties are well documented in the peer reviewed literature. This is because they had figured it out for the 2003 SARS epidemic and the 2012 MERS epidemic, both caused by related coronaviruses (Savarino et al. 2006), but as documented below, it was hushed it up. This has to be investigated and justice obtained, to prevent such crimes from happening to patients ever again.  

The "Why?" and "How could this be?" requires people to take a huge leap in order to understand the world we live in.  Many don't have the fortitude to dissect their world view and rebuild it in accord with the facts that have spilled out over the last two years. But I am about to present some more facts that I hope you can assimilate into your understanding of the world.  It might require a stiff drink, or perhaps some chocolate.  Whatever it takes, read on, as it might save your life or someone else's.

Ivermectin

Ivermectin had not been identified in the studies I mentioned above as a potentially useful coronavirus drug.  But some people knew it was likely to work in early 2020. For instance, the French MedInCell company, supported by Bill Gates, was working on an injectable version (which would make it patentable) of ivermectin for COVID, issuing a press release about this on April 6, 2020 and an informational paper on April 23, 2020.

“On March 29, 2020, researchers from Monash University in Melbourne, Australia published results from a laboratory cell study showing that Ivermectin can kill the coronavirus in less than 48 hours.6 Studies have been carried out by research institutes for the past few months to assess the effectiveness of treatment using Ivermectin on hospitalized patients with Covid-19. MedinCell published last January data showing that Ivermectin can be formulated with our BEPO® technology as a long acting for varying doses and durations of up to several months (MedinCell 2020).”

There was a brief run on the veterinary drug at this time in the US, according to an FDA warning issued on April 10, 2020, indicating some people knew it might be an effective COVID treatment and were acquiring veterinary versions (FDA 2020).   But there was not a lot of buzz and sales did not take off at that time. Here is what FDA said on April 10, 2020:

“FDA is concerned about the health of consumers who may self-medicate by taking ivermectin products intended for animals, thinking they can be a substitute for ivermectin intended for humans...Please help us protect public health by alerting FDA of anyone claiming to have a product to prevent or cure COVID-19 and to help safeguard human and animal health by reporting any of these products”

In December 2020, a full eight months later, Ron Johnson held a Senate hearing that was focused on ivermectin's benefits for COVID.  Intensive care specialist Dr. Pierre Kory, originally a New Yorker, gave a particularly compelling speech.  People began paying attention to the drug. YouTube then removed Kory's speech, censoring a Senate hearing!

I think the authorities were initially scared to repeat the same tricks with ivermectin that they had used to beat down the chloroquine drugs.  And because ivermectin has efficacy late in the disease as well as at the start, and is not toxic at several times the normal dose, some of the tricks used against chloroquine (giving it too late in the disease course or overdosing patients) simply would not work with ivermectin. 

But then ivermectin's popularity started exploding.  CDC published a report in late August showing that ivermectin prescriptions had quadrupled in a month, and the drug was now selling at 25 times the pre-COVID rate (CDC 2021).

An article in Business Insider exclaims: "More than 88,000 prescriptions for the drug were filled by pharmacies in the week ending August 13, the CDC said in a report published August 26 (Geunot 2021)."  Apparently, the prescription sales of Ivermectin terrified the powers-that-be. What if the pandemic got wiped out with ivermectin? Would that be the end of vaccine mandates, boosters, vaccine passports and digital IDs? The end of the Great Reset?  Something had to be done, and fast.  It had to be big.  It had to be effective.  They couldn't simply take the drug off the market; that would require a long process and a paper trail. What to do?  There was probably only one option:  Scare the pants off the doctors.  Loss of license is the very worst thing you can do to a doctor.  Threaten their licenses and they will immediately fall into line.  You can't get a prescription if there is no doctor to write it.

This method of going after the licenses of physicians who prescribe ivermectin has already been tried and tested in the Philippines with great success (Gonzales 2021). 

The powers-that-be could also scare the pharmacies at the same time.  This required stealth and cunning – there couldn’t be a paper trail.  Intimidation was required, backed by a one-two punch. They would actually be suspending doctors’ (and maybe pharmacists') licenses. They could couple that with a huge media offensive, and threats from an industry of medical "non-profits."  You suddenly invent "misinformation" as a medical crime, studiously failing to define it.  You make people think the legal prescribing of ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine is a crime, even though off-label prescribing is entirely legal under the federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. Did Fauci give the order?  Walensky?  Acting FDA Commissioner Woodcock? It was probably some combination, plus the public relations professionals managing the messaging and the media.

This all seems so implausible. Yet here we are.  This is actually what happened.

1.  Senator Ben Ray Lujan (D, NM) and several other Senators introduced the "Health Misinformation Act" in July 2021 because "misinformation was putting lives at risk," he said (Lujan 2021).  A huge supporter of COVID vaccinations, the 49 year old Senator suffered a stroke on February 1, 2022.

2.  The pharmacies suddenly could not get ivermectin from their wholesalers.  No reason was given except 'supply and demand.'  But it seemed the supply was cut off everywhere.  Ivermectin was dribbled out by the wholesalers, a few pills a week per pharmacy, not enough to supply even one prescription weekly. Some powerful entity presumably ordered the wholesalers to make the drug (practically) unavailable. With no shortages announced. I called the main manufacturer in the US, Edenbridge, and was told they were producing plenty. (Editor’s note: I was a personal friend of the CEO of Edenbridge and he had also informed me that there was plenty of supply).  

Hydroxychloroquine had been restricted in a variety of ways, determined by each state, since early 2020. It had also been restricted by certain manufacturers and pharmacy chains in 2020. Suddenly, in September 2021, it too became considerably harder than it already was to obtain.

3.  In late August, CDC sent out a message on its emergency network about ivermectin, but the urgent warning contained only 2 examples of anyone having a problem with the drug: one person overdosed on an animal version and one overdosed on ivermectin bought on the internet (CDC 2021).  This should not have been news.  However, pharmacists and doctors read between the lines and knew this was code for "verboten."  Almost all stopped dispensing ivermectin at that time.  It should be of interest to everyone that our health agencies now speak in coded messages to doctors and pharmacies, presumably to avoid putting their threats on paper and being accountable for them. What a way for government to do business.

4.  Also last August, various "nonprofit" medical organizations started issuing warnings, in concert, regarding doctors prescribing ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine, and spreading misinformation, especially about COVID vaccines.  These organizations included the Federation of State Medical Boards, the American Medical Association, the American Pharmacy Association, and several specialty Boards. Here is an example of the AMA's language:

" Spreading Falsehoods

The COVID-19 pandemic continues to spawn falsehoods that are spread by a whole host of people such as political leaders, media figures, internet influencers, and even some health professionals—including by licensed physicians.

The words and actions of this last group may well be the most egregious of all because they undermine the trust at the center of the patient-physician relationship, and because they are directly responsible for people’s health. A handful of doctors spreading disinformation have fostered belief in scientifically unvalidated and potentially dangerous “cures” for COVID-19 while increasing vaccine hesitancy and driving the politicization of the pandemic to new heights, threatening the public health countermeasures taken to end it (Harmon 2021).”

These organizations have told doctors they could lose their licenses or board certifications for such "crimes."  Mind you, none of these so-called nonprofit organizations has any regulatory authority. Nor do I believe they have any authority to claw back a Board Certification. They were blowing smoke. And they were probably paid to do so.  Who paid?

5.  Over the course of 3 days at the end of August, national media reported on 4 doctors in 3 states whose Boards were investigating them for the use of ivermectin. In Hawaii, the board really wanted to make an example by going after the state's chief medical officer, who had had the courage to treat COVID patients.

6.  The Federation of State Medical Boards (FSMB) is an organization that assists 71 state and territorial medical boards with policies, training, etc.  Members pay dues and the organization accepts donations.  It has its own foundation, too.  Its President earns close to $1,000,000/year, not bad for a backwater administrative job at an organization headquartered in Euless, Texas. After the FSMB instructed its members that misinformation was a crime, somewhere between 8 and 15 of its member boards began to take action.  (Media have reported that 8, 12 or 15 boards of its 71 member Boards did so, according to the FSMB, which is closely monitoring the results of its calumny.)

7.  On February 7, 2022 the Department of Homeland Security issued its own dire warning about the spread of misinformation, disinformation and a neologism, malinformation (DHS 2022a).

"The United States remains in a heightened threat environment fueled by several factors, including an online environment filled with false or misleading narratives and conspiracy theories, and other forms of mis- dis- and mal-information (MDM) introduced and/or amplified by foreign and domestic threat actors. These threat actors seek to exacerbate societal friction to sow discord and undermine public trust in government institutions to encourage unrest, which could potentially inspire acts of violence. Mass casualty attacks and other acts of targeted violence conducted by lone offenders and small groups acting in furtherance of ideological beliefs and/or personal grievances pose an ongoing threat to the nation.”

Thus, it appears that Misinformation and Disinformation have been selected to play an important role in a newly developing narrative, as the Pandemic restrictions and older narrative comes to an end. 

8.  I presume the majority of the 71 Medical Boards' attorneys knew something about the Constitution, knew that every American has an inalienable right to freedom of speech, and simply ignored the FSMB's exhortation to go after misinformation spreaders.  The Maine Board, however, went along.  Three doctors in Maine have recently had their licenses suspended or threatened for writing waivers for COVID vaccines, spreading misinformation, and/or prescribing ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine.  (All three of which are legal activities for doctors.) But Boards have broad powers to intervene in the practice of medicine, and their members are shielded from liability as agents of the state.  And so they went after a chronic Lyme doctor several years ago, who found, as expected, that it would be too onerous to fight back, and he gave up his license.  

Finally, this is what my state (Maine) medical licensing board claims about me:

"The board noted that Ivermectin isn’t Food and Drug Administration “authorized or approved” as a treatment for COVID-19 in the suspension order."

"The board said that her continuing to practice as a physician “constitutes an immediate jeopardy to the health and physical safety of the public who might receive her medical services, and that it is necessary to immediately suspend her ability to practice medicine in order to adequately respond to this risk.”

I am 71 years old, and my medical practice was set up as a service to provide care during the pandemic that was otherwise very hard to get, so everyone could access COVID drugs who wanted them.  My fee was $60 per patient for all the COVID care they needed.

I am sure the Board had calculated that given all the above, I would not challenge the Board's suspension and would simply surrender my license, since it would probably cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to fight the Board's actions in court, and at my rate I’d never make back even a fraction of the cost. 

However, I was surprised to find that on the day my license was suspended, there was massive national publicity about my case.  The story was on the AP wire, covered from the San Francisco Chronicle to the Miami Herald.  And for some reason, it was not behind the usual paywall.  The Hill, Newsweek, the Daily Beast and many other publications all ran hit pieces about me.  

I gathered that my situation was bigger than just a Maine renegade Medical Board:  I had been selected to serve as an example to physicians nationwide who might be prescribing early treatment for COVID.

Once I realized I was to be made an example of, to assist with a national fear campaign followed by a purge of doctors who think independently, I decided to fight back.  Fortunately, Children's Health Defense is helping with my legal expenses, which is what allows me to mount a strong attack against the bulldozing of free speech, patient autonomy and the doctor-patient relationship.  There is a lot riding on the outcome and we have only just begun to fight for medical freedom and the physician’s right to practice medicine.