Tuesday, January 11, 2022

My license seems to be suspended while investigations continue. I will share more as I learn more.

I anticipate that in the next 30 days the public, including medical professionals, will have been made aware of the true state of COVID vaccine efficacy, the futility of mandates, and maybe even the efficacy of "horse paste," which I have literally been accused of providing to patients.

Why is an FDA-licensed drug for humans, for which over 3.7 billion doses have been used in humans, and which was an over the counter drug in most of the world, referred to as horse paste by the FDA?

Would you call that science or propaganda?  

Whatever it is, the drug works extremely well for prophylaxis or early treatment of SARS-CoV-2.  And contrary to what some medical professionals state, there are many studies showing this that have statistical significance.

Here are two comprehensive reviews of the drug:




Winston Smith said...

You've got so much courage Dr. Nass, much more than most men! Haha. Thank you for your efforts!

Unknown said...

Thank you for all you have done. Your efforts have helped many in their search for knowledge.

Note the SARS/DARPA related documents released today, maybe they will help your case. I found this section especially interesting:
"Ivermectine (identified as curative in April 2020) works throughout all phases of illness because it both inhibits viral replication and modulates the immune respones."

Anonymous said...

F. Unprofessional conduct. A licensee is considered to have engaged in unprofessional conduct if the licensee violates a standard of professional behavior, including engaging in disruptive behavior, that has been established in the practice for which the licensee is licensed. For purposes of this paragraph, "disruptive behavior" means aberrant behavior that interferes with or is likely to interfere with the delivery of care

G. Subject to the limitations of Title 5, chapter 341, conviction of a crime that involves dishonesty or false statement or relates directly to the practice for which the licensee is licensed, or conviction of a crime for which incarceration for one year or more may be imposed
H. A violation of this chapter or a rule adopted by the board

I. Engaging in false, misleading or deceptive advertising

J. Prescribing narcotic or hypnotic or other drugs listed as controlled substances by the Drug Enforcement Administration for other than accepted therapeutic purposes

K. Failure to report to the secretary of the board a physician licensed under this chapter for addiction to alcohol or drugs or for mental illness in accordance with Title 24, section 2505, except when the impaired physician is or has been a patient of the licensee
L. Failure to comply with the requirements of Title 24, section 2905‑A
M. Revocation, suspension or restriction of a license to practice medicine or other disciplinary action; denial of an application for a license; or surrender of a license to practice medicine following the institution of disciplinary action by another state or a territory of the United States or a foreign country if the conduct resulting in the disciplinary or other action involving the license would, if committed in this State, constitute grounds for discipline under the laws or rules of this State

N. Engaging in any activity requiring a license under the governing law of the board that is beyond the scope of acts authorized by the license held
O. Continuing to act in a capacity requiring a license under the governing law of the board after expiration, suspension or revocation of that license

P. Noncompliance with an order or consent agreement of the board

Q. Failure to produce upon request of the board any documents in the licensee's possession or under the licensee's control concerning a pending complaint or proceeding or any matter under investigation by the board, unless otherwise prohibited by state or federal law

R. Failure to timely respond to a complaint notification sent by the board; S. Failure to comply with the requirements of Title 22, section 7253

T. A violation of section 3300G

gtuckerkellogg said...

Or here, are two other, more rigorous, reviews of the same medication coming to a different conclusion



Meryl Nass, M.D. said...

Tuckerkellogg, I watched the tape of Andrew Hill, first author of this so-called review, admit that "forces" were at work that led him to adjust his conclusions. The transcript of the conversation is reproduced in Bobby Kennedy's book The Real Anthony Fauci.

Andrew hill is a scoundrel whose institution was paid, if I recall correctly, $40 million after he succumbed to certain carrots or sticks. His conclusory statement does not match the data.