Next Tuesday, Sept. 19, Maine’s medical licensing board will conclude its hearing on revoking Dr. Nass’s license to practice medicine. Then the following day, Wednesday, Sept. 20, the UN will roll out its own PPPR (pandemic prevention, preparedness and response) program, coordinated to accompany the controversial World Health Organization’s proposed Pandemic Treaty. A protest against the PPPR and WHO Treaty will be held on Saturday, Sept. 23 at the UN headquarters in New York. Dr. Meryl Nass may be speaking.
Dr. Nass, a published expert on biological warfare, has been subjected to a barrage of specious and often incoherent attacks since she began questioning various aspects of the COVID pandemic/response. The original campaign to pull her medical license charged her with spreading misinformation. But since misinformation is often in the eye of the beholder, and more importantly since there is no provision for pulling medical licenses on such grounds, her persecutors dropped that absurd charge and instead went after her for prescribing ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine to COVID patients, just like tens of thousands of other doctors around the world have. (Ivermectin has been used by almost a third of the world’s population, meaning more than two billion people.)
More recently, Dr. Nass was subjected to a discombobulated “debunking” by the Associated Press. “Fact checker” Melissa Goldin spends most of the article belaboring the obvious fact that Dr. Nass is not a representative of the WHO, when in fact neither Dr. Nass nor anyone else has ever claimed that she is! Compounding the irony, Goldin gets the most important fact wrong. I fact-checked her fact-check in a September 2 email:
In your article on the Meryl Nass video, you cite the AP as saying “The (WHO) treaty, though legally binding, has no enforcement mechanisms and does not overrule any nations’ individual health or domestic policies.” But doesn’t the treaty itself say that signatory nations MUST enforce its provisions? Since treaties are legally binding, that means that the treaty DOES include an enforcement mechanism: Namely, the legal requirement that signatory nations enforce it. Therefore it DOES overrule whatever policies those nations would have otherwise pursued by making independent policies illegal, and forcing the signatory nation to enforce the WHO’s rules whether they like it or not.
Please let me know if I’m wrong, in which case I’ll have my international law professor friends arbitrate.