Saturday, October 16, 2021

My affidavit with footnotes but still no charts (google will not allow me to include charts from Word)

The entire court filings can be found here.  My statement begins on page 23, so if you go to this website, the charts from my testimony are included.

STATE OF MAINE                                                                          SUPERIOR COURT

KENNEBEC, ss.                                                                               CIVIL ACTION

                                                                                                            DOCKET NO. CV-21-158



MANDATES, et al,                                        )


                                    Plaintiffs                     )                                   

            v.                                                         )


JEANNE M. LAMBREW and                       )                                   

NIRAV D. SHAH,                                          )           


                                    Defendants                  )






BEFORE ME, the undersigned person, duly authorized to administer oaths, personally appeared, Dr. Meryl J. Nass, M.D., J.D., who, after being first duly cautioned and sworn, deposed and stated as follows:

1.         My name is Meryl Jae Nass, M.D.  I practice internal medicine in Ellsworth, Maine.

2.         I have a Bachelor's degree in Biology from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

3.         I attended New Jersey Medical School and transferred to the University of Mississippi Medical School when my husband became a professor there.  I received my medical degree from the University of Mississippi and did a residency in internal medicine there.  

4.         I am board certified in internal medicine.

5.         In addition to a 40 year career practicing medicine, I developed expertise in the identification, response and amelioration of bioterrorism and pandemic diseases, Gulf War syndrome, anthrax, and in the evaluation of vaccines and vaccine safety.

6.         I am the first person in the world to have investigated an outbreak and proved it was due to biological warfare.  The outbreak occurred in Zimbabwe (then Rhodesia) during its civil war in 19978-80, and my research was published in 1992.  I have been referred to as a "biowarfare epidemiologist" ever since. 

7.         I was a consultant to the Ministry of Health of Cuba in 1993 regarding an epidemic of optic and peripheral neuropathy, correctly diagnosing it as the result of cyanide exposure coupled with nutritional deficiency and advising on mitigation strategies.

8.         I am considered an expert on the anthrax letters attacks of 2001 and the anthrax vaccine.  I consulted for the World Bank's Interamerican Development Bank in 2002 regarding the evaluation and amelioration of anthrax and other potential bioterrorism and chemical weapon events.

9.         I consulted for the U.S. Director of National Intelligence regarding the prevention and identification of domestic terrorism events, in 2008. 

10.       I have given requested testimonies to six different Congressional committees between 1999 and 2007. 

11.       I have provided expert testimony to two National Academy of Science committees and to a UK committee headed by its Law Lord investigating Gulf War syndrome.

12.       While I have testified to state legislative committees on a variety of medical issues, in recent years I have testified in Vermont, Massachusetts, New Brunswick and Maine on the specific issue of vaccine mandates.

13.       Since the 2020 start of this pandemic, I have been providing almost daily information and analysis to the public on all aspects of the pandemic, the pandemic response, potential COVID-19 treatments and vaccines.  This information is posted on my website.  Many of my articles have been reposted on other websites.  I have also written original articles for websites and magazines.  I have written the most comprehensive article on the deliberate suppression of hydroxychloroquine for the treatment of COVID, to date.  I edited one Citizen Petition to the Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") regarding the polymerase chain reaction ("PCR") tests that have been used to diagnose COVID-19, and I coauthored another Citizen Petition to the FDA challenging its response to the pandemic and its issuance of Emergency Use Authorizations ("EUA") for COVID-19 vaccines.

14.       I have been interviewed by all major US newspapers and TV networks, as well as by many alternative media.

15.       I am listed in Who's Who in America and Who's Who in the World.


16.       The COVID-19 pandemic is due to a coronavirus which most likely was developed at the Wuhan Institute of Virology laboratory, in collaboration with Professor Ralph Baric of the University of North Carolina. This research was partly funded by U.S. federal agencies, especially the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, which has devoted up to 51 million dollars/year to coronavirus research over the past 20 years, preceding the current pandemic.

17.       I was asked to review and comment on Dr. Nirah Shah's affidavit and the following remarks provide my response to his statements.  Unless stated otherwise, when I use the term "CDC" in the following discussion, it refers to the federal Center for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, GA and not the Maine CDC, which Dr. Shah directs.

18.       Dr. Nirav Shah is incorrect in his discussion of the means of spread (#17) of SARS-CoV-2, the virus said to cause the disease called COVID-19.  He has omitted aerosol spread, in which particles much smaller than droplet size can travel across a building and cause infection at a distance far greater than six feet.  This is well known in the scientific literature, and it is the reason the CDC advised improved ventilation and opening windows to reduce the burden of virus suspended in air, potentially for hours.  Even coughing and sneezing have been shown to spread droplets over a distance exceeding 20 feet.[1]

19.       The so-called Delta variant (#22) is defined differently in different countries.  There is not just one Delta variant, because coronaviruses are continuously mutating.  It is true that current variants, which the CDC defines as one entity, are more contagious than earlier variants.  While some cases are indisputably very severe, detailed information from the United Kingdom ("UK") regarding 7 different variants that are being closely observed has revealed that overall, the Delta variant has the lowest mortality rate of all.  For most individuals it is less severe.  For some it is more severe than earlier variants.

20.       It is true that the CDC has claimed that unvaccinated Americans are much more likely to be hospitalized than vaccinated Americans.  However, data from the UK and Israel fail to confirm this.  In fact, Israeli statistics show that both vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals are approximately equally likely to be hospitalized for COVID at the present time.

21.       This Israel Ministry of Health graph makes this clear.  While the number of cases was approximately the same in the vaccinated and the unvaccinated, there were nearly twice as many vaccinated Israelis hospitalized as unvaccinated Israelis.  Israel used the Pfizer vaccine almost exclusively.

22.       The UK data tracks the Israeli data, and can be found at:

23.       How is it that the federal CDC and Dr. Shah can claim otherwise?  Unfortunately, the CDC is captured by pharmaceutical companies, which donate to the CDC Foundation.[2]  

24.       CDC produces data that invariably support Executive branch policies.  Dr. Shah is a liaison representative for CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices and hews closely to the CDC's talking points.[3]

25.       CDC has employed several strategies to reduce artificially the number of reported breakthrough cases, and I have written about most of these.  On May 1, 2021, the CDC stopped accepting reports of breakthrough (fully vaccinated but infected) cases from states and hospitals unless these cases died or were hospitalized and had been proven to be positive for COVID by using a PCR test with a strict cycle threshold of 28 or less.  Unvaccinated cases, however, could be diagnosed using a highly permissive cycle threshold of 40 or even 45, even though Dr. Tony Fauci himself pointed out early in the pandemic that at cycle thresholds over 35, all you were finding were "dead nucleotides" rather than evidence of live virus.[4]

26.       Furthermore, CDC defines patients as fully vaccinated only two weeks after their final vaccination.  Americans who developed COVID-19 between vaccine doses or before two weeks had elapsed after their last dose were defined as not fully vaccinated, and in some circumstances as unvaccinated.

27.       CDC also employs a leaky method of collecting cases from hospitals, as described in a recent article in Politico.[5]

28.       Unless patients have their vaccination status clearly listed in their hospital record, they are probably going to be classified as unvaccinated.  Hospital reporting of breakthrough cases to CDC is extremely patchy.

29.       Unfortunately, while over 6,000 reports of U.S. deaths following vaccination have been submitted to the VAERS system, managed jointly by the FDA and CDC, 80% occurred within 2 weeks of a vaccination.  It seems the CDC may be defining them as deaths in the unvaccinated.  Otherwise it is difficult to understand how CDC claims none have been proven to be caused by vaccination.  This CDC conclusion flies in the face of studies by a prominent pathology professor in Germany who found, based on autopsy studies he conducted, that 30-40% of deaths occurring soon after a COVID-19 vaccination were due to the vaccine.[6]

30.       Dr. Shah (#27) stated that the treatment of COVID-19 consists mainly of supportive care.  While the federal CDC and recent NIH guidelines have made this claim, it is not supported by the medical literature, including the literature generated by these two agencies. CDC and NIAID have known about the benefits of chloroquine drugs for coronaviruses for many years.  Hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine and ivermectin are very effective treatments for COVID when used early, during the first week of illness.  The effectiveness of chloroquine antimalarial drugs (chloroquine, hydroxychloroquine and mefloquine) against coronaviruses, especially SARS-1 and MERS, was known by the CDC and NIH long before the current pandemic, since papers were published beginning in 2004 through 2014 about their success, in vitro, using acceptable doses against these deadly viruses.[7]

31.       Remdesivir (#28) is a controversial drug that the US Department of Veterans Affairs found did not improve mortality and extended length of hospital stay in a recent study.[8]

32.       Remdesivir was ushered through its pivotal trial by NIAID Director Tony Fauci, and only succeeded because the desired endpoint was changed during the study, not once but twice.[9]

33.       The NIH Guidelines committee, formed by NIAID, included 16 members with financial conflicts of interest with Gilead, the maker of Remdesivir. This is the most likely explanation for why this committee supported the use of Remdesivir but failed to support its competitors ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine.[10]

34.       The W.H.O. recommends against the use of Remdesivir for COVID.[11]

35.       Hydroxychloroquine (#32), as I noted above, was known to be effective against SARS coronaviruses since 2004.  Vast efforts were put in place at the start of the current pandemic to prevent its use for COVID-19.  These efforts included using borderline lethal doses of the drug in several large clinical trials, and using too low a dose in others.  Starting the drug in hospital, when viral replication was already over and the disease process was later due to autoimmunity, cytokine storm and thromboses, was a guaranteed way to demonstrate lack of efficacy, since the drug only acted to stop the growth of virus.  The NIAID promised a large study of outpatient use in 2,000 patients early in the illness, then inexplicably cancelled the trial after only 20 subjects had been enrolled.[12]

36.       Early treatment works, as evidenced by the forest plot meta-analysis below:[13]

37.       Importantly, there is suggestive evidence that hydroxychloroquine is also effective for prophylactic use.  The biggest study in this regard is COPCOV MORU, undertaken by Oxford University professor Nicholas White in countries around the world.  The study is not yet completed.  The principal investigators felt it important to dispel the myth that hydroxychloroquine was ineffective for prevention of COVID, and posted a critique of the flawed methodologies used in studies that claimed this.[14]

38.       Dr. Shah claims (#34) that Vitamin D has failed to show effectiveness in the treatment of COVID.  However, a compilation of the studies (which can be found at on Vitamin D shows otherwise:


39.       Ivermectin (#35-37) is a very useful drug in the treatment of COVID that I use regularly.  It is highly effective, as shown in the following meta-analysis for early treatment, in which only 4 of 28 studies failed to show benefit. While Dr. Shah correctly notes that Merck, which developed the drug and got a Nobel prize for it in 2015, has advised against its use, he failed to tell you that Merck has developed a new drug for COVID, Molnupiravir, which will compete with ivermectin for market share.  Ivermectin is a cheap, off-patent generic drug. According to the Washington Post, "The U.S. government made an advance purchase of 1.7 million treatment courses of the drug [Molnupiravir] at a cost of $1.2 billion."[15]

40.       It should be obvious from the forest plot below that ivermectin shows strong evidence of efficacy for COVID-19.[16]


41.       Ivermectin is on the WHO list of essential drugs.  Over 3 billion doses have been used, and Merck has donated most of them to Africans in a joint venture with the WHO to prevent onchocerciasis, or River Blindness.  It is used over the counter and is an exceedingly safe drug. 

42.       Only because Americans have been stopped from obtaining the drug through normal means have some sought to buy a veterinary version over the counter in farm stores.  There has not been a single reported death in the US from such irregular use of the drug, nor from its use as prescribed.

43.       Dr. Shah is probably aware that the Maine Board of Pharmacy recently encouraged pharmacists to refuse to dispense ivermectin. Dr. Shah was perhaps instrumental in encouraging the Maine Board of Pharmacy to interject itself and interfere with the doctor-patient relationship when it comes to doctors prescribing human ivermectin.  


44.       A few overdoses by consumers of animal ivermectin became the justification to refuse legitimate prescriptions for the pharmaceutical drug ivermectin.  This does not make sense.  FDA has used the same rationale to discourage physicians from prescribing it.  Apparently conflating safe physician prescriptions with overdosing on over-the-counter horse paste was the best excuse CDC and FDA could come up with to issue warnings and proscriptions for legitimate prescriptions.[17]

45.       It seems ingenuous of Dr. Shah to note that ivermectin "carries a risk of side effects when not dosed properly."  So do all drugs:  

"Nearly 500 years ago, Swiss physician and chemist Paracelsus expressed the basic principle of toxicology: “All things are poison and nothing is without poison; only the dose makes a thing not a poison.”[18]

46.       It is the actions of public health officials such as Dr. Shah to prevent patients from obtaining effective COVID-19 drugs that have led patients to seek out inferior veterinary products, because they cannot obtain this potentially life-saving medicine from their physicians and pharmacies due to interference by public health authorities.  It has now become impossible for me to obtain the drug for my patients in a timely manner when they develop COVID-19.  This is criminal negligence or worse, in my opinion.

47.       U.S. public health professionals, including Dr. Shah, created an artificial shortage of a drug that is most effective at treating COVID-19.  Then they used the fact that desperate patients have purchased the animal medication as their justification for stopping use of the drug.  I am not an attorney like Dr. Shah, but this seems to me to be criminal behavior, which will predictably result in patient deaths.

48.       Regarding the prophylactic use of ivermectin (#37), the data are highly supportive.  Many US physicians have used it to prevent infection in themselves.  A meta-analysis of prophylaxis studies of ivermectin reveals that using ivermectin reduces your risk of developing COVID-19 by 86%.  Why did Dr. Shah say "there are no data supporting the use of ivermectin as a prophylactic for those who have been exposed" unless he was aware that there is a plethora of literature regarding the benefit of the drug in those using ivermectin before they were exposed--and he wished to avoid including these studies?  Should we refer to his carefully chosen verbiage as legalese or sophistry?  Regardless, neither befits a physician who has taken the Hippocratic oath and whose primary responsibility is to heal patients, not hinder their care.

49.       Dr. Shah claims that taking ivermectin "does not reduce the risk of transmission of COVID-19 in the way a vaccine does."  This is a spurious claim, since I have shown that the drug is about 86% effective in preventing infection.  Preventing infection prevents transmission. 

50.       The COVID vaccines, on the other hand, do not claim to stop transmission.  Currently the head of the federal CDC says they prevent severe illness but no longer prevent infection or transmission.[19]

51.       A large outbreak of COVID-19 in July in Banstable County, MA that was well documented in the CDC publication Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report [20] revealed that 74% of COVID cases were fully vaccinated according to the CDC definition.  Cycle thresholds, used as a surrogate for viral titers and infectivity, were the same in both vaccinated and non-vaccinated cases. Breakthrough cases (a.k.a. vaccine failures) had received each of the 3 vaccines types authorized for use in the US.  

52.       This extremely well done study provides solid evidence that vaccination did not and cannot break the chain of transmission and cannot generate herd immunity. Surely Dr. Shah is familiar with this widely read report by CDC, MIT, Harvard and the Massachusetts Department of Public Health.

53.       Regarding calls to poison control centers, it appears that the Associated Press was given false information.  It claimed that 70% of calls to the Mississippi poison control center were about ivermectin.  However, the story was later corrected, when Mississippi's state epidemiologist said ivermectin calls only accounted for about 2% of total calls.[21]

54.       Additional false information regarding overdoses of ivermectin in Oklahoma made the international news, only to be later corrected as false news.[22]

55.       Both ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine are WHO essential drugs that are used over the counter in much of the world.  Both are considered extremely safe when taken at recommended doses. Hydroxychloroquine is even recommended during pregnancy.

56.       Dr. Shah makes an interesting point in #38, in which he compares ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine prophylaxis with the prophylaxis gained through COVID-19 vaccination.  Why compare them to each other?  Dr. Shah is in fact addressing a statutory problem for the vaccine EUAs that was posed by the 2 mentioned drugs.  Each of these drugs has an extremely long half-life in tissue (probably greater than a month) and therefore each is used routinely for prophylaxis of (respectively) river blindness and malaria.  Were they to be used in this way to prevent COVID-19, and if their success at preventing and treating COVID-19 was acknowledged, no EUAs could have legally been issued for other, more expensive on-patent drugs and vaccines.  In order to issue an EUA there must be "no adequate, approved, and available alternatives."[23] 

57.       Had our federal public health agencies acknowledged that ivermectin and hydroychloroquine were effective prophylactics and treatments for COVID-19, no EUAs for remdesivir, monoclonal antibodies, other drugs, convalescent sera, and vaccines could have legally been issued.  This appears to be the primary reason that knowledge about and use of these drugs has been suppressed.  The fact that Dr. Shah raised the issue suggests he is well aware of this legal matter and is actively involved in these drugs' suppression.

58.       In #39, Dr. Shah admits foreknowledge about these drugs before promulgating the Emergency Rule, Immunization Requirements for Healthcare Workers, 10-144 Code of Maine Rules, Chapter 264.  One wonders what information he used to draw his conclusions, when the bulk of the published literature, as I have shown, suggests he should have drawn a very different conclusion about the respective benefits of these drugs versus COVID-19 vaccines.  His claims are belied by the evidence.

59.       In #38, Dr. Shah alleges that the drugs produce more side effects than the vaccines.  This is untrue.  One need only look at reports of myocarditis in boys aged 12-17 after COVID-19 vaccination:  they report myocarditis cases at a rate 50 times that of men over 65.  FDA's Doran Fink noted at the last CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices meeting that we do not know the rate of subclinical myocarditis caused by the COVID-19 vaccines.  Furthermore, FDA admitted in its letter to Pfizer on August 23, 2021 that it was unable to determine the extent of myocarditis from Pfizer's vaccine, and would be unable to do so in future as well.[24]

60.       We also do not know the rate of thrombosis, heart attacks and strokes after vaccination, but reports to VAERS suggest they are high following COVID-19 vaccinations.  We do know that anaphylaxis rates after the mRNA vaccines are about 100 times higher than expected from other vaccines, based on a Harvard study of employees at Mass General Hospital and the Brigham Hospital.  No wonder the vaccines must be given only when resuscitation equipment and staff are on site.[25]

61.       I agree that safe and effective vaccines are a marvelous achievement of mankind and have made a huge difference in our quality of life and our longevity.

62.       Herd immunity is achieved when a population is sufficiently immune (due to cross-immunity from related infections, recovered immunity from having had the disease, or vaccine-induced immunity) that it no longer supports continuing transmission of an infectious agent and an outbreak ends or never gets started.  The definition of immunity inexplicably changed in the past year in some places to exclude the first two types of immunity I mentioned.  This definitional change, used by Dr. Shah in #41, is duplicitous and unscientific.  The definitions in my medical textbooks accord with what I have written above.  

63.       In number #43, Dr. Shah reveals he is not very cognizant of the details regarding vaccine induced immunity.  Immunity from the Mumps and chickenpox vaccines probably never reaches 90-92%, or if it does, does not remain there for long.  Most chickenpox cases in the U.S. occur in vaccinated children whose immunity has waned over time.  The same is true for mumps.  Rubella vaccine is probably more effective, as there is no transmission of rubella within the U.S.  Measles vaccine was thought to provide very high protection, but it too wanes over time.  That is why we now give 2 or 3 MMR vaccines to children, when initially it was believed one alone would convey life-long immunity.

64.       If COVID-19 vaccines provided strong and long-lasting immunity from infection and transmission, and were very safe, then Dr. Shah would be correct in statement #44. But unfortunately, the vaccines fail to prevent transmission, as admitted by federal CDC Director Walensky and a recent CDC publication.[26]

65.       Their protection wears off quickly, and they have profound safety problems.  Had they undergone the normal FDA approval process rather than a "warp speed" simulation of a rigorous approval process, they would never have been licensed or used beyond the clinical trials.  The asymptomatic spread of COVID-19 was the basis for locking down and restricting the basic liberties of all of Maine's citizens, even the healthy, for over a year.  Vaccines for COVID-19 provide us with a charade of protection and a charade that the vaccinated cannot be asymptomatically infected and transmitting virus to patients.  If the vaccines reduce symptoms but not infection or viral load (as suggested by a rigorous study in a hospital in Vietnam)[27] then vaccinated individuals may actually be more likely to spread the disease than the unvaccinated.     

66.       We simply do not know if this is the case in the U.S., due to CDC's successful efforts to corrode the statistics on cases, hospitalizations and deaths.

67.       The bottom line is that even if everyone in the U.S. was vaccinated, the flaws in the vaccines and the leaky protection they convey would prevent us ever achieving high levels of population immunity.  Dr. Shah pretends that the COVID-19 vaccines work as well as the measles vaccine.  But they most certainly do not.  The massive numbers of "breakthrough" cases (which used to be called "vaccine failures") in the UK and Israel, with vaccination rates in their populations higher than ours, make clear that high rates of vaccination are not the solution to the spread of COVID-19.  This is why the U.S. government just spent 1.2 billion dollars on Merck's Molnupiravir pill.[28]  For treatment. Federal agencies have begun to acknowledge that vaccinations will not end the pandemic.  It seems Dr. Shah has not kept up with recent policy changes.

68.       Regarding #52, I have reviewed the Pfizer filing to the European Medicines Agency and the Japanese agency.  In them, I learned that Pfizer's lipid nanoparticle contains two novel ingredients, not used previously in any vaccines.  I believe Dr. Shah is grossly mistaken regarding his assurance that these ingredients are commonly used.  While PEG is commonly used, it is also the cause of life-threatening anaphylactic reactions, which Dr. Shah fails to acknowledge.[29]

69.       Furthermore, FDA and CDC have access to over a dozen databases from which calculations of vaccine safety should be derived.  However, the public has only been given information from VAERS, V-safe and the VSD.  Inappropriate algorithms have been employed by CDC and FDA to analyze the data.[30]  

70.       As I noted earlier, FDA instructed Pfizer on August 23, 2021 that its surveillance systems are unable to assess the risk of myocarditis from Pfizer's vaccine, and therefore FDA asked Pfizer to assess the risk.  Pfizer has reported anticipated earnings from its COVID-19 vaccines in 2021 of $33 billion dollars.  Do you think Pfizer will identify a problem with myocarditis under these circumstances?

71.       Regarding #54-63, it is certainly true that COVID-19 continues to spread in Maine, although given the federal CDC's idiosyncratic method of counting breakthrough cases in the vaccinated, there are doubts about the veracity of the statistics Dr. Shah provides.  I agree that the methods that have been employed for the past 1.5 years, including injection with the COVID-19 vaccines, have not worked very well.  Why are we continuing to use them?

72.       Why are we continuing to prevent the use of medications that appear to be much more effective than the COVID-19 vaccines?

73.       Why are so many healthcare workers still unvacccinated?  The simple answer is that they are the people seeing the side effects from these vaccines.  Healthcare workers are required to be vaccinated with many vaccines.  They have never refused in large numbers like this before.  They get yearly flu shots, and must have had the childhood shots and a hepatitis B series.

74.       Why do 10-15% of those who got the first mRNA shot fail to return for the second shot?  This does not happen with other vaccines.  Clearly, thousands of Maine healthcare workers have direct knowledge of something that is being denied by our public health professionals.  Why else would so many healthcare workers give up their careers, when they will go to less prestigious and remunerative jobs instead?

75.       The Emergency Rule was promulgated in the absence of science, common sense, and a review of the existing literature on COVID-19.  This is what happens when there are no checks and balances in the system, no legislative involvement, and our unelected public health professionals (who do not treat patients and may not even be physicians) are allowed to rule by fiat.

76.       While they may, as Dr. Shah has, try to hide behind claims that they are acting to protect patients, healthcare workers, the healthcare infrastructure and reduce facility outbreaks, all 4 claims are fraudulent 

77.       Clearly the infrastructure will be hard hit when 10 or 20% of healthcare workers are fired from their jobs. How does Maine CDC propose to ameliorate this mess and keep the infrastructure functioning?

78.       How does Maine CDC propose to rebuild relationships with healthcare workers after imposing this draconian and scientifically insupportable mandate on them?  Trust is gone

79.       Why has the administration of Governor Janet Mills made it impossible to use hydroxychloroquine for prophylaxis of COVID-19?  Why has it warned pharmacists not to dispense ivermectin?  Are these the acts of an administration concerned with the health of the public and its healthcare workers?  Or are these political acts that resulted from backroom deals to promote expensive but poorly effective drugs and vaccines--and the only way to do so is to suppress the already licensed, safe, cheap and effective treatments?  

80.       Furthermore, the FDA has allowed COVID-19 vaccine manufacturers to use antibody tests to determine immunity from previous infections in subjects in clinical trials. FDA accepts these results as valid.  However, ordinary Americans are not being allowed to use a single test (and there are dozens available) to demonstrate that they are already immune, and would obtain no benefit from vaccination, only risk of an adverse event.  

The new technical procedural rulemaking being undertaken by Maine's Department of Health and Human Services to finalize the Emergency Rule expressly eliminates "proof of immunity" as a basis for exemption from the COVID-19 mandate. Why have the federal government and the Maine CDC and DHS adopted a new definition of immunity, reminiscent of Orwell's book 1984, that precludes immunity from prior infections?  2 + 2 = 5? This is nonsensical.  It only makes sense if the inexorable drive to vaccinate everyone, regardless of their immune status, is being done for an ulterior motive.  That motive might be to gain obeisance.  It might be to justify vaccine passports.  We simply do not know why it is being done. But we must not ignore these vitally important questions, simply because they are uncomfortable or run counter to a prevailing narrative.

81.       #72, which claims that prior immunity resulting from a COVID-19 infection is uncertain, is a gross falsehood.  There are now dozens of studies that show immunity after COVID-19 infection is strong, durable and long-lasting.  There are just as many studies showing that the immunity obtained from existing vaccines is neither durable nor long-lasting.

82.       But what we do know is that forcing immune Americans to be vaccinated with a risky vaccine is not medicine.  It is the antithesis of medicine.  

83.       Testing alone is not the solution either.  The tests are not perfect.  One UK study showed that rapid tests might be only 58% accurate and it was suggested that they are not ready for use.  However, they were rolled out anyway, in the UK and here, despite widespread knowledge of their flaws.  Why were millions of tests thrown away at the Abbott plant in Westbrook?  We have not been told the reason, and only learned of this when concerned employees told the press about it.

84.       The solution to the pandemic has been known since 2004.  It was demonstrated by CDC scientists in 2005, and by NIAID scientists in 2014.  No doubt they have access to chloroquine and/or ivermectin drugs for their families.  Recall that during Senate testimony 2 months ago, we learned that only about 60% of CDC, FDA CBER and NIAID employees had been vaccinated.[31]

85.       Dr. Shah's affidavit is a tissue of lies that are consistent with the lies promulgated by federal agencies.  Perhaps that is why he failed to cite a single reference to back up the claims in his affidavit.  Unfortunately, these lies have created a huge rift between our patients and our medical establishment.  They are about to create a crisis in healthcare when many healthcare workers have their employment terminated.  These lies have led to a prolongation of the pandemic and a steep increase in morbidity and mortality.  Maine deserves and can do a lot better than this.                                                           __________________________________

Dr. Meryl Nass, M.D.

Dated: October 4, 2021.



In vitro inhibition of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus by chloroquine (2004);;

Chloroquine is a potent inhibitor of SARS coronavirus infection and spread (CDC, 2005);; 

Screening of an FDA-approved compound library identifies four small-molecule inhibitors of Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus replication in cell culture (2014); 


Repurposing of Clinically Developed Drugs for Treatment of Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus Infection (NIAID, 2014).

[20] Cited elsewhere in my affidavit and at mm7031e2.htm#contribAff.

[21]; /best-states/mississippi/articles/2021-08-23/health-dept-stop-taking-livestock-medicine-to-treat-covid


Anonymous said...

If you still have Adobe Acrobat Reader, you can take a snapshot of whichever part of a PDF you like - text, images, tables, header, etc. - and paste it into another document, just as you would an image.

'Take a Snapshot' is one of the options on the Edit menu (it's about halfway down in my Mac version). A little + cursor appears over the document that you can then drag over the section of interest. At least on a Mac, as soon as you release your finger from the mouse, Acrobat has copied that section of text. Then all you need to do is go to the document you want to place it in (e.g., a blog post) and paste it wherever you want it. The process may be a little different on a PC.

All that is to say that it is possible to copy and paste tables, graphs, and other such items from a PDF into another type of document.

Meryl Nass, M.D. said...

It looked like a great idea till I got to the $9.99/month--too much for a rare need

lynnbrad said...

Tremendous work, Dr. Nass! Best of luck with it all And, many thanks.