RFK Jr. The Defender - Uncovering Medical Malfeasance with Dr Meryl Nass

Dr. Meryl Nass is a board-certified internist in Maine, known for her expertise in anthrax, bioterrorism, and the Gulf War Syndrome. She's also an extraordinary doctor in the state of Maine, but the Medical Board is trying to take away her license for telling the truth, which is now a crime among doctors in this country. Dr. Nass tells us what happened to her, why she's fighting it, and why she thinks doctors should be allowed to tell their patients the truth about the things they need to know in order to be able to treat them. She also talks about California's new law that could outlaw doctors who speak publicly about those subjects, and how that could affect her ability to treat her patients in the future. She's our guest today, and we couldn't be more excited to have her on the show. We love you, Meryl! Thank you so much for being our guest, and for sharing your story with us! We can't wait to hear back from you, and will be looking forward to talking to you again next week about what you think of this episode! xoxo, Erika and Mike - The Best Doctor in the Country - Erika & Mike - Thank you for coming on the pod! - Caitlyn's Note: This episode was produced and edited by Erika's Note is a little bit longer than the previous episode, so please bear with us in the length, so we can be sure about the quality of the audio quality in this one. and the fact that it's going to be better next week, we'll be getting a little better in the next episode. . We'll be posting it on the next week. Thank you, Caitie and Mike's Note? Caitie & Mike's note is a lot more detailed, and you'll get a chance to hear it in a longer version of this one, next week! -- -- Thank you! -- we'll see you next week's update on the audio from the podcast! -- -- and we'll know more about the audio in a couple of weeks. -- We'll get back in a few weeks, so don't forget to send us a little more of this, right? -- thank you, please be sure we'll get the rest of the stuff we've been getting a better, better, and more of that, right?? -- Caitie,

00:00:00.000 Hey everybody, we have a return guest, one of our favorite return guests today, Dr.

00:00:05.000 Meryl Nass, my hero, who earned her B.S. in biology from MIT and her M.D. from the University of Mississippi in 1980, where her husband was a faculty member.

00:00:17.000 She's a board-certified internist in Maine, known for her expertise in anthrax, bioterrorism, anthrax vaccine, the Gulf War Syndrome.

00:00:26.000 She identified the first modern use of anthrax as a biological weapon, which occurred in 1978 during the Rhodesian Civil War.

00:00:35.000 She has testified for seven congressional committees on bioterrorism vaccines, the anthrax letters, and Gulf War syndrome.

00:00:42.000 She has consulted for the Director of National Intelligence and the World Bank on the Prevention and Mitigation of Bioterrorism.

00:00:49.000 Her son practices medicine at UVM Burlington.

00:00:52.000 She's also an extraordinary doctor.

00:00:56.000 Local physician in the state of Maine, but the medical board is trying to take away her license for telling the truth, which is now a crime among doctors in this country.

00:01:07.000 Tell us what your case is right now, Merrill.

00:01:10.000 So the medical board accused me last January of being so far out that they needed to immediately suspend my license before they had a hearing, before they heard one word out of my mouth, because I was spreading misinformation, prescribing ivermectin, and saying things that did not make people want to get vaccinated with the COVID vaccines.

00:01:33.000 And immediately ordered a neuropsychological examination, which they needed to do in order to immediately suspend me, to give me a big black mark in the national doctor database so that I'd never be able to get a job anywhere else.

00:01:48.000 And to be able to put my case, the documents from my case out into the public record and And so the next day, the Associated Press and everybody else was writing articles about this terrible doctor from Maine, although it wasn't clear from the articles exactly what I'd done.

00:02:04.000 So what I'd done was answer questions in interviews, basically, and give people ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine according to the Maine law.

00:02:13.000 So for now, almost nine months, I have not had a medical license.

00:02:17.000 My patients have been without a doctor, and the board has been slowly figuring out that all the charges, I don't know about all, but almost all the charges against me, they aren't going to be able to prosecute.

00:02:30.000 There is a law in the United States, it's called the First Amendment.

00:02:34.000 If I'm allowed to say whatever I want in public, what California did on Friday was to enact a new law that That would criminalize doctors who tell their patients the truth about ivermectin, remdesivir, hydroxychloroquine, and COVID vaccines.

00:02:52.000 But the California law was very careful to exclude doctors speaking publicly about those subjects.

00:03:00.000 Doctors are allowed to speak publicly, they're just not allowed to tell their patients about it.

00:03:05.000 Which is very curious.

00:03:06.000 Anyway, in Maine, the only thing they know about, they didn't have a microphone in my office.

00:03:11.000 They don't know what I told my patients, but they do know what I said during interviews.

00:03:17.000 So subsequently, they've dropped the complaint of misinformation and disinformation.

00:03:23.000 They've said they don't want to argue about off-label prescribing.

00:03:27.000 They may or may not have figured out that the FDA is issuing an emergency use authorization and It has nothing to do with what I prescribed because the medication that you get from pharmacies was not under the emergency use authorization.

00:03:41.000 That only applied to some donated products that were unlicensed, but I was using the licensed product.

00:03:48.000 And as far as the vaccines, last week the board said they don't want to discuss vaccines either, because of course the data now shows that I was correct about vaccines as well as about the other things.

00:04:00.000 So they've dropped most of the charges.

00:04:02.000 They would like to narrow the case, exclude my expert witnesses, and say that I didn't Require informed consents from the patients, which is ridiculous.

00:04:13.000 I wasn't asking the patients whether they would agree to a phone visit.

00:04:17.000 I was offering them an in-person visit if they wanted one, and they chose a phone visit.

00:04:22.000 The board doesn't seem to know that phone visits were specifically allowed by the governor and the Department of Health, so they were trying to get me on the fact that I gave some people phone visits instead of video visits, and it was whatever the patient wanted, depending on their Their ability and my ability to connect.

00:04:41.000 Anyway, that's the story.

00:04:43.000 So we've got a few charges left.

00:04:45.000 My lawyers filed another document yesterday asking them to drop all the charges and to apologize to me.

00:04:54.000 We love you, Meryl, and this is...

00:04:57.000 They're coming after the best doctors in the country right now.

00:05:00.000 That's what they're doing.

00:05:01.000 And as you pointed out, they have outlawed.

00:05:04.000 Gavin Newsom has signed a bill that literally outlaws second opinions by doctors, you know, who are trying to heal their patients.

00:05:13.000 We're applying their gifts of healing, of their knowledge of medicine, and applying their best judgment.

00:05:22.000 And what he's saying is that doctors no longer have this unique and sacred relationship with patients that has been true since Hippocrates.

00:05:34.000 The doctors treat the patient instead.

00:05:37.000 In the state of California, the doctor is now the agent of state policies.

00:05:43.000 And those are policies that in some cases aren't even made by doctors.

00:05:47.000 They're made by regulators who are under the sway of pharmaceutical companies.

00:05:53.000 It's very tragic.

00:05:54.000 Of course, we're going to sue them.

00:05:56.000 We think that what he's done is violates the First Amendment and a lot of other So we're looking at that right now and we will litigate against them.

00:06:05.000 And we're all over the country now defending doctors like yours and providing resources and attorneys for in cases like yours where doctors are being prosecuted for practicing medicine.

00:06:17.000 Thank you anyway for standing up.

00:06:19.000 And I wanted to ask you, and we only have a short time, I wanted to ask you about this article that you did for The Defender this week, really an important article, and it's on the boosters.

00:06:30.000 Will you tell us about that?

00:06:31.000 Sure.

00:06:32.000 What the government, the FDA and CDC have done is to create a new COVID vaccine.

00:06:39.000 And the new vaccine is half the old vaccine and half an Omicron-specific messenger RNA. Otherwise, it's supposed to be the same as the old one.

00:06:50.000 And in order to speed up its availability, even though cases, deaths, ICU stays are about The lowest they've ever been, almost since the start of the pandemic.

00:07:03.000 The government wanted to roll these out very quickly.

00:07:05.000 And so they didn't bother testing them in human beings.

00:07:08.000 And they only tested them in a, we don't know how many, but a small number of mice.

00:07:12.000 And you cannot correlate what happens to mice with what happens to people.

00:07:17.000 So that was just a joke.

00:07:19.000 I think it was only like eight mice or something, right?

00:07:22.000 Yeah, they say eight mice.

00:07:23.000 So there's two vaccines.

00:07:25.000 There's a Pfizer and a Moderna, and they were both authorized the same day, on the 31st of August, and rolled out by CDC's advisory committee the next day, September 1st.

00:07:37.000 So the Moderna trial, not trial, but the Moderna test used at least 100 mice.

00:07:42.000 I'm not sure how many the Pfizer vaccine used, but it doesn't really matter.

00:07:46.000 They could have used a million mice. 0.69

00:07:48.000 They don't tell you how humans respond.

00:07:50.000 So they don't tell you whether it's effective.

00:07:51.000 They don't tell you whether it's safe.

00:07:53.000 And those are the two questions that you need addressed.

00:07:56.000 So these vaccines have rolled out, and I checked, CDC and the New York Times every day has updated data on how many people are dying, how many cases there are, and how many people have been vaccinated.

00:08:11.000 And so in terms of this new Omicron booster, the CDC claims that 8 million people have taken one of these new boosters, but guess what?

00:08:21.000 According to the New York Times, which gets its data from the CDC, 33% of Americans before these boosters rolled out had gotten a first booster.

00:08:33.000 And now, New York Times says there's still 33% of Americans have gotten, you know, at least one booster.

00:08:40.000 So, if people are getting the boosters, there are people who have already had multiple, okay?

00:08:46.000 If, in fact, 8 million, there are already people who had three or four shots already.

00:08:51.000 The people who had two shots don't want any more, okay?

00:08:55.000 That's 67% of the population is not being boosted, regardless of whether they have old or new boosters.

00:09:02.000 In terms of the safety, we have no idea.

00:09:05.000 In terms of the efficacy of the new boosters, we don't know that either.

00:09:10.000 although it was predicted by Tony Fauci's agency and by an article in Nature that they would be no better than the old vaccines.

00:09:20.000 That's the story.

00:09:21.000 We don't know why they rolled them out.

00:09:24.000 What's very curious is that a bunch of other countries on the same day rolled out new Omicron boosters, either the kind the United States is having or an earlier Omicron version.

00:09:37.000 Those countries include the countries of the European Union, plus Switzerland, which isn't part of the EU, plus Canada, and the UK had also rolled them out within a few days, as well as the United States.

00:09:52.000 So many countries at the exact same time rolled out either completely untested in humans or tested in a very small number of humans, you know, at the most a few hundred boosters for some unknown reason when none of these countries have very high rates of COVID now.

00:10:11.000 We do have a bit of a COVID-19 Problem in New England, in the U.S., we are having cases, but they're not killing people, and they're not winding them up in ICUs, so they're milder.

00:10:24.000 But because we in Maine were relatively spared previously, we're getting more cases now.

00:10:30.000 And the people who are getting COVID, Dr.

00:10:34.000 Nass, are they people who are vaccinated or unvaccinated?

00:10:37.000 We don't know.

00:10:39.000 We have some data from Maine that shows, at the present moment, more of the vaccinated are dying or being hospitalized from COVID. The rate is higher.

00:10:53.000 The rate is higher.

00:10:54.000 So explain that.

00:10:56.000 That means.

00:10:56.000 So, yes.

00:10:58.000 However, there's very poor data in the United States.

00:11:01.000 And in Maine, the data are not age standardized, comorbidity standardized, or anything else.

00:11:07.000 So we can say that more people are dying.

00:11:10.000 We can't say for sure negative efficacy because you'd have to compare the rates of death anyway in the vaccinated and unvaccinated.

00:11:18.000 We know that the vaccinated people are older than the unvaccinated.

00:11:25.000 You can get to negative efficacy when you have age-standardized numbers.

00:11:31.000 Those we have from New York State, which doesn't go into deaths, but it looked at children and teenagers and showed that after a certain number of weeks, depending on the age, it happened quicker in the younger kids, the 5 to 11s, and later in the 12 to 17-year-olds, about One to six months after being vaccinated, they would develop negative efficacy.

00:11:59.000 So this is the same age.

00:12:01.000 Vaccinated kids became more susceptible to COVID than unvaccinated.

00:12:06.000 So in other words, what we know is that we don't know what happens immediately after vaccination because those data are thrown out.

00:12:15.000 But there's indicators that immediately after vaccination, you are more susceptible to COVID for a short time.

00:12:22.000 And there appears to be a period where the vaccine actually protects you from COVID for a short period of time, maybe two months.

00:12:31.000 With three months.

00:12:32.000 And then after six months, the vaccinated go into negative efficacy, meaning that if you got vaccinated, you're more likely to get COVID than if you didn't get vaccinated.

00:12:43.000 Exactly.

00:12:44.000 And we have British data that show you the same thing.

00:12:47.000 Yeah.

00:12:48.000 What else?

00:12:49.000 Novavax.

00:12:50.000 Novavax.

00:12:51.000 Novavax is a kind of a scam.

00:12:55.000 It was billed as being a more traditional vaccine than the messenger RNA, but it's not a traditional vaccine at all.

00:13:03.000 The company's never had another product.

00:13:05.000 They don't have a manufacturing facility, so it's being made in India.

00:13:10.000 And it uses a platform that's only been used in the United States, I think in one other vaccine.

00:13:17.000 So a platform means the method of producing the antigen, the spike protein.

00:13:23.000 So what they've done is genetically engineered A baculovirus to, well, they've engineered the baculovirus to infect a worm, the fall army worm, grow those cells,

00:13:38.000 grow the worm cells in tissue culture, infect them with the virus, and then by using the bacteria's machinery, the genetically engineered DNA virus We'll cause the bacterial cells to make spike protein.

00:13:55.000 And then you take that fermentation and you clarify it so that you extract mostly spike protein.

00:14:05.000 But you get a little bit of the worm proteins and the viral proteins.

00:14:10.000 So you get five micrograms of spike protein and one microgram of worm and virus protein and a bit of their DNA in the vaccine.

00:14:20.000 I can tell you something.

00:14:21.000 My wife got three vaccines, and if she heard what you just said, she would do anything to not take the worm vaccine.

00:14:31.000 I wish I had you to talk to her before she got the vaccine.

00:14:35.000 Well, it gets worse.

00:14:37.000 Then in order to make it actually work as a vaccine and cause the immune system to respond, they needed an adjuvant.

00:14:46.000 So they took an adjuvant that's never been used before in any vaccine in the United States or anywhere else in the world.

00:14:52.000 They don't tell you exactly what's in it.

00:14:54.000 We only know the tree that it's derived from.

00:14:57.000 And that adjuvant is in this vaccine.

00:15:00.000 The vaccine is not licensed.

00:15:02.000 It's not approved.

00:15:04.000 It's another EUA product.

00:15:06.000 And the whole trick was to convince people who didn't want the old vaccines because they had been made using fetal cells That this one wouldn't use the fetal cells.

00:15:18.000 So therefore, hospitals and other companies have been directed to take away the religious exemptions of people who said they wouldn't take the old vaccines because of fetal cells, because now the Novavax vaccine is available and they can get that one.

00:15:36.000 So they're being instructed to get it.

00:15:39.000 Very few people have taken it.

00:15:40.000 Nobody wants it.

00:15:41.000 But the government has spent billions and billions on it.

00:15:45.000 Have we already covered regulatory malfeasance at FDA and CDC? No, but I have to remind myself what I was talking about.

00:15:54.000 I had that in a slide.

00:15:56.000 So I think one of the things was changing the definition of vaccine.

00:16:02.000 We now have, through FOIA lawsuits, We can see people at CDC acknowledging that the mRNA vaccines were not included in the old vaccine definition, so they had to change it.

00:16:16.000 Let's see.

00:16:17.000 I think other aspects of malfeasance at FDA, although we've heard about a lot of malfeasance at FDA over the last two and a half years, is the fact that they can authorize the boosters without human data.

00:16:31.000 What they've said is, well, we do it for flu shots.

00:16:35.000 Well, flu shots are completely different.

00:16:37.000 They're not mRNA.

00:16:39.000 There was a long history of using flu shots.

00:16:42.000 They actually had some honest science, and they were only changing one or two molecules in the flu shots, and there had never been any...

00:16:52.000 Problem with that.

00:16:53.000 And even Paul Offit has said that, you know, just because they are grandfathering in flu shots every year without human trials or very minimal human trials, that doesn't mean they can do that with these new shots.

00:17:06.000 There's no regulatory justification.

00:17:09.000 You know, FDA and CDC and who knows how many other federal agencies are just making things up as they go along.

00:17:16.000 They've completely thrown away regulatory law.

00:17:20.000 And, you know, I would never have believed it if I hadn't been digging into these things personally and saying, oh my God, here's a law.

00:17:28.000 They're breaking this law.

00:17:29.000 They're breaking this rule.

00:17:30.000 And so what we're left with is agencies that are not doing their job.

00:17:35.000 They're pushing out policies.

00:17:36.000 When the policies change, they change their story.

00:17:39.000 They don't admit mistakes.

00:17:41.000 These are not mistakes.

00:17:43.000 This is malfeasance.

00:17:44.000 This is deliberately...

00:17:46.000 Reneging on what their mission is, their responsibility is. 0.98

00:17:50.000 These people, presumably some of them have taken an oath.

00:17:54.000 To obey the law, but they are not.

00:17:57.000 And so I would not, I'd like to tell your listeners, I will never take another vaccine as long as I live because God knows what's in them.

00:18:08.000 You can't rely on the fact that anyone is testing them or that FDA is looking over anybody's shoulder to make sure that what's supposed to be in them is really in them.

00:18:17.000 And it seems that the current COVID vaccines are being made with very sloppy processes We can't be sure what's in them.

00:18:25.000 And why would we think they're going to do better with the other vaccines in the future?

00:18:30.000 Finally, Meryl, know us about the pregnancy data.

00:18:34.000 Well, so we know some things and some things we don't know.

00:18:40.000 And so I want to say that the things we need to know have all been hidden.

00:18:44.000 The CDC and the FDA are not making pregnancy data available.

00:18:52.000 There are many things they have done to cover up these data.

00:18:56.000 One was when FDA licensed the Comirnaty vaccine in August of last year, and then later the Moderna vaccine, they required that the companies perform safety testing in pregnancy, have a pregnancy registry.

00:19:13.000 And CDC started a pregnancy registry about a year and a half ago.

00:19:17.000 The pregnancy data going into VAERS looks horrendous.

00:19:22.000 The fact that a lot of the lipid nanoparticle went into the ovaries of mice, you know, in the preclinical testing that Pfizer did.

00:19:31.000 That's very scary, but we don't know exactly what it means.

00:19:33.000 We do know women's menses. 1.00

00:19:36.000 Their periods are either very heavy or for many women, they're absent. 1.00

00:19:41.000 They go away.

00:19:42.000 So something is going on with the reproductive system in many women, and it's very likely in men also, but they don't menstruate.

00:19:51.000 So we don't have an obvious marker for that.

00:19:54.000 What happened in the September 1 meeting of the CDC is that members of the advisory committee asked on several occasions, different members, what about pregnancy, what about births, stillbirths, etc.

00:20:10.000 Nobody would say, and finally someone said, we're going to have a meeting in the future to discuss that.

00:20:15.000 So all I can conclude is there's very bad information from the pregnancy data and they're still trying to figure out how to spin it.

00:20:23.000 I know that the Moderna pregnancy data, the only data they had was animal data.

00:20:31.000 And it was on a single rat study that was not good.

00:20:36.000 Laboratory practices, non-GLP, which normally would have it excluded.

00:20:41.000 And the study was incomplete and unpublished.

00:20:44.000 But that study showed that a high percentage of the rat pups had really atrocious birth defects and particularly bone problems in those babies.

00:20:57.000 And the Moderna actually...

00:21:01.000 Handed it in and said, you know, this is a problem.

00:21:05.000 And FDA, in its approval of the Moderna vaccine, says there were no birth defects in the rat.

00:21:14.000 So it just lied.

00:21:15.000 It just straight out lied.

00:21:17.000 And there was, you know, I mean, there are very severe birth defects, and that is literally the only data they have.

00:21:23.000 And they're giving this to pregnant women. 0.96

00:21:25.000 You know, they're criminals. 0.95

00:21:27.000 This is a sociopathology that they would do this.

00:21:32.000 Regulators who are supposed to protect little babies, most vulnerable population, are giving them something that the only data they have, it shows that this is very injurious to fetuses.

00:21:45.000 Right.

00:21:45.000 Well, they do have the VAERS data, and they probably have V-safe data, so they know that more women are reporting miscarriages and fertility problems than with any other vaccine ever.

00:21:57.000 They know that, and they're just trying to keep a lid on it as long as possible.

00:22:01.000 You're right.

00:22:02.000 It's completely criminal, and it's unfortunate there are so many women in these regulatory agencies who are leading this criminality. 1.00

00:22:10.000 Carol Nass, thank you.

00:22:11.000 I'm about to do another podcast with you, with Jay Cooey, and I look forward to seeing you there.

00:22:17.000 And thank you so much for everything you do, and good luck on Tuesday.

00:22:20.000 We'll all be praying for you.

00:22:22.000 Yeah, thanks.

RFK Jr. The Defender - November 01, 2022

Uncovering Medical Malfeasance with Dr Meryl Nass

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript