A board responsible for medical licenses in Maine decided to extend the suspension of Dr. Meryl Nass, a doctor known for her skepticism about COVID vaccines. The board stated that she violated multiple rules while treating COVID-19 patients. Dr. Nass allegedly failed to meet care standards for three patients from late 2021 to early 2022. The accusations include improper prescription of drugs like ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19, lying to obtain prescriptions, and neglecting proper record-keeping.
The board’s decision, made after a seven-day hearing, led to unanimous agreement on eight counts of violating rules related to patient care, medical recordkeeping, and truth-telling. The board extended Nass’ suspension until April 30, 2025, unless she fulfills probation conditions earlier. Nass has been suspended since January 2022, and the extension totals 39 months. She can resume practice if she meets specified conditions.
Dr. Nass has the option to appeal the decision within 30 days. The board outlined conditions for lifting the suspension, including completing ethics and record-keeping courses, submitting a telemedicine practice plan, undergoing clinical competence assessment, and having a practice monitor.
The board refrained from imposing civil penalties but ordered Nass to pay 50% of the hearing costs, capped at $10,000. The doctor has previously contested the allegations, calling them a “spurious, illegal, unjustified persecution.” She has filed a federal complaint claiming violations of her First Amendment rights.
Notably, Nass is one of three doctors disciplined for COVID-related matters in Maine. She has gained prominence in anti-vaccine circles and has Children’s Health Defense covering her legal fees. Despite her suspension, Nass remains active in media and global advocacy, raising funds for an organization called “Door to Freedom.” The board dropped complaints related to her earlier social media posts during the hearing.
In summary, Dr. Nass’ medical license suspension was extended due to violations related to COVID patient care, leading to a lengthy and controversial hearing with conditions for potential reinstatement.
