Here is information about the first 3 matters taken up by the Board of Medical Licensure in my case. Guess I am guilty of giving the correct, safest drug to a pregnant woman

The Maine Board of Medical Licensure has 5 matters before it in my case. Here are the first 3:

The first 2 are complaints from private citizens, who claimed that I spread misinformation on the internet.  Neither complainant knows me or is a patient.  Neither complaint has anything to do with medical care.  Each says the complaint was initiated after they watched me in a video. One said the information I was disseminatiog was a “danger to the public.” 

The third complaint is from a midwife who complained that I gave a pregnant patient hydroxychloroquine for acute COVID without asking her, when she could have given the patient monoclonal antibodies instead.

My response is that hydroxychloroquine is approved in pregnancy and is a safe, licensed drug.  Monoclonal antibodies are an experimental biologic product that have not been approved in pregnancy; in fact, the pregnancy risks have not even been studied. The midwife apparently did not know this about the product she is prescribing in pregnancy.

Unapproved drugs have no label.  For a legal description of what is known about them, one must read a fact sheet.  For example, here is what the FDA-approved Fact Sheet for sotrovimab, the only commonly used monoclonal said to be effective against omicron, says about its risk in pregnancy:

“11.1 Pregnancy
Risk Summary
 

There are insufficient data to evaluate a drug-associated risk of major birth defects, miscarriage,
or adverse maternal or fetal outcome.
Sotrovimab should be used during pregnancy only if the potential benefit justifies the potential risk for the mother and the fetus.
Nonclinical reproductive toxicity studies have not been conducted with sotrovimab. In a crossreactive binding assay using a protein array enriched for human embryofetal proteins, no offtarget binding was detected for sotrovimab. Since sotrovimab is a recombinant human
immunoglobulin G (IgG) containing the LS modification in the Fc domain, it has the potential
for placental transfer from the mother to the developing fetus. The potential treatment benefit or
risk of placental transfer of sotrovimab to the developing fetus is not known.

The estimated background risk of major birth defects and miscarriage for the indicated
population is unknown.

On the other hand, the label for hydroxychloroquine says the following about use in pregnancy:

“Pregnancy 

Teratogenic Effects: Human pregnancies resulting in live births have been reported in the literature and no increase in the rate of birth defects has been demonstrated. Embryonic deaths and malformations of anophthalmia and microphthalmia in the offspring have been reported when pregnant rats received large doses of chloroquine.” 

What does CDC say about hydroxychloroquine in pregnancy?

“Hydroxychloroquine can be prescribed to adults
and children of all ages. It can also be safely taken by
pregnant women and nursing mothers.”

Do you think perhaps the Medical Board and the complaining midwife bothered to check this information?  I think not. 

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
9 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Mark Howard, DO
Mark Howard, DO
5 months ago

We believe in your intelligence and integrity, Dr Nass. I have followed your blog for several years and appreciate you knowledge and perspective.

We also have a strong impression that you are correct in your viewpoints. Thank you for your work.

Mark Howard, DO, Emergency Medicine

Anonymous
Anonymous
5 months ago

Someone needs to investigate the midwife.

Ela
Ela
5 months ago
Reply to  Anonymous

And the Board of Medicine!

Anonymous
Anonymous
5 months ago

People have too much power over other people and it brings out the worst in them.

Anonymous
Anonymous
5 months ago

Do you know who made the complaints!?

Anonymous
Anonymous
5 months ago

I looked up the members of that Board. Very Interesting!
Of the 11 members, 5 are not medical doctors. (2 Physician Assistants and 3 Public Members whatever that means).
Two of the medical doctors I searched don't even come close to Dr. Nass in terms of experience. One of them has a Facebook page full of pictures of herself and comments by people telling her how beautiful she is. Super narcissist?
The Chair's specialty is opthamology. Is she treating Covid patients?
Another medical doctor is a general surgeon. Is he treating Covid patients?
And … last but not least, one of the medical doctors is a psychiatrist!!! Is he treating Covid patients?

Do you think any of these people are awake and aware when it comes to what is really going on, or are they Big Pharma/CDC team players?

Anonymous
Anonymous
5 months ago

If true, it's appalling that one of the board members is a psychiatrist. The psychological exam they are punishing you with, and it's meant to be a humiliation, is in this context unethical.

Anonymous
Anonymous
5 months ago

Anyone can go to the Board's website and see the list of Board members. The psychiatrist was appointed to the Board by the governor in mid-December, 2021, literally only a few weeks before they targeted Dr. Nass, suspended her license, and ordered a
psychological evaluation. Another coincidence or deliberately planned?
I have seen Dr. Nass's case on several well-known news sites with a headline about a medical doctor who spreads covid misinformation being ordered to submit to a psychological examination. This is being well-publicized and appears to be another hit job on a fine physician dedicated to helping her patients.
Everyone needs to rally around Dr.Nass and support her.

Karen
Karen
5 months ago

Thank you very much for standing for truth. My husband is a Physician Assistant and we applaud you for your stand! Please keep fighting for the truth. You are in our prayers.

Scroll to Top