All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 1, 2022 - RFK Jr. The Defender
22:22
Uncovering Medical Malfeasance with Dr Meryl Nass

Dr. Meryl Nass discusses many medical topics with RFK Jr. in this episode.

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hey everybody, we have a return guest, one of our favorite return guests today, Dr.
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.
She's a board-certified internist in Maine, known for her expertise in anthrax, bioterrorism, anthrax vaccine, the Gulf War Syndrome.
She identified the first modern use of anthrax as a biological weapon, which occurred in 1978 during the Rhodesian Civil War.
She has testified for seven congressional committees on bioterrorism vaccines, the anthrax letters, and Gulf War syndrome.
She has consulted for the Director of National Intelligence and the World Bank on the Prevention and Mitigation of Bioterrorism.
Her son practices medicine at UVM Burlington.
She's also an extraordinary doctor.
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.
Tell us what your case is right now, Merrill.
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.
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.
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.
So what I'd done was answer questions in interviews, basically, and give people ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine according to the Maine law.
So for now, almost nine months, I have not had a medical license.
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.
There is a law in the United States, it's called the First Amendment.
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.
But the California law was very careful to exclude doctors speaking publicly about those subjects.
Doctors are allowed to speak publicly, they're just not allowed to tell their patients about it.
Which is very curious.
Anyway, in Maine, the only thing they know about, they didn't have a microphone in my office.
They don't know what I told my patients, but they do know what I said during interviews.
So subsequently, they've dropped the complaint of misinformation and disinformation.
They've said they don't want to argue about off-label prescribing.
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.
That only applied to some donated products that were unlicensed, but I was using the licensed product.
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.
So they've dropped most of the charges.
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.
I wasn't asking the patients whether they would agree to a phone visit.
I was offering them an in-person visit if they wanted one, and they chose a phone visit.
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.
Anyway, that's the story.
So we've got a few charges left.
My lawyers filed another document yesterday asking them to drop all the charges and to apologize to me.
We love you, Meryl, and this is...
They're coming after the best doctors in the country right now.
That's what they're doing.
And as you pointed out, they have outlawed.
Gavin Newsom has signed a bill that literally outlaws second opinions by doctors, you know, who are trying to heal their patients.
We're applying their gifts of healing, of their knowledge of medicine, and applying their best judgment.
And what he's saying is that doctors no longer have this unique and sacred relationship with patients that has been true since Hippocrates.
The doctors treat the patient instead.
In the state of California, the doctor is now the agent of state policies.
And those are policies that in some cases aren't even made by doctors.
They're made by regulators who are under the sway of pharmaceutical companies.
It's very tragic.
Of course, we're going to sue them.
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.
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.
Thank you anyway for standing up.
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.
Will you tell us about that?
Sure.
What the government, the FDA and CDC have done is to create a new COVID vaccine.
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.
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.
The government wanted to roll these out very quickly.
And so they didn't bother testing them in human beings.
And they only tested them in a, we don't know how many, but a small number of mice.
And you cannot correlate what happens to mice with what happens to people.
So that was just a joke.
I think it was only like eight mice or something, right?
Yeah, they say eight mice.
So there's two vaccines.
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.
So the Moderna trial, not trial, but the Moderna test used at least 100 mice.
I'm not sure how many the Pfizer vaccine used, but it doesn't really matter.
They could have used a million mice.
They don't tell you how humans respond.
So they don't tell you whether it's effective.
They don't tell you whether it's safe.
And those are the two questions that you need addressed.
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.
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?
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.
And now, New York Times says there's still 33% of Americans have gotten, you know, at least one booster.
So, if people are getting the boosters, there are people who have already had multiple, okay?
If, in fact, 8 million, there are already people who had three or four shots already.
The people who had two shots don't want any more, okay?
That's 67% of the population is not being boosted, regardless of whether they have old or new boosters.
In terms of the safety, we have no idea.
In terms of the efficacy of the new boosters, we don't know that either.
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.
That's the story.
We don't know why they rolled them out.
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.
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.
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.
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.
But because we in Maine were relatively spared previously, we're getting more cases now.
And the people who are getting COVID, Dr.
Nass, are they people who are vaccinated or unvaccinated?
We don't know.
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.
The rate is higher.
So explain that.
That means.
So, yes.
However, there's very poor data in the United States.
And in Maine, the data are not age standardized, comorbidity standardized, or anything else.
So we can say that more people are dying.
We can't say for sure negative efficacy because you'd have to compare the rates of death anyway in the vaccinated and unvaccinated.
We know that the vaccinated people are older than the unvaccinated.
You can get to negative efficacy when you have age-standardized numbers.
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.
So this is the same age.
Vaccinated kids became more susceptible to COVID than unvaccinated.
So in other words, what we know is that we don't know what happens immediately after vaccination because those data are thrown out.
But there's indicators that immediately after vaccination, you are more susceptible to COVID for a short time.
And there appears to be a period where the vaccine actually protects you from COVID for a short period of time, maybe two months.
With three months.
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.
Exactly.
And we have British data that show you the same thing.
Yeah.
What else?
Novavax.
Novavax.
Novavax is a kind of a scam.
It was billed as being a more traditional vaccine than the messenger RNA, but it's not a traditional vaccine at all.
The company's never had another product.
They don't have a manufacturing facility, so it's being made in India.
And it uses a platform that's only been used in the United States, I think in one other vaccine.
So a platform means the method of producing the antigen, the spike protein.
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,
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.
And then you take that fermentation and you clarify it so that you extract mostly spike protein.
But you get a little bit of the worm proteins and the viral proteins.
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.
I can tell you something.
My wife got three vaccines, and if she heard what you just said, she would do anything to not take the worm vaccine.
I wish I had you to talk to her before she got the vaccine.
Well, it gets worse.
Then in order to make it actually work as a vaccine and cause the immune system to respond, they needed an adjuvant.
So they took an adjuvant that's never been used before in any vaccine in the United States or anywhere else in the world.
They don't tell you exactly what's in it.
We only know the tree that it's derived from.
And that adjuvant is in this vaccine.
The vaccine is not licensed.
It's not approved.
It's another EUA product.
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.
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.
So they're being instructed to get it.
Very few people have taken it.
Nobody wants it.
But the government has spent billions and billions on it.
Have we already covered regulatory malfeasance at FDA and CDC? No, but I have to remind myself what I was talking about.
I had that in a slide.
So I think one of the things was changing the definition of vaccine.
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.
Let's see.
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.
What they've said is, well, we do it for flu shots.
Well, flu shots are completely different.
They're not mRNA.
There was a long history of using flu shots.
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...
Problem with that.
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.
There's no regulatory justification.
You know, FDA and CDC and who knows how many other federal agencies are just making things up as they go along.
They've completely thrown away regulatory law.
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.
They're breaking this law.
They're breaking this rule.
And so what we're left with is agencies that are not doing their job.
They're pushing out policies.
When the policies change, they change their story.
They don't admit mistakes.
These are not mistakes.
This is malfeasance.
This is deliberately...
Reneging on what their mission is, their responsibility is.
These people, presumably some of them have taken an oath.
To obey the law, but they are not.
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.
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.
And it seems that the current COVID vaccines are being made with very sloppy processes We can't be sure what's in them.
And why would we think they're going to do better with the other vaccines in the future?
Finally, Meryl, know us about the pregnancy data.
Well, so we know some things and some things we don't know.
And so I want to say that the things we need to know have all been hidden.
The CDC and the FDA are not making pregnancy data available.
There are many things they have done to cover up these data.
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.
And CDC started a pregnancy registry about a year and a half ago.
The pregnancy data going into VAERS looks horrendous.
The fact that a lot of the lipid nanoparticle went into the ovaries of mice, you know, in the preclinical testing that Pfizer did.
That's very scary, but we don't know exactly what it means.
We do know women's menses.
Their periods are either very heavy or for many women, they're absent.
They go away.
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.
So we don't have an obvious marker for that.
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.
Nobody would say, and finally someone said, we're going to have a meeting in the future to discuss that.
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.
I know that the Moderna pregnancy data, the only data they had was animal data.
And it was on a single rat study that was not good.
Laboratory practices, non-GLP, which normally would have it excluded.
And the study was incomplete and unpublished.
But that study showed that a high percentage of the rat pups had really atrocious birth defects and particularly bone problems in those babies.
And the Moderna actually...
Handed it in and said, you know, this is a problem.
And FDA, in its approval of the Moderna vaccine, says there were no birth defects in the rat.
So it just lied.
It just straight out lied.
And there was, you know, I mean, there are very severe birth defects, and that is literally the only data they have.
And they're giving this to pregnant women.
You know, they're criminals.
This is a sociopathology that they would do this.
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.
Right.
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.
They know that, and they're just trying to keep a lid on it as long as possible.
You're right.
It's completely criminal, and it's unfortunate there are so many women in these regulatory agencies who are leading this criminality.
Carol Nass, thank you.
I'm about to do another podcast with you, with Jay Cooey, and I look forward to seeing you there.
And thank you so much for everything you do, and good luck on Tuesday.
We'll all be praying for you.
Yeah, thanks.
▲
Export Selection