Dr. Meryl Nass' Testimony In opposition to Vaccine Mandates

January 11, 2022, the Well being and Human Companies Committee of the Maine legislature held a public listening to on LD8671 “An Act to Prohibit Obligatory COVID-19 Vaccinations for five Years to Permit for Security Testing and Investigations Into Reproductive Hurt.”

The American Most cancers Society is vehemently against this rational invoice.2 In some twisted, incomprehensible logic, the ACS claims that banning necessary COVID jabs would “place the well being of most cancers sufferers at larger danger.” How, one may ask, may that occur, contemplating the jabbed are simply as prone to contract and unfold the virus?

Getting the shot by no means, form or type protects anybody round you. So, what may it’s? One can solely surprise if the ACS’ opposition has something to do with their “long-standing partnership”3 with vaccine maker Pfizer, which in 2020 alone helped the ACS hand out $3.7 million in grants4 — however which additionally occurs to supply one of many COVID mRNA injections?

If vaccine mandates are upheld, ACS’ associate, Pfizer, has tons to achieve. But when mandates are banned, they may have lots to lose. Amongst those that testified in favor of the invoice was Dr. Meryl Nass, an internist with a particular curiosity in vaccine-induced diseases and experience in anthrax and bioterrorism.

In her testimony, Nass introduced a number of key causes for why we have to forestall COVID jab mandates till there’s sufficient security information. Nass’ testimony is posted on her weblog, anthraxvaccine.blogspot.com.5 Right here, I’ll present a abstract assessment of her key factors.

The COVID Pictures Are Experimental

Sure, the COVID photographs are nonetheless experimental. No, there aren’t any Meals and Drug Administration-approved COVID photographs AVAILABLE or IN USE in america, and experimental medication can not declare to be secure and efficient. FDA Code of Federal Rules Title 21, Subchapter D Half 312:[3]6 defines a medical experiment as “any use of a drug apart from using a marketed drug in the middle of medical apply,” and vaccines are a subset of medication, per the FDA.

“Whereas FDA licensed Comirnaty … solely Emergency Use Licensed (experimental) vaccines are getting used,” Nass notes.

What’s extra, that time period, “secure and efficient,” is an FDA time period that may solely be utilized to licensed medication and vaccines. Since not one of the COVID photographs given is definitely licensed, they’re, by definition, experimental or investigational. Apart from, trials haven’t but concluded for any of the vaccine makers. They’re nonetheless ongoing.

“It doesn’t matter what claims have been made relating to these vaccines, they aren’t ‘secure and efficient,’” Nass says. “Medicines and vaccines are EITHER licensed merchandise or experimental merchandise. There isn’t a grey space between them in U.S. legislation.

Whether or not or not analysis is explicitly performed, using experimental merchandise (together with these issued underneath an Emergency Use Authorization) falls underneath the Nuremberg Code and underneath U.S. legislation regulating experimental medication. As former FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn himself famous, ‘EUA merchandise are nonetheless thought-about investigational.’”

Knowledgeable Consent and Choice to Refuse Are Required by Regulation

So, the EUA COVID photographs are, by definition, experimental, and when an individual is obtainable an experimental product, U.S. legislation requires that they supply written knowledgeable consent.

Now, the knowledgeable consent requirement was loosened underneath the PREP Act that created the EUAs, however the legislation nonetheless requires that contributors be told “of the numerous recognized and potential advantages and dangers,” and “the extent to which such advantages and dangers are unknown.” Furthermore, they should have the choice to just accept or refuse the remedy.

To this present day, contributors on this international experiment have NOT been informed of the potential dangers. They obtain no sufficient disclosure type earlier than they’re given the shot, and Large Tech in collusion with authorities has censored any and all dialogue and disclosure of adversarial results.

Even those that are reporting their private experiences are censored and/or deplatformed. For a style of what these injured by the COVID jabs have needed to endure, see Del Bigtree’s interview with three such victims.7

How Legal responsibility Is Being Skirted

Nass then goes on to elucidate why — seeing how the FDA has accepted the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID shot known as Comirnaty — this product isn’t really getting used within the U.S.

In brief, it comes right down to legal responsibility. The 2 merchandise should not interchangeable (as confirmed in federal courtroom8) as a result of they aren’t an identical when it comes to legal responsibility underneath U.S. legislation. (The legal responsibility concern differs from nation to nation, which is probably going why Comirnaty is accessible in Europe however not the U.S. Every thing mentioned right here applies solely to the U.S.)

Certainly, a federal district courtroom choose in November 2021 rejected the U.S. Division of Protection’s declare that Pfizer’s EUA shot, BNT162b2, is interchangeable with the licensed Comirnaty.9 Why would Pfizer quit blanket immunity by withdrawing the remaining EUA tons and changing them with a product they are often sued for by people who find themselves injured?

The Pfizer-BioNTech EUA product, BNT162b2,10 has very restricted monetary legal responsibility for accidents and deaths, because of it being underneath EUA. This legal responsibility defend extends to the producer, distributors, directors, program planners and nearly everybody else concerned within the making, distribution and administering of this product.

Comirnaty, however, as a totally licensed product, doesn’t take pleasure in this broad legal responsibility defend. It’s topic to peculiar legal responsibility claims. Surprisingly sufficient, the FDA prolonged the EUA for BNT162b2 on the exact same day it granted full license to Comirnaty, and Pfizer has no plan to make Comirnaty obtainable in america so long as BNT162b2 doses are nonetheless obtainable.11

Why didn’t the FDA pull the EUA for BNT162b2 as soon as it licensed Comirnaty? They’re presupposed to be an identical merchandise, so why the 2 wildly diverging and contradictory strains of approval?

By legislation, an EUA can solely be granted when there aren’t any different medication obtainable, so as soon as a COVID shot was licensed, all EUA “vaccines” ought to even have been pulled. As acknowledged by the Kids’s Well being Protection in its lawsuit towards the FDA and appearing commissioner Janet Woodcock:12

“The black letter legislation is obvious. There will be no biologic license accepted to a medical product for diagnosing, stopping or treating COVID-19 if there’s additionally nonetheless an Emergency Use Authorization for a similar medical product serving the identical function.”

I just lately mentioned this concern with Alix Mayer from Kids’s Well being Protection. In case you are serious about extra particulars please assessment the video under.

Unethical Bait-and-Change

One logical technique that may account for this unprecedented situation is as a result of the EUA product is liability-free and Comirnaty isn’t, and Pfizer would somewhat not shoulder the monetary legal responsibility of this shot, contemplating the large variety of accidents being reported.

On the identical time, although, authorities wished everybody to get the shot. They wished the flexibility to push vaccine necessities for work and college. However with no licensed COVID shot, any mandate could be unquestionably unlawful, as anybody has the best to refuse an EUA product. Fairly the pickle. So, it appears that is the irregular workaround they cooked up. As famous by Nass:

“FDA seems to have been acceding to the White Home demand that the vaccine be licensed, to ensure that it to be mandated for big sectors of the U.S. inhabitants. Beneath an EUA, which specifies that potential recipients have the best to refuse, mandates can’t be imposed.

So, a license was issued, permitting the administration to tell the general public that the vaccine was totally accepted and licensed. However in truth, the general public was unable to entry the licensed vaccine. Why was this convoluted regulatory course of carried out? Whereas underneath EUA, Pfizer has an virtually bulletproof legal responsibility defend.”

Why They’re Pushing the COVID Jab on Kids

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has supplied an extra principle for why the FDA circumvented customary processes. He believes it’s half of a bigger scheme that features increasing the EUA to be used in kids earlier than Comirnaty is launched.

As soon as BNT162b2 is utilized in kids, they’ll then push to have Comirnaty added to the childhood vaccination schedule. At current, underneath the Biologics License Utility approval issued August 23, 2021, Comirnaty is just licensed to be used in people 16 years of age and older.13

As soon as added to the childhood vaccination schedule, Comirnaty would acquire a strong defend towards monetary legal responsibility for accidents — together with accidents occurring in adults who obtain the shot. 

Foundational Security Research Are Solely Now Getting Began

Nass additionally factors out that the COVID jab trials are removed from over — in truth some haven’t but begun — and till they’re really accomplished, nobody can declare that these photographs are recognized to be secure. Nass writes:14

“FDA instructed Pfizer-BioNTech that FDA’s Congressionally-mandated databases are insufficient to evaluate the hazard of myocarditis (and different potential COVID vaccine unwanted effects) and due to this fact Pfizer-BioNTech should carry out research to guage these dangers over the following six years15

These research have been to be carried out on BOTH merchandise: the licensed Comirnaty and the EUA Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. Word that they embody the requirement for security research in being pregnant, which is not going to be accomplished till December 31, 2025 …

FDA’s admission that it can not assess these security dangers, and that as much as six years shall be taken to check them, gives us with extra de facto proof that the Pfizer vaccines can’t be termed secure, as most of the basic security research are solely now getting began.”

The WHO Does Not Suggest COVID Jab for Kids

Lastly, Nass factors out that the World Well being Group doesn’t suggest giving the COVID jab to wholesome kids, as they expertise very gentle SARS-CoV-2 an infection in comparison with adults.

“Extra proof is required on using the totally different COVID-19 vaccines in kids to have the ability to make basic suggestions on vaccinating kids towards COVID-19 … Vaccine trials for kids are ongoing and WHO will replace its suggestions when the proof or epidemiological scenario warrants a change in coverage,” the WHO states on its web site.16

“If the World Well being Group believes there’s inadequate proof to assist basic vaccination of regular kids, why would this committee and the Maine Legislature assume in any other case?” Nass asks.

Abstract of Key Arguments

In closing, Nass sums up her arguments with the next checklist:

All COVID jabs obtainable within the U.S. are experimental merchandise

Potential recipients should by legislation be given the best to refuse

Mandates negate the best of refusal

Primary questions concerning the security of those photographs stay unresolved, and a few of them is not going to be answered till 2027

The WHO doesn’t suggest common COVID vaccination for kids

Mother and father needs to be permitted to make individualized choices relating to their kids’s dangers and advantages from a COVID jab

It’s inconceivable to make a totally knowledgeable choice concerning the COVID jabs till the general public has open entry to all security and efficacy information, that are at the moment unavailable

Maine Medical Board Suspends Nass’ Medical License

On the identical day that Nass supplied these information to the Maine legislature, January 11, 2022, the state’s medical licensing board voted to droop Nass’ medical license for 30 days, pending additional investigation, on the grounds of her “spreading COVID misinformation,” which included a Twitter publish linking to one in all my articles. As reported by The Hill:17

“The board reported that it had acquired two complaints regarding Nass, who’s an internist in Ellsworth, Maine, and an energetic member of the anti-vaccine group Kids’s Well being Protection … The complaints alleged that Nass had unfold misinformation about COVID-19.

Nass has reportedly been essential of vaccine effectiveness and supported using ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine to deal with COVID-19, regardless of inadequate proof that they’re efficient in preventing the virus. The board can also be trying to conduct a psychological analysis of Nass …”

It’s laborious to imagine that this motion is something however a bullying tactic supposed to close her up, as a result of she is aware of her stuff and she or he’s not afraid to share the unvarnished fact. In its order, the State of Maine Board of Licensure in Medication claims that:18

“… the continued capability of Dr. Nass to apply as a doctor within the State of Maine constitutes a right away jeopardy to the well being and bodily security of the general public who may obtain her medical companies, and that it’s mandatory to instantly droop her capability to apply drugs in an effort to adequately reply to this danger.”

In a January 13, 2022, Substack publish, Steve Kirsch commented on the Maine medical board’s choice:19

“Dr. Nass is responsible of prescribing FDA-approved medication which have been proven in dozens of trials to be helpful in treating COVID20 … Right here’s the attention-grabbing factor: had she prescribed nothing for these sufferers, she wouldn’t have been cited.”

Medical doctors who save lives utilizing medication confirmed secure over many years of use are stripped of their licenses and ordered to bear psychiatric analysis, whereas docs who kill sufferers by both refusing to deal with them or through the use of unproven experimental medication are “sane” and get to maintain theirs. That’s the place we’re at. It’s past tragic.

Ultimately, although, Meryl — like the remainder of us — shall be vindicated, of that I’ve little doubt. I’ve had the chance to get to know her through the years and have finished many interviews together with her. I stay assured that though that is clearly a problem, she is going to come out higher on the opposite facet.

We will be happy to hear your thoughts

Leave a reply

Enable registration in settings - general
Compare items
  • Total (0)
Shopping cart