Posted on 08/19/2023 2:26:33 PM PDT by nickcarraway
— Meryl Nass, MD, of Maine, filed a legal complaint against the state's medical board
A Maine physician who had her medical license suspended for spreading false information related to COVID-19 has filed a legal complaint against the Maine Board of Licensure in Medicine and its board members for allegedly violating her First Amendment rights, according to a complaint documentopens in a new tab or window.
Meryl J. Nass, MD, an internist based in the city of Ellsworth, filed the complaint with the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine on Wednesday. The complaint claimed that the medical board and its board members violated her freedom of speech by suspending her medical license in January 2022opens in a new tab or window and ordering her to submit to a neuropsychological evaluation by a board-selected psychologist after she made a number of false COVID claims in a video interview and on her website.
According to Nass's complaint, these disciplinary actions were "retaliatory conduct in violation of the First Amendment," and they were intended to have a "chilling" effect on her efforts to publicly share her views on the COVID vaccines and alternative treatments.
Nick Sawyer, MD, MBAopens in a new tab or window, an emergency physician in Sacramento, California, told MedPage Today that Nass's approach to this lawsuit is part of a playbook being used by physicians who have been disciplined for similar allegations.
"The bigger picture here is what Meryl Nass is claiming is that the medical board has no authority over her," he said.
"What they are doing is using the same exact playbook that [was] used to convince people that global warming wasn't real," he added. "It's all based on conspiracy theories, and what's called conspiracist ideology."
Sawyer emphasized that this is not about free speech, as Nass's complaint claims. He said that physicians who have spread misinformation about COVID-19 are trying to change the rules, so they can say or do anything they want without facing disciplinary actions.
"They are basically claiming that lies are perfectly acceptable," he said. "Even if it causes material harm to people -- whether it's in terms of their personal health or finances -- you're not allowed to call out their lies, otherwise you are in violation of their First Amendment rights."
Sawyer noted that this strategy could create a constitutional crisis around the First Amendment, pointing out that the fundamental argument in Nass's complaint is she should not have to answer to the medical board for any actions at all, even if she is spreading false information about medical treatments.
"There are limits to free speech, and fraud is one of them," he said.
Nass Versus the Medical Board
In Nass's January 2022 disciplinary case, the state medical board decided to suspend her license because she "constitutes an immediate jeopardy to the health and physical safety of the public who might receive her medical services."
The medical board also stated that Nass reportedly lied about a patient having Lyme diseaseopens in a new tab or window in order to prescribe them hydroxychloroquine for COVID. Nass also allegedly said at the time that she did not intend to comply with masking and vaccine orders during the pandemic, according to the disciplinary documents.
The investigation that led to the suspension started in December 2021opens in a new tab or window, after a hospitalist reported her to the board.
Nass's complaint focused less on specific allegations and more on the board's recommendation that she undergo a neuropsychological evaluation. The complaint claimed this recommendation was not based on Nass having a mental illness or substance use disorder, and also asserted that the board could not justify the need for such an evaluation.
Nass alleged in her complaint that even the suggestion that she receive such an evaluation "tarnished her reputation." She also claimed that the state medical board's 2021 position statementopens in a new tab or window on COVID misinformation violated her First Amendment rights.
Nass said that the board's actions were "motivated by evil motive or intent" and that the board's conduct was "malicious, oppressive, outrageous, reckless, wanton, and willful, and demonstrated actual or implied malice."
In total, the complaint contained six counts, including alleged violations of the First Amendment, the state's constitution, and the state's Civil Rights Act.
Nass has requested compensation for punitive damages, and that the Maine lawopens in a new tab or window that established the state medical board's authority to issue disciplinary actions be declared in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution as it was applied to Nass's case and the board's position statement.
She also requested that the court force the medical board to retract its position statement and permanently prevent the board from enforcing the law against physicians, including Nass.
In addition, Nass is asking for financial compensation for her legal fees and for a jury trial to hear all of the stated complaints.
Throughout much of her legal fight with the state board, Nass's legal fees have been paid by an anti-vaccine advocacy group connected to presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr., according to reporting from The Maine Monitoropens in a new tab or window.
author['full_name'] Michael DePeau-Wilson is a reporter on MedPage Today’s enterprise & investigative team. He covers psychiatry, long covid, and infectious diseases, among other relevant U.S. clinical news. Follow
There used to be a concept called “therapeutic privilege”
As you say, Ivermectin has a license (to treat worms), but once licensed, any prescriber can use it for any purpose.
The concept of therapeutic privilege is, or was, if I have given it to patients for disease X and I believe I have had good results, that’s enough evidence to keep me safe.
This is no longer the case - and not just, or not even mainly, about COVID.
It’s a big change, the new standard is “evidence”, which would be fine except there is no evidence for most things, and in March 2020 there was NO EVIDENCE, of any kind, about COVID treatment.
So, the “evidence” forces have decided that the opinion of experts is evidence of a sort - and that has created a big problem.
Full disclosure: I don’t believe ivermectin has any useful activity for COVID treatment, but my opinion alone is not a sufficient basis to regulate what other prescribers do.
“Hopefully, we will survive this B$ of where only our government thugs and the elites, who control them, can maim or kill us without worry.”
We can hope, but I have my doubts.
The article at your link should be posted as a stand-alone thread. It has a lot of interesting information and cites to court decisions. Have you posted it? It’s not showing up on a search, but FR’s search portal is not always reliable.
At my age, I prefer not to post stand alone threads.
If you would like to post it as a stand alone, please do it and ping me.
This site is incredible re the issues we are facing in the US and Europe.
If there were such a thing as a medical board in the days of blood-letting, we’d still be blood-letting.
Can guarantee that it works. Myself and several friends have used it and it works within 48 hours. One of my friends is a nurse who refused the shots, got it and had her nurse practioner prescribe it .... 48 hrs was better ... 5 days completely cured.
But a lot of people get better in 48 hours.
Glad you did.
Could the people start a vote of no confidence in these anti-health medical boards? Maybe even get a plebescite onto the next election in some states?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.