NORMAN J. CLEMENT RPH., DDS.,
WITH CONTRIBUTION FROM
JACK FOLSON RPH, WALTER R. CLEMENT MS., MBA., RICARDO FERTIL PHARMD, NORMAN L.CLEMENT PHARM-TECH, JELANI ZIMBABWE CLEMENT, BS., MBA., WILLIE GUINYARD BS., BERES E. MUSCHETT, BS., STRATEGIC ADVISOR
THE MANIFESTO OF THE NORTH STAR PROJECT
When you see THROUGHOUT LIFE most of your friends, colleagues, and classmates who are of degree being defiled, sanctioned, terminated, harassed, arrested, jailed, and imprisoned for the most minuscule violation of a regulation, or for just doing what they’ve been trained to do
Then at some point, you are compelled to ask yourself when
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.
At some point in your life, you have to say and proclaim enough is enough and what are you going to do about it.
Then we must stand and fight as soldiers together or die like mice.
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.
To me, that idea of an Administrative Judge Federal showing such destain to a Respondent would so overturn nearly 200 years of medical and pharmaceutical practice makes this court worthy of oversight and disillusionment
WE ARE NOT POWERLESS AND THROUGH OUR VIDEOS, WRITINGS, AND PHOTOGRAPHS WE WILL EXPOSE THE ABUSES AND TYRANNY OF UNITED STATES DRUG ENFORCEMENT AGENCY TO THE UNITED STATES HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, UNITES STATES HOUSE OVERSIGHT ON OVERSIGHT SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS AND UNITED STATES SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY TO DEFUND AND DISBAND THIS AGENCY OF GOVERNMENT.
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.
THIS PRESENTATION CONTAINS MUST SEE VIDEOS WHICH SUPPORTS THE NARRATIVE OF THIS ARTICLE
On May 5, 2020, Mark D. Dowd, U.S. Administrative Law Judge, in the matter of Pronto Pharmacy, LLC Docket No. 19-42 issues RECOMMENDED RULING, FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND DECISION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE in a rambling decision of 148 pages, to be found so ridicules it overturned nearly 200 years of medical and pharmacy law(s) and protocols.
A group has filed Professional and Academic Fraud charges against the Ohio State University College of Pharmacy, DEA Expert, Clinical Professor Donald Sullivan. Who, in sworn testimony, admitted to not having interviewed any of the patients, nor their prescribing physicians, neither saw nor reviewed any of the patient’s prescriptions. Professor Sullivan opined every prescription to be illegitimate.
It is further clear, on this day U.S. Administrative Law Judge Mark D. Dowd, was so busy trying to be a bigot, so busy trying to be a racist, so busy trying to be the toughest man on the Federal bench he forgot how to be fair.
Judge Dowd’s decision in which the respondent, Pronto Pharmacy LLC., and the owner Norman J Clement,( a pharmacist and dentist) who had written in his blog, youarewithinthenorms.com, that he is not authorized or qualified to challenge a “physician’s diagnosis and treatment.” Judge Dowd, ruled against Clement basing his opinion in part, on the testimony of Donald Sullivan. Judge Mark D. Dowd wrote in his endnotes on page 44, of the Recommended Ruling:
22 Mr. Clement, Jr.’s, testimony that the Respondent verified the medical legitimacy of the prescriptions it filled runs counter to Mr. Clement, Sr.’s, view, as written in his blog, that he is “not authorized or qualified to challenge a physician’s diagnosis and treatment.”. If that is the case, it seems inconsistent that the Respondent would call a doctor’s office at all, let alone to confirm a diagnosis. Furthermore, it is difficult to understand how the Respondent ensured that prescriptions were medically legitimate if the Respondent believed it could not question a doctor’s decision to prescribe a certain medication. The Respondent’s vetting process, as described by Mr. Clement, Jr., seems superfluous if the Respondent’s pharmacists are unable to question a diagnosis and treatment.
Joseph L.Webster, Sr., MD, MBA, FACP, Bs. Pharmacy
I have reviewed the pertinent materials that were provided regarding the testimony of Dr. Sullivan. It is clear to me that he has a basic flaw in his thinking regarding the Doctor – Pharmacist relationship. The respective regulatory bodies, including the various “Boards” of Pharmacy, Medicine, Dentistry, Nursing, etc. clearly outline the ‘scope of practice’ for each of those disciplines.
The orderly flow of a prescription “from” the doctor to the patient – via the Pharmacist – clearly outlines where the ‘diagnosis’ has to come from. It is statutorily the purview of the pharmacist to ‘inspect and assure’ that the drug that is being given is safe and has no known incompatibilities with the patient and its holistic environment.
It is not the purview nor is the pharmacist trained to ‘challenge the diagnosis’ of the physician and to do so verbally or otherwise with the patient. It erodes the ‘doctor-patient’ relationship and destroys the ‘confidence’ of the patient in his/her physician. At the very least it is ‘unethical’ and may very well be a HIPPA violation and beneath the standard of care as a pharmacist.
Any healthcare provider that is licensed to ‘prescribe’ is governed by the set of conditions and circumstances under which a prescription can be written. Thus it is illegal to write a prescription for a person that the prescriber has not conducted the ‘chain of authority’ that would qualify him/her to write a prescription: history and physical examination, formulation of a diagnosis and discussing such with the patient as well as the proposed manner of treatment in a culturally sensitive and ethically appropriate manner; and provision of an opportunity for the patient to ‘question and discuss alternative forms of treatment; etc.
Once the provider has met all of the aforementioned and other ‘requirements to write a prescription, then and then ONLY should a healthcare practitioner write a prescription. I do not see where Dr. Sullivan obtained his evidence that the pharmacist in question attempted to do any of these steps in the ‘chain of authority’ in the cases in question. Furthermore, as stated above, a pharmacist IS NOT AUTHORIZED TO WRITE A CONTROL PRESCRIPTIONS by any of the regulatory boards of health.
It is my professional opinion that the pharmacist in question had ‘no reason’ and more importantly the pharmacist had ‘no power’ to question or interrogate each provider on ‘each prescription’ that is received as long as the ‘safety, efficacy and convenience’ of the medications being prescribed meet the standards of Medication Dispensing. Any given medication can be and certainly will be given for multiple different diagnoses and it is not even feasible for the pharmacist to ‘contact and question’ each and every diagnosis.
CLINICAL PHARMACIST Expert in Pharmacy Practice: Hospital, Retail Chain, Retail Independent, Sterile Compounding, Non-Sterile Compounding, Former Director of Pharmacy.
As it pertains to corresponding responsibility we do not have primary responsibility and this is because we do not have the training in Diagnostics that would be required to proffer a second opinion
Once a diagnosis is given the only thing that the pharmacist can do is make a recommendation as to the proper drug therapy for that particular patient within that particular diagnosis and at best it can only be a recommendation that lacks a full understanding of the diagnostic criteria
To require the pharmacist to be the final arbiter what is or is not reasonable therapy based upon inferior knowledge of Diagnostics would be erroneous
THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE MUST BEGIN OVERSIGHT THIS COURT SYSTEM
Therefore, it is incumbent for Chair of the Subcommittee of Federal Court Operation, Congressman Hank Johnson of Georgia’s 4th district to give Oversight on the DEA Court System which operates outside the Federal Rules Evidence and of Civil Procedures.
One can never prevail in any court system or environment, even when supported with science and facts, against bias and prejudice, or when privilege is permitted to take the stand. Yet still, it is not Judge Mark D. Dowd, bias/racism that is troublesome, it is his stupidity in his recommended ruling, findings of facts, the conclusion of law which eviscerates nearly two hundred years of medical and pharmacy law and protocols.
YOU’RE WITHIN THE NORMS