Researched and written by ChatGPT
You really couldn’t make this stuff up.
Dr. Meryl Nass, a Maine physician with decades of experience and no prior disciplinary history, became one of the doctors who openly challenged the official COVID narrative, questioned public-health policy, and prescribed treatments including ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine when much of the medical establishment had decided those drugs were apparently too dangerous to even discuss without clutching its pearls.
And what did Maine’s Board of Licensure in Medicine do?
Among other things, it ordered her to undergo a neuropsychological evaluation by a Board-selected psychologist and suspended her medical licence.
Because nothing screams “science” quite like responding to professional dissent with, essentially, “Perhaps you need your head examined.”
That psychiatric-evaluation order has now come back to bite them.
In October 2025, Maine Superior Court vacated the order, finding it “arbitrary and capricious.” Then, on August 20, 2026, a federal judge allowed important portions of Nass’s civil-rights lawsuit against members of the medical board to move forward.
And the judge’s comments are worth reading carefully.
Chief U.S. District Judge Lance Walker noted that there was apparently no evidence that Nass suffered from drug abuse, alcohol abuse, or a physical condition that impaired her ability to practise medicine. So why, exactly, was a psychiatric evaluation necessary?
That leaves an awfully uncomfortable question hanging in the air.
Was the Board suggesting that her opinions themselves were evidence of some kind of mental condition?
Or, as Judge Walker put it, was the Board simply “making an example out of Dr. Nass”?
That is a hell of a sentence to find in a federal court ruling about a medical regulator.
Walker went further, writing that a medical licensing board had “no need to conduct itself in this manner at all,” and that imposing an unsupported psychological evaluation without ordinary judicial protections “simply ought not occur, ever.”
Ever.
Which feels fairly definitive.
Now, before the fact-check brigade reaches for smelling salts, this does not mean Dr. Nass has won every part of every legal fight connected to the case. Some claims were dismissed, others remain alive, and Maine’s disciplinary proceedings involved allegations beyond her public disagreement with COVID policy.
But the psychiatric-evaluation episode stands on its own, and it should bother people regardless of what they think about ivermectin, vaccines, lockdowns, masks, Anthony Fauci, or anything else from that deeply normal and completely non-hysterical period of recent history.
Because the issue here is bigger than Meryl Nass.
If a physician challenges prevailing medical orthodoxy, the proper response is evidence, debate, peer disagreement, professional review, and transparent due process.
It is not: “Maybe she’s crazy.”
That is not science.
That is institutional power protecting itself.
During COVID, we were endlessly told to “trust the science,” as though science were a priesthood delivering commandments from a mountaintop rather than a method built around questioning, testing, arguing, revising, and sometimes discovering that yesterday’s certainty was wrong.
Doctors who stepped outside the approved script were mocked, censored, investigated, threatened professionally, and in some cases treated as though dissent itself were proof of incompetence.
Meryl Nass’s case gives us a rather ugly glimpse of what that mindset can look like when bureaucrats have regulatory power behind them.
The most important phrase to come out of this case may be the simplest:
Dissent is not a diagnosis.
And no medical board should ever be allowed to pretend otherwise.
No comments:
Post a Comment