Will Dove  00:00 The COVID-19 virus was manufactured in laboratories and engineered to be highly contagious. Some suspect that it unintentionally escaped early, and that those developing the virus wanted it to be more virulent. And that it would have been if they had more time. Coronaviruses were chosen because they can be easily manipulated. When the plandemic was first announced, I knew from day one that the reaction made no sense because I knew a little known fact about viruses that most people did not. The longer the incubation period of a virus, typically, the less virulent that virus will be.   Will Dove  00:42 It was announced that COVID-19 had a longer incubation period than seasonal flu, and therefore I concluded it would also be less virulent than seasonal flu, which is exactly what hundreds of studies in the past four years have shown. But I'm not an epidemiologist, or virologist and I am certainly not an expert on biowarfare, as is my guest today, Dr. Meryl Nass.   Will Dove  01:10 We know that government and Big Pharma have biolabs around the world are working to create new pathogens, viruses and bacteria that can be weaponized to maim and kill and used as an excuse for yet more mRNA bioweapons to cripple, sterilize and kill yet more people. But if a virus has to have a short incubation period to be virulent, that leaves the globalist with a problem. How can it spread around the world without being quarantined?   Will Dove  01:40 Such as happens frequently with Ebola, which typically incubates in two to four days and leaves its victims very miserably ill. Can they make a long incubation virus, which is also highly virulent? A perfect bioweapon, one that can be spread by airborne particles can take up to three weeks for symptoms to appear and kill a substantial percentage of its victims. Dr. Nass has the answer to that question.   Will Dove  02:12 In addition, Dr. Nass discuss its renowned non-profit organization, Door to Freedom. While intended for use in the US, there are many elements of the Door to Freedom strategy to protect ourselves from the tyrannical control of the World Health Organization that can also be applied here in Canada. And we are running out of time.   Will Dove  02:34 On May 27th, the WHO will almost certainly ratify the hundreds of amendments to the International Health Regulations. When that happens, Canada will become a subject state of the WHO, which will have the authority to declare a pandemic for any reason, and to violate our constitutional rights to self-determination and bodily autonomy at will.   Will Dove  03:07 Dr. Nass, it's a pleasure to have you on the show.   Dr. Meryl Nass  03:10 Hey, thank you so much for inviting me.   Will Dove  03:12 And it really is. I don't know how I've managed to miss you because I have interviewed so many of your compatriots in keeping tabs on the WHO, on watchdogging them and are working to counter what they're doing. James Roguski, Tess Lawrie, I can keep going, it's a long list, but we won't bore the viewers because you don't have much time today. And you're very kind you've given me a half an hour of your time.   Will Dove  03:35 So I want to get into this. Because you've done something unique. You've started a non-profit organization that's pushing back against this. And while it is intended for US citizens, I've looked at it and I see things that could be used here in Canada. So I want you to just jump right in, please tell us about Door to Freedom.   Dr. Meryl Nass  03:53 Sure, a year ago, I have worked on the WHO issue for a couple of years. And after a year, I realized there wasn't a single organization that was completely fixed on it. Every organization had another mission and was adding the WHO issue on peripherally. There was no place where you could find all the documents. So the WHO kept pushing out new versions of its treaty, there's seven or eight versions. And there were three hundred different amendments that were proposed for an existing document called the International Health Regulations. And it was very hard to find all that information. And it was much harder to find clear analyses of what was in those documents. So I kind of realized that nobody else was doing it and I would have to do it if it was going to get done.   Dr. Meryl Nass  04:49 And so I created an organization called Door to Freedom that originally was designed to host all of these documents in an easily accessible way. Get analysis serve them published on the same website and then get a core group of people to write very brief, very fact-based articles on the entire Great Reset. What is the Great Reset about, what does it have to do with sex education, with food, with this, with that, and we put it all on a website, and we're hoping that more people would jump in and become activists on the issue. And when not, there wasn't enough activism, we realized that our organization had to do that, too.   Dr. Meryl Nass  05:34 And so we have worked with other organizations, we've held a symposium for members of Congress, I've briefed members of Congress several other times, I've traveled to eight countries and briefed parliamentarians. We've written a lot more documents, we've got handouts, we have instructions on what questions parliamentarians can ask of their governments. And there's much more.   Dr. Meryl Nass  06:01 We've also encouraged in the US states that at the state level, states can refuse to go along with what the WHO is doing. And that may also be possible in Canada, I was told two days ago that it could be done in Germany. So the way the US Constitution was written, the states have certain authorities or responsibilities that the federal government is not supposed to impinge upon. And among those is healthcare. Another one is education. So they are to be regulated and managed at the level of the state or the city or the county.   Dr. Meryl Nass  06:37 And the federal government knows this, so that in the past when it has signed documents with the WHO, it has put in a stipulation that the federal government will go along as far as it can. But there may be times when the state government is the responsible party. And in that case, the federal government can't promise to go along or obey the WHO.   Dr. Meryl Nass  07:04 So anyway, given that, we have decided to focus on the state as the entity that can best fight back against the WHO. And this can be done in the US at three levels, it can be done by the state legislature, passing a Bill or resolution saying we are not going to go along with the WHO, it can be done by the Attorney General, who has the highest legal authority in the state or by the governor, governors can make a declaration or issue an executive order.   Dr. Meryl Nass  07:36 Now, at the federal level in the US, it turns out that the Senate has never given its advice and consent on the original treaty that the US signed with the WHO which is the WHO Constitution, nor on subsequent versions of the International Health Regulations. So they've been signed by a member of the federal government, but never put before the Senate, even though they are treaties, all of those documents.   Dr. Meryl Nass  08:03 So we are asking that the Senate demand that it review the two treaties, actually, the new version of the International Health Regulations, and a totally new treaty that didn't exist before called the Pandemic Agreement. And before they can be ratified and become part of US law. And we're also looking forward for Congress to hold hearings on this matter. So that's what we're doing in the United States.   Dr. Meryl Nass  08:33 In other countries, there are many procedural issues that have been performed incorrectly by the WHO, when it's supposed to hold votes. It may not hold votes, it may hold what it calls a consensus procedure, basically giving the nations three seconds to offer an objection. And if they don't say anything within a very short frame of time, the gavel comes down and says it's done. That seems to be what happened two years ago, when the International Health Regulations were last amended. And according to the Minister of Health in the UK, that's the way it's been done for every amendment to the International Health Regulations. There may never have been an actual vote. Well, the WHO Constitution and the Health Regulations themselves require a vote.   Dr. Meryl Nass  09:22 So if the nations which they can challenge that the rules, the WHO Constitution, limits regulations, limits the purview of regulations, they can only encompass a certain range of activities. And yet, what's happening now is that the proposed amendments go beyond that. So parliamentarians or members of the US government who choose can challenge the WHO and can challenge their own governments regarding the fact that we are not pointing out what the WHO is trying to do was actually illegal according to its own constitution, and treaties. So that's in a nutshell, what we're trying to do.   Dr. Meryl Nass  10:09 There's also an issue of how nations get out of these agreements once they're in. So for example, the WHO Constitution doesn't even give nations a mechanism to get out, it's very specific about how a nation can join, doesn't tell you how to get out. Well, there, you need another treaty for that. It's called the Vienna Treaty on Treaties, which tells nations that if a treaty is no longer being interpreted in the same way, if a country thinks it's going off the rocks, it's made a side turn. And it's no longer doing what it was intended to do. The nation can simply say, "We're leaving, you're not doing what we expected."   Dr. Meryl Nass  10:52 So we're trying to get that sort of information. Since we are the ones now digging into these documents, and working with international lawyers. We're trying to get the information out to parliamentarians and activists around the world. And we're also holding meetings with parliamentarians and activists around the world to share information and help them determine what is best to do in their own countries.   Will Dove  11:15 Yes, and everything you've said, Meryl's absolutely accurate. For people who have watched some of my previous interviews, especially my recent one with James about a month ago, it's going to be introduced, see what they do on May 27th, to ram this through when what James was telling me a month ago, there's seventy countries that don't want to sign it because they're not getting their piece of the pie. But I have no doubt they will find a way to push it through because as you said, that's what they do. They just rubber stamp things and they push it through.   Will Dove  11:37 But I think your approach is extremely intelligent, because certainly here in Canada, our federal government is captured and controlled by the globalists, it certainly appears to me that Biden's government is as well. But not all of the state or provincial governments are. And here in Canada, we do have, quite frankly, similar rights for the provinces that you have for the states. A lot of Canadians don't know this. But right now, we have two provinces in Canada, Alberta, and Saskatchewan, that are pushing back against the carbon tax from the federal government, and just say simply, we're not doing it.   Will Dove  11:38 There's other thing areas too where provinces are pushing back. So it's very important to get this message out there that even up to your federal government, regardless of what country you're in, is captured control with your provincial government isn't necessarily and you may be able to make progress there.   Will Dove  12:31 But I want to address very briefly and I have covered this in depth of some of my other interviews, but you have on Door to Freedom, I think, the best neatest little chart to show the dangers of these amendments and what they're trying to push through, free speech gone; the nation must surveil censor, and propaganda is Article 44 of IHR. And the PT the pandemic treaty, natural health products and meds gone, vaccines mandatory, Articles 18 and 43. Travel restrictions, border closures, contact racing, quarantines, force examinations, treatments, Article 18. Loss of privacy, medical records, it just keeps going and this is absolutely draconian control. And to take it a step farther, I'm not sure if you were aware of this. Trudeau's Liberal government here in Canada, a few months ago, they sent a letter to the WHO urging them to make climate change a pandemic.   Dr. Meryl Nass  13:32 I wasn't aware that Trudeau had done that, but I am aware that the WHO has been saying that climate change is one of the areas. So by adding one health to the concept of health, one health mean is, says that human health is inextricably related to the health of animals, plants and ecosystems, inextricably. And therefore, that gives the Director General the WHO the right to declare public health emergencies of international concern around ecosystem issues, which is climate change, or animal issues. Oh, we don't have enough biodiversity in Peru. So now, all the mines have to shut down because we have to allow the bats to regrow, that sort of thing.   Dr. Meryl Nass  14:20 It's very troubling. It's very sneaky. These are clever, legalistic mechanisms to try to gain major control of people, their health and the information that they are privy to. So that's one of the biggest things in these two documents is control of information, the WHO will tell nations what is misinformation and disinformation and will require them to censor that information.   Will Dove  14:50 Right. And now, Dr. Nass, you're an internist, you're a biowarfare expert. And you've written an article on how WHO's pandemic treaty will increase man-made pandemics. Please explain that.   Dr. Meryl Nass  15:03 Yes. So as I said, there have been seven or eight different versions of the pandemic treaty. And they're all a little bit different. But they all include the creation of a WHO managed biohub, which will collect potential pandemic pathogens, and then share them globally. All of these versions also require that nations that provide these potential pandemic pathogens must have sequencing laboratories, they need to decode the actual genetic sequence of the viruses and bacteria, and then post them to public.   Dr. Meryl Nass  15:40 I'm quoting from the documents, "publicly accessible databases". The sequence of these, what we used to call biological warfare agents. If they can cause a pandemic, they are potential biological warfare agent. If they escaped from a lab, it's an accident, right? It's an accident, COVID say for example, although I'm not certain it escaped from a lab. But if it was deliberately spread, it's a biological warfare agent. I'm talking about the same virus, the same bacterium. With Ebola, it's a virus. With COVID, it's a virus. With Anthrax, it's a bacterium. With cholera, it's a bacterium. With hepatitis, it's a virus.   Dr. Meryl Nass  16:26 So, all of these potential pandemic pathogens are closely regulated within the United States. We have something called the select agent program, which grew out of the Biological Weapons Convention of 1972, which the US initiated in which almost every nation in the world signed. Which says that nations are not allowed to proliferate these weapons. Nations must basically not do gain of function research. The only excuse to do that is if they're trying to make a drug or vaccine, but not for offensive purposes.   Dr. Meryl Nass  17:02 What the WHO has done is pretend that treaty does not exist, pretend that there are no stipulations against the proliferation of biological warfare agents, and is trying to make itself the proliferator because the United States has this program, which is consistent with the Biological Weapons Convention, laboratories that do research with these potential pandemic pathogens must report to the CDC, when they have an accident, when they have a loss or theft of any micro organisms. The CDC receives two hundred reports a year or a week on accidents that could potentially cause a pandemic, that's within the United States alone. While we are actually in compliance with a treaty banning biological warfare.   Dr. Meryl Nass  17:53 Now, think about what happens when the rest of the two hundred countries in the world start doing the same thing. And they don't have a 80-year history of working with these organisms and trying to prevent accidents. There are going to be thousands and thousands of accidents every year. And there will almost undoubtedly be more pandemics, but the WHO is ready for that because they're going to roll out vaccines in a hundred days.   Dr. Meryl Nass  18:22 The entire program is illogical, unscientific pie in the sky, and is practically designed to create more pandemics and more excuses to roll out vaccines that are not going to be licensed. There'll be no time to license them. Nations are being required to issue Emergency Use Authorization, in other words, approval to use them without a license, without testing. And nations are being required by the WHO to waive liability on these products, the manufacturers of government, the WHO will not be able to be sued if the product kills you, if the vaccine kills you or injures you. So that's what's in these documents. It's all terrible. None of it is helpful for people. It could potentially be used to reduce the population or to weaken people, certainly to cause economic destruction.   Dr. Meryl Nass  19:23 If you rollout, when one pandemic after another happens, whether it's deliberate or whether it's due to lab accidents. And then the fact that the sequences are being required to be placed online and publicly accessible databases means people can download the sequences, make the viruses and then release them deliberately. So there's nothing more reckless, stupid and dangerous than these proposals.   Will Dove  19:52 And I have a lot to say and it gets worse than that, just a few weeks ago, Moderna announced, I won't say announce is the right word, boasted, that they had used an AI to find forty thousand potentially lethal molecules in just six hours. So it's not just the governments and these biolabs that are threatening us. It's Big Pharma, who is out there to create a market for their products and are monkeying with things that they don't understand and quite possibly can't control.   Will Dove  20:22 So, now with the time that you have left Dr. Nass, and I want to access your expertise as a biowarfare expert, and I have a few questions for you in that regard. Starting with that, my understanding, I am not a doctor, I'm not a scientist, so please correct me if I get something wrong here. The COVID-19 virus was made, they chose a Coronavirus, my understanding is because (A) it's easy to manipulate, and (B) the one that they produced, the COVID-19 virus was highly transmissible, but it had a long incubation period, which means it could spread around the world before the first cases showed up.   Will Dove  21:03 So let's entertain for a minute, the idea that this was an intentional bioweapon, that it was launched on purpose to give an excuse to inject people with these mRNA shots. What I'm wondering Dr. Nass, because one of the reasons and I have to explain a little bit more, one of the reasons why I knew right from the beginning that there was nothing to worry about, was that I knew a little known scientific fact. And that is, generally speaking, the longer the incubation period of the virus, the less virulent the virus is. And they told us right from the start that COVID-19 had a longer incubation period than seasonal flu. And so I said, "Look, therefore, it's going to be less virulent.", which is exactly what the studies have now found. What I want to know is, based upon your knowledge of biowarfare, would it be possible to create a long incubation virus, which is also highly virulent?   Dr. Meryl Nass  21:59 Yes, the answer is yes. And you don't have to look very far. So smallpox has about a twenty-day incubation period, and Variola major has a death rate of about thirty percent. So yeah, long incubation period, very virulent. The other way you can do this is if you're doing, you can do it with gene editing. So if you're using messenger RNA or DNA that gets into the nucleus, you can have cells, you can create, all sorts of new, like autoimmune illnesses that take a long time to develop.   Dr. Meryl Nass  22:43 You can also use a bacterium like Lyme, the one that causes Lyme disease, Borrelia Burgdorferi, which lives inside cells and can take months or years to actually manifest. Tuberculosis can do the same thing, it's another bacterium, you breathe it in, it starts to grow, your body sort of builds a wall about around the TB bacterium. And that's good. I'm one of the ten to twenty percent of Americans to whom that happened. I got it in med school, or residency. But if suddenly, I'm getting radiotherapy for cancer, or I'm taking an immune suppressant for an autoimmune disease, all of a sudden, my body isn't able to fight off that tuberculosis bacterium, the wall breaks down, the bacteria get out. And I've got a blooming case of tuberculosis.   Dr. Meryl Nass  23:39 So there are all sorts of ways that you can make people sick, using naturally occurring viruses and bacteria or making new ones. And unfortunately, this is an area of research that needs to be shut down, instead of encouraged. Now, not in the most recent version of the treaty, but in a version that came out in February, the WHO said that the Director General would appoint scientists, and they would supervise gain of function research. So that means the WHO would be in charge of making bacteria and viruses more virulent than they were to start with. That's a complete disaster. Three weeks later, they issued a new version and took those sentences out. But it's an indicator of what they're thinking.   Will Dove  24:29 Right. Now, I have to ask you another question, Dr. Nass, because while I, myself am skeptical of this, I know some of my viewers had this go through their heads while you were talking about tuberculosis, and how the bacterium can be activated by say radiation from cancer treatment. Could that be done with 5G signals?   Dr. Meryl Nass  24:47 I wish I knew.   Will Dove  24:50 All right. Yes. I kind of expected that was the answer because it just haven't been enough studies done. So we don't know. I have one more question.   Dr. Meryl Nass  24:58 Somebody, knows why 5G was rolled out in a big hurry during the pandemic. Somebody knows the answer to that, but we don't.   Will Dove  25:07 Right. Yes. And there's certainly evidence that 5G is harmful. Quite a bit of it. I was just curious as to whether or not you're aware of any studies that we've linked 5G to activating a virus or a bacteria. One last question. Dr. Nass, I know that you're giving me your time very generously this morning, and you didn't have much. I know that you're not a virologist, you're not an epidemiologist, but you are very well educated on the mRNA vaccines. So if we were just for a moment to entertain the idea that possibly the vaccines that have already been released, were not intentionally harmful. Do you think it's possible given that technology and what you know about it, to create an mRNA vaccine that actually does more good than harm?   Dr. Meryl Nass  25:55 I don't know the answer to that. I think that there are a number of problems with what they call the mRNA platform. So one is the long tail that makes it hang around for a long time, and potentially forever. So I think that's a problem, when you take a drug, you want to be able to get rid of it too after a certain period of time, not forever. And when that happens, that means you don't know what dose to give. Because if I gave you an mRNA product, and your body got rid of it in a few days, and somebody else it lasted forever, you two, are getting very different doses of that product, right? And the FDA is supposed to regulate based on giving people the proper dose. And if you cannot assess what the dose is that is going to be active in someone's body, you shouldn't be able to license the product.   Dr. Meryl Nass  26:45 Another problem is the lipid nanoparticle which is being used to get it into cells and to protect it until it gets into the right place. And that too has toxicities that need to be addressed that I don't think should be licensed. Then you have to get to the actual sequence of the mRNA, of the antigen. And I would submit that the spike protein was known to be very toxic to begin with. And I believe that COVID, the Coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, was made in the lab to be even more noxious and toxic, than it was in its native state that different epitopes were added to it to get it in through more methods, to get it into cells, which enabled the virus to infect more organs than normal in humans to preferentially infect humans rather than other animals. And to cause certain immune perturbations to make it more difficult for us to fight it off. I think all those things were added. And so unless we knew that we were getting an mRNA product that didn't have any of that, we could not be assured that it was safe.   Dr. Meryl Nass  28:09 Furthermore, mRNA breaks down in the vial in production, it's very delicate, because mRNA breaks down, you're going to have a mixture of species of mRNA in your vial, in your syringe that you're injecting into people. That means (A) you don't know exactly how it's broken down. And how many of those smallest species are going to be biologically active. And (B) you can't identify whether certain additional species of mRNA were introduced by the manufacturer, potentially to harm you, because there's millions of broken down pieces. And we don't really have the technology to be able to go look and say, "Oh, this one was added deliberately to harm you." There's too many bits, and not enough of each one to actually study them and distinguish them, at least at this point in time.   Dr. Meryl Nass  29:14 So in my view, for all those reasons, no mRNA products should be used until you've gotten over all those hurdles. And I'm not sure they should be, what was wrong with the vaccines of yesterday?   Will Dove  29:28 Exactly. And of course, we've got the added problem, with the work of Dr. McKernan and others, we now know that there's a substantial amount of DNA in those shots.   Dr. Meryl Nass  29:37 Yes, and that's a whole another problem. So as well as interfering with at least half a dozen mechanisms by which the human body fights cancer, you're also deliberate -- and it's not just the fact that it's DNA plasmids getting into the nucleus. But what did those DNA plasmids contain? They also contained 2SV, the code for 2SV40 proteins that are known to cause mutations and to make it more easy to get things into the nucleus.   Dr. Meryl Nass  30:12 So it looks like there was deliberate malfeasance in the creation of these vaccines. And there's no excuse that the manufacturers and the government that rolled these vaccines out, couldn't know that up to a third of the nucleotides were actually DNA from DNA plasmids that had not been removed as they should have been, there's no way that could have happened on its own.   Will Dove  30:39 Right. And I know, I don't know about the US government, but I do know that the Canadian government claims that they didn't test them that they just took the word of the manufacturer, which of course if that is true, it's negligence. It's gross negligence, to be injecting a population of an experimental injection. And our own government didn't test it first.   Dr. Meryl Nass  31:00 Right.   Will Dove  31:00 Dr. Nass, thank you so much for your time today. Was there anything you'd like to add for our viewers before you go?   Dr. Meryl Nass  31:06 I think you've gotten the nitty-gritty of this issue. I thank you very much for doing it so compactly. Great job.   Will Dove  31:14 Thank you Dr. Nass and especially for the work that you're doing.   Dr. Meryl Nass  31:18 Thanks.