How Patient Access to COVID Treatments Was Denied, and My Story

Dr. Meryl Nass. Courtesy of Dr. Meryl Nass

Health Viewpoints

Reposting this, since RFK Jr. referred people to my website yesterday for info on HCQ and IVM.

First, the Chloroquine and Hydroxychloroquine Suppression

In 2020, I compiled a list of over 50 ways authorities and pharma companies in multiple countries stopped the use of chloroquine drugs for COVID. This was (and is) a stunning collection, which has been widely read and reproduced on many websites. When you read it, you are astounded to learn that all the U.S. (and many international) public health agencies took many different actions to increase deaths and destruction from COVID and prolong the pandemic. “Avoiding the Trump drug” served as a great cover story. Taking hydroxychloroquine for COVID was equated to drinking bleach.

Hydroxychloroquine sulfate tablets. Memories Over Mocha/Shutterstock

But here’s the kicker: The authorities knew all about chloroquine and other treatments for COVID before there even was a COVID because they had figured it out for the 2003 SARS epidemic and the 2012 MERS epidemic, both caused by related coronaviruses. But they hushed it up.

In 2005, five U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (aka U.S. government) scientists published a paper, along with three Canadian government scientists, showing that chloroquine was an effective drug against SARS coronaviruses. European scientists had shown the same thing in 2004.

Here is the CDC paper:

And here is its conclusion:

It looked very promising for both the prevention and treatment of the first SARS. After all, it has been used for many decades both to prevent and treat malaria. (I took it for prevention, and later for treatment, 50 years ago.)

Nine years later, in 2014, scientists in Tony Fauci’s NIAID showed the same thing. 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.

Here is the paper from Fauci’s NIAID:

And this is what the NIAID authors said:

“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 was published back-to-back with the NIAID paper above. I have cited the 2004 European paper elsewhere, and these citations can also be found in Bobby Kennedy’s book “The Real Anthony Fauci,“ which, according to Amazon, has now sold over 800,000 copies. Please read it. On the other hand, if you are seeking misinformation on COVID, I'd recommend Fauci’s own book ”Expect the Unexpected.”

The “Why?” and “How could this be?!!” requires people to take a huge leap to understand the world we live in. Many don’t have the fortitude to dissect their worldview 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.

A box containing a bottle of ivermectin in Cali, Colombia, on July 21, 2020. Luis Robayo/AFP via Getty Images

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, because the French MedinCell company, supported by Bill Gates, was working on an injectable version of ivermectin for COVID, which could be patented. The company issued a press release about this on April 6, 2020, and an informational paper (pdf) on April 23, 2020. There was a brief run on the veterinary drug at this time in the United States, according to a U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) warning issued on April 10, 2020, indicating some people knew it might be an effective COVID treatment and were acquiring veterinary versions. But there was not a lot of buzz, and sales did not take off at that time.

Here is what the 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 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! There was a two-month bump in sales after the hearing, which then declined.

I think the authorities were initially scared to repeat the same tricks with ivermectin 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. The authorities kept quiet.

South Africa became a trial balloon. On Christmas Eve 2020, South African authorities banned the importation of ivermectin. However, several local organizations mounted legal actions, and they won. In several months, ivermectin was back on the shelves.

Thanks in great measure to the physician organization Frontline COVID-19 Critical Care (FLCCC) Alliance, ivermectin’s popularity gradually began to explode. Then the CDC published a report in late August 2021 showing that ivermectin prescriptions had quadrupled in a month, and the drug was now selling at 25 times the pre-COVID rate.

Ivermectin prescriptions sold by week, 2019 to 2021.

Insider reported in an article: “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.”

Apparently, this terrified the powers-that-be. What if the pandemic got wiped out with ivermectin? It worked too well! 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.

The method had been tested in the Philippines.

The powers-that-be could also scare the pharmacies. This required stealth. No paper trail. Intimidation was required, backed by a one-two punch: actually suspending doctors’ (and maybe pharmacists’) licenses. You couple that with a huge media offensive, and threats from an industry of medical “nonprofits.” You suddenly invent “misinformation” as a medical crime, studiously failing to define it. You make people think the 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 Tony Fauci give the order? CDC Director Rochelle Walensky? Acting FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock, who had already schemed to suppress HCQ? It was probably some combination of them and their handlers, plus the public relations professionals managing the messaging and the media.

Here’s What Happened

First

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

Second

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 United States, Edenbridge, and was told they were producing plenty.

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

Third

In late August 2021, the CDC sent out a major warning about ivermectin but provided only two 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. 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.

Fourth

Also starting in July 2022, various “nonprofit” medical organizations began 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:

“A handful of doctors spreading disinformation have fostered belief in scientifically unvalidated and potentially dangerous ‘cures’ for COVID-19 while increasing vaccine hesitancy.”

These organizations 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?

Fifth

Over the course of three days at the end of August 2021, national media reported on four doctors in three states whose boards were investigating them for the use of ivermectin.

Hawaii’s Medical Board went after Hawaii’s chief medical officer:

“The Hawaii Medical Board has filed complaints against Maui’s top health official and a Valley Isle physician following reports that they backed COVID-19 treatments that state and federal health agencies advise against.”

They really wanted to make an example by going after the state’s chief medical officer, who had had the guts to treat COVID patients. Clearly, the orders are coming from high up on the food chain.

Here were some of the other August headlines I collected about doctors who legally prescribed a fully approved drug off-label:

Sixth

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 a 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 eight and 15 of its member boards began to take action. (Media have reported that eight, 12, or 15 boards of its 71 member boards did so, according to the FSMB, which is closely monitoring the results of its calumny.)

Seventh

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

“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 malinformation (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 accompanying narratives become long in the tooth.

Eighth

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 of which are legal activities for doctors.) But boards have broad powers to intervene in the practice of medicine and are shielded from liability as agents of the state. And so, for example, 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.

Ninth

Here is what the 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 70 years old, and my medical practice was set up as a service so that 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 its suspension and would simply surrender my license, since it could cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to fight the board’s actions in court. While the U.S. legal system allows entry to anyone to seek justice, the price of admission precludes all but a few.

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 by 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 renegade Maine 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 being used as a poster child in a national fear campaign designed to purge 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 defense against the bulldozing of free speech, patient autonomy and choice, and the doctor–patient relationship. There is a lot riding on the outcome.

Reposted from Meryl Nass’ Substack. Founder of the DoorToFreedom.org

Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times. Epoch Health welcomes professional discussion and friendly debate. To submit an opinion piece, please follow these guidelines and submit through our form here.