NORMAN J CLEMENT RPH., DDS, NORMAN L.CLEMENT PHARM-TECH, MALACHI F. MACKANDAL PHARMD, JOSEPH SOLVO ESQ., LYNN MICHELLE CLARK, REV. C.T. VIVIAN, JELANI ZIMBABWE CLEMENT, BS., MBA., WILLIE GUINYARD BS., BELINDA PARKER BROWN, LEROY BAYLOR, BRAHM FISHER ESQ., JOSEPH WEBSTER MD., ESTHER HYATT PHD., BRAHM FISHER ESQ., MICHELE ALEXANDER, DEBRA LYNN SHEPHERD, BS., CUDJOE WILDING, BERES E. MUSCHETT, STRATEGIC ADVISOR
Alex Gibney’s HBO documentary is an appalling presentation of distortion, untruths, and misinformation that should be removed and banned from broadcast. This documentary stands as the worst and most deficient presentation
- MIS-LEADING DEATH COUNT
- START IN THE WRONG CENTURY AND MISALIGNS THE WRONG FAMILY, THE “SACKLERS”
- MIS-IDENTIFIES OPIOID CLASS SUBSTANCE AND DELIBERATELY CONFLATES NON-MEDICAL SUBSTANCES WITH MEDICINAL SUBSTANCES
- IN 4 HOURS EXCLUDES THE ENTIRE DISCUSSION OF THE WAR ON DRUGS AND FAILS TO COUNT THE BODIES OF THOSE VICTIMIZED BY NIXON’S AND REGANS DRUG POLCIES
5. CLEVER USE OF TRIGGER WORDS AND CATCHY TRIGGER PHRASES: SUCH AS PILL MILLS, BECAUSE PILL RHYMES WITH MILL AND FAILING TO POINT OUT PILLS ARE A SEPARATE DOSAGE FORM JUST AS CAPSULE, TABLETS, LIQUIDS SUPPOSITORIES ETC, AND MOST PHARMACIST HAVE NEVER DISPENSED PILLS.
“Controlling the narrative, thru subliminal suggestion and planting fabricated seeds”
Yet, people with incurable diseases or intractable injuries that have NO humane non-narcotic treatment options are now denied moderate, modest monitored pain and suffering relief. They have been abandoned by the entire medical system who are terrorized by the DEA who now use low-quality evidence policies written by unqualified Ideological Psychiatric Imperialist like Kolodny and Lembke.
This documentary fails to present an understanding that these medications and these medicinal products are not for recreational use. This article attempts to bring forth truth, highlight the science and facts and expose Alex Gibney’s “THE CRIME OF THE CENTURY”, false and fraudulent narrative.
OPIOID METABOLSIM
Chronic pain is a common problem, affecting about 40 million U.S. adults, but its impact on people’s daily lives has been difficult to define. The U.S. National Pain Strategy proposed adding disability (activity limitations) to the standard definition of chronic pain (which is based on how long the pain has lasted) to get better information on the impact of chronic pain on the U.S. population. This study analyzes 2011 National Health Interview Survey data on chronic pain accompanied by restrictions in major life activities (High Impact Chronic Pain) and chronic pain without these limitations.(1)
Opioids are a cornerstone of the management of cancer pain1 and postoperative pain2 and are used increasingly for the management of chronic noncancer pain.3,4 Understanding the metabolism of opioids is of great practical importance to primary care clinicians. Opioid metabolism is a vital safety consideration in older and medically complicated patients, who may be taking multiple medications and may have inflammation, impaired renal and hepatic function, and impaired immunity. Chronic pain, such as lower back pain, also occurs in younger persons and is the leading cause of disability in Americans younger than 45 years.5 In younger patients, physicians may be more concerned with opioid metabolism in reference to the development of tolerance, impairment of skills and mental function, adverse events during pregnancy and lactation, and prevention of abuse by monitoring drug and metabolite levels.
THE PROBLEM WITH PROP
FEBRUARY 12, 2021
ACCORDING TO CHAD KOLLAS:
A recent study by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has captured the attention of the palliative care and chronic pain communities (1). Published on February 12, 2021, in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR), it observed that the “age-adjusted overdose death rates involving synthetic opioids, psychostimulants, cocaine, heroin, and prescription opioids during 2013–2019” have increased a whopping 1,040% (1). Several critics have attributed this increase in overdose mortality to failed federal opioid policy, particularly the 2016 CDC Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain and their misapplication (2-4).
This criticism has generated a recent flurry of activity on social media by the anti-opioid advocacy group (5), Physicians for Responsible Opioid Prescribing (PROP). This commentary will explore how PROP’s flawed policy approach over the last decade has reduced legitimate access to opioid medications and contributed to harms from increases in overdose deaths in the United States (US).
2011
In 2011, a group of internists, including Michael Van Korff, Andrew Kolodny, and Roger Chou, co-authored an article that modern palliative care physicians would recognize as a “warning shot ” in the world of opioid policy (7). They announced the creation of Physicians for Responsible Opioid Prescribing (PROP), a “nonprofit organization with no pharmaceutical industry funding or ties,” that would “identify practical approaches to more cautious opioid prescribing in community practice. They declared that “Guidelines for long-term opioid therapy should not be developed by the field of pain medicine alone. Rather, experts from general medicine, addiction medicine, and pain medicine should jointly reconsider how to increase the margin of safety .”
“THERE WERE EARLY STRONG WARNING POINTING OUT PROP OPIOID GUIDELINES WERE RECKLESS AND DANGEROUS BASED ON BIAS LOW QUALITY AND VERY QUALITY EVIDENCE“
AUGUST 12, 2012
AMERICA SOCIETY OF ANESTHESIOLOGISTS LETTER OF 2012 TO FDA TOOK SERIOUS ISSUE WITH PROP’S ANALYSIS
However in August 22. 2012 Jerry A. Cohen MD wrote to FDA:
The American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA), on behalf of over 48,000 members, is writing in response to the petition to change the label of opioid analgesics submitted by Physicians for Responsible Opioid Prescribing (PROP). The petition requests that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA):
- 1) Strike the term “moderate” from the indication for non-cancer pain.
- 2) Add a maximum daily dose, equivalent to 100 milligrams of morphine for non-cancer pain.
- 3) Add a maximum duration of 90-days for continuous (daily) use for non-cancer pain.
As the medical specialty representing the largest number of practicing pain medicine physicians and the recognized leaders in patient safety, ASA has significant interest in reducing the misuse, abuse, and diversion of opioid medications that have led to unintended deaths. We support the broad concept that high dose opioids should not be used to treat chronic non-cancer pain. However, placing specific limits on daily doses of opioids that a physician may prescribe is not scientifically founded nor is it practical.
A fundamental flaw shared by all three components of the PROP proposal is the intrinsic difficulty in defining “non-cancer pain.” Improvements in cancer therapy have resulted in increases in survival duration as well as cure rates, although the treatments used to achieve these beneficial results often themselves lead to chronic pain. Who will decide whether the persistent pain, for example, of nerve damage incurred during an otherwise curative course of chemo- and radiation therapy is or is not cancer- related?
With regard to the first proposed change, it is very common for pain intensity to fluctuate during long- term treatment of chronic non-cancer pain. Pain that is moderate at one time may be severe a few hours later, then decline to become moderate shortly after. Pain that is moderate at rest typically increases to severe when the patient undertakes desirable physical activity. Hence, patients are often instructed to self-medicate with an opioid shortly before anticipated physical activity in order to keep it from becoming severe. It would not be practical to instruct patients never to take an opioid during intervals when their pain is moderate, but only to do so when their pain is severe.
With regard to the second proposal, considerable clinical experience attests to substantial interindividual differences in the analgesic effect of morphine and other opioids. The population-based conversion factors used to calculate “equivalent” morphine doses in patients treated with non-morphine opioids differ from patient to patient, and even in the same patient followed across time (e.g., with declining kidney or liver function, or dehydration).
SEPTEMBER 24, 2015
ACCORDING TO PETER J. PITS FORMER ASSOCIATE COMMISSIONER AT FDA SPECIALIZILIZING IN PHARMACEUTICAL FRAUD STATED:
The CDC’s been exceedingly secretive during the drafting of its controversial opioid prescribing guidelines for physicians, refusing to disclose its outside advisors. The panel of advisors is known within the CDC as the Core Expert Group. (The proposed guidelines, which were released this week, have angered many pain patients who think they could lead to sharp reductions in the prescribing of opioids for both acute and chronic pain.)
The only thing the CDC would say is that, “The Core Expert Group includes a limited number of CDC scientific staff, primary care professional society representatives, state agency representatives, experts in guideline development methodology, and other subject experts.” What’s missing? How about pain experts?
But when a federal agency tries to hide what should be an open and transparent process, sunshine has a way of breaking though the curtains. Here for the first time (and from inside the belly of the beast) is the CDC’s confidential document, “CDC Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain.” It includes a complete list of the Core Expert Group. That group for the first time is now public knowledge:
Core Expert Group
- Pam Archer, MPH; Oklahoma State Department of Health
- Jane Ballantyne, MD; University of Washington (retired)
- Amy Bohnert, MHS, PhD; University of Michigan
- Bonnie Burman, ScD; Ohio Department on Aging
- Roger Chou, MD; Oregon Health and Sciences University
- Phillip Coffin, MD, MIA; San Francisco Department of Public Health
- Gary Franklin, MD, MPH; Washington State Department of Labor and Industries/University of Washington
- Erin Krebs, MD, MPH; Minneapolis VA Health Care System/University of Minnesota
- Mitchel Mutter, MD; Tennessee Department of Health
- Lewis Nelson, MD, New York University School of Medicine
- Trupti Patel, MD; Arizona Department of Health Services
- Christina A. Porucznik, PhD, MSPH; University of Utah
- Robert “Chuck” Rich, MD, FAAFP; American Academy of Family Physicians
- Joanna Starrels, MD, MS; Albert Einstein College of Medicine of Yeshiva University
- Michael Steinman, MD; Society of General Internal Medicine
- Thomas Tape, MD; American College of Physicians
- Judith Turner, PhD; University of Washington
According to the document, the CDC, “aimed to minimize conflict of interest, enhance objective assessment of the evidence, and reduce bias.” Well, they may have aimed – but they missed badly. The members of this group do not represent a broad spectrum of thought on opioids. To put it nicely, the issue of normative bias needs to discussed –loudly and openly.
” PROP’S EMINENCE BASE GUIDELINES; VERY LOW QUALITY EVIDENCE”
Consider Jane Ballantyne.
Ballantyne last year was named President of Physicians for Responsible Opioid Prescribing (PROP), a controversial organization that has lobbied Congress and criticized the Food and Drug Administration for not doing more to limit opioid prescribing. And in her conflict disclosure (see page 39 of the CDC document), she discloses her services as a paid consultant to Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll – the same law firm referenced by the New York Times as shopping around opioid litigation – and having guidelines from the CDC that recommend restrictions in opioid prescribing could certainly be advantageous to such an endeavor.
As Pain News Network has reported, “The CDC and PROP appear to have a close working relationship — a link to PROP literature recommending “cautious, evidence-based opioid prescribing” can be found — unedited — on the CDC’s website.
According to Bob Twillman, Executive Director of the American Academy of Pain Management (one of the stakeholder groups that will be consulted by the CDC):
Clearly, this is PROP’s way of getting what FDA didn’t give them when they advocated for an ER/LA opioid label change. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that this sets a 90 mg MED dose limit, when PROP advocated for a 100 mg MED dose limit in their Citizen Petition to the FDA. That PROP’s president and one vice-president are part of the core expert group; their executive director and a board member are part of the stakeholder review group; and another board member is one of the three who will help edit the guidelines after the stakeholders report, all is not a coincidence, and clearly puts their fingerprints all over this guideline. But, of course, no one is supposed to know that.
And where is the FDA? According to the CDC, “FDA has been involved in the review process of the guidelines and we will continue to work with them on this prescription drug overdose epidemic.” If that’s true, why wasn’t an FDA expert included in the Core Group?
Per Twillman, In assessing the validity of the guidelines there are two factors that make up that validity assessment: the quality of the underlying evidence and the qualifications of the person making the recommendation. In the best case, of course, you want someone who is highly qualified making recommendations on the basis of high-quality evidence. That isn’t the case here, because CDC itself, in the review document, rates 8 of its 13 recommendations as having “very low quality of evidence” and 5 as having “low quality of evidence”.
They also note that 12 of their 13 recommendations are “strong recommendations”, and only one (on UDT) is “weak.” In the absence of even moderate-quality evidence, though, any recommendation really constitutes an opinion, creating an “eminence-based guideline,” not one that is “evidence-based.” In that case, the qualifications of the person issuing the unsupported opinion are VITAL to assessing the validity of the recommendation. If we are talking about a guideline that SHOULD be about how to use opioids to treat chronic pain, then shouldn’t we have more than one person in the core expert group who has extensive experience doing just that?
And that’s a question worth asking in open public debate.
SEPTEMBER 2015
According to Pat Anston Chief Editor of Pain News Network:
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention made little attempt at openness and transparency when it released a draft version of its controversial opioid guideline in September 2015.
No public hearings were held. Only a select audience was invited to a secretive online webinar in which CDC officials hurriedly outlined the guideline and then refused to answer any questions about it. The guideline wasn’t posted on the CDC website and no copies were made available.
Only when threatened with a lawsuit and a congressional investigation of the guideline process did the CDC back down, delaying the release of the guideline for a few months. Hearings were held, public comments were accepted, and CDC revealed the names of its experts and outside advisors, including some who had strong biases against opioids.
Five were board members of Physicians for Responsible Opioid Prescribing (PROP), a small but influential advocacy group founded by Dr. Andrew Kolodny, a psychiatrist who was then-medical director of Phoenix House, an addiction treatment chain. PROP President Jane Ballantyne, MD, and Vice-President Gary Franklin, MD, were members of the Core Expert Group, while board member David Tauben, MD, served on the CDC’s peer review panel. PROP member David Juurlink, MD, and Kolodny himself were part of a “Stakeholder Review Group” that provided input to the CDC.(6)
MAY 20, 2021
HBO fears the truth and criticism of their defective documentary from people who have chronic debilitating pain and suffering such as Julie Killingworth afflicted with sarcoidosis disease. HBO rejected publishing these statements and facts;
JULLIE KILLINGWORTH WRITES:
Once again the biased Hollywood agenda forgetting the bodily afflicted exist. Andrew Kolodny, Anna Lembke, and Art Van Zee along with culpable co-conspirators are habitual liars who created a fake epidemic to sell their benefactor RBG (Reckitt Bensnier Group) schedule 3 opioid of choice Suboxone.
PROP is a master class and subliminal suggestion planting fabricated seeds that they are a sincere nonprofit when they have never applied for IRS 501 (c) (3) status. PROP is an addiction profiteer charging exorbitant amounts of money for their self-proclaimed expert testimony. PROP is a policy and lobbying organization of eminence base ideology psychiatric imperialist.
This all started when Purdue campaigned to have Suboxone rescheduled from 5 to 3 to ensure fairness in the market and RBG took their revenge creating lobbying groups like PROP (Physicians for Responsible Opioid Prescribing) and other fake non-profits to go after their competition that just wanted an even market.
This is the Crime of the Century by way of Anti-Trust committed by RBG to falsely demonize against anything they perceive to be competition turning innocent people with horrific incurable bodily diseases that into an Addiction Industry commodity. People who took these medications responsibly or now being exploited extorted dehumanize marginalized across the United States and in other westernized countries.
People with incurable diseases or intractable injuries that have NO humane non-narcotic treatment options are now denied moderate, modest monitored pain and suffering relief. We have been abandoned by the entire medical system who are terrorized by the DEA who now use low-quality evidence policies written by unqualified Ideological Psychiatric Imperialist like Kolodny and Lembke.
“DEA agents have no business second-guessing health care providers’ decisions on medical needs and patient care. That’s a job for state licensing boards – and only when there is a valid complaint to investigate.”
PROP claims people like me born with a rare incurable progressive disease now denied proper pain and suffering relief are Pharma Shills but I am not. Andrew Kolodny gets $750 an hour to testify in anti-opioid litigation while promoting Suboxone and I’m barely scraping by with Liver damage from being forced to take NSAIDs to compensate for having pain medication
I took responsibly with respect cut off. I was minding my own business privately surviving with my inherited disease with dignity and grace until I found myself as collateral damage in PROP and cohorts ruthless campaign exploiting addiction blaming the wrong source as a scapegoat. I never got my pills in a baggie. I’ve been in the mainstream medical gauntlet for 20 years and there is NO overprescribing opioid candy store.
PROP and cohorts continue to shame the incurable bodily afflicted bad luck and bad genes that caused us to be disabled and impoverished by no fault of our own. I’m NOT endorsing any Pharmaceutical Corporation, I think they are all in it for their own agenda and bottom line but understand every human is one dominant gene or one horrific accident from being me.
ALEX GIBNEY’S DOCUMENTARY EXCLUDES THE WAR ON DRUGS
One of the most major flaws in this 4 hours documentary, “The Crime of the Century,” presents a poorly staccato history of Opium. The HBO documentary further avoids addressing Richard Nixon’s “War on Drugs” leaving the audience to believe that loss of life began in the years 2000 and over the next twenty-year period, 500,000 lives were subsequently lost directly from Opioids Abuse.
The Opioid crisis, as many black folks have known it, started far early than the year 2000 and was geo-political, involving governments, syndicates and politicians accept; it was kept south of the 8-mile road and above 110 street and Lennox Avenue. While, in the 4 hours 2 part episode, not a single black neighborhood or black person appeared in Alex Gibney’s documentary.
The United States “War On Drugs” has been exposed as a targeted design race war of unlawful unconstitutional policing (a targeted color caste war) and the only way we can seek its end is by shutting down the United States Drug Enforcement Administration.
This article further outlines how DEA/DOJ has instead directed their efforts toward easier less resistant, unarmed enforcement targets, medical practitioners (physician pharmacist and dentist). More strikingly and consistent with any law enforcement, DEA/DOJ has focused on pharmacists, particularly black pharmacists.
The United States Justice Department (DOJ) has engaged in the larges prosecutorial fraud scheme perpetrated on the Taxpayers of America. DOJ has been fully made aware that the treatment of suboxone works and is supported by the NIH. Instead, they ignore science and have engaged in a campaign of science suppression which hasprecipitated the opioid crisis in America.
Most importantly they specifically targeted Black people and people of color for forced removal and imprisonment. Any person(s) who got in the way or dared challenge them was made an example of and economically destroyed. They continue to perform their mission set out by their creator Richard Nixon some forty years ago.
______ JOHN ERLICHMAN, NIXON’S DOMESTIC ADVISOR, APRIL 2016
” We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities.Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course, we did.”
“The murder of Breonna Taylor, “a botched drug raid” by both DEA and Louisville Police Depart, reveals yet again how easy it is for the state to take a Black life and how hard it is to hold the state accountable for its transgression. That is in part because the system is designed to make it nearly impossible for the state to transgress. Taylor was an innocent woman, sleeping in her own home, breaking no law. The state broke down her door and shot her dead,” states Charles Blow writer NewYork Times (2)
Mike Barnes DCDBA law firm wrote in extensive brief called for a More sensible approach:
” Indiscriminate raids, searches, and investigations of health care professionals put patients’ lives at risk, destroy professionals’ livelihoods and careers, and create confusion, fear, and reluctance to prescribe among other health care professionals. This chilling effect undermines congressional efforts to expand the number of professionals who prescribe medications to treat pain. (7)
” To ensure that professionals feel confident prescribing or dispensing medications to treat opioid use disorder and other conditions that may require treatment with controlled medications, complaints against licensed health care professionals, including pharmacists, should be investigated first by professional licensing boards, which are governed and staffed by professionals with health-specific expertise, rather than by law enforcement.”
STARTS WITH THE WRONG CENTURY
The Opium Trade was an internal part of United States Foreign Policy especially toward China which affects our nations dealing with the Chinese Government to this very day.
Understanding “The Opium War” is also understanding that much of the wealth of the American Elite was built upon the forced imposition of opium onto China. The gold mine of drugs (opium) for the American elite in the 19th century funded much of the industrial revolution endowed universities such as Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Brandeis, while China and its people were victims; “the sick man of Asia.”
Thus it is acid etched into the minds of every living person within the Chinese State one will never be allowed to forget the 100 years of humiliation. Stratification of the Chinese Economy by Britain, the United States, Japan, and other Colonial powers was an essential component in controlling the people of China.
UNITED STATES OPEN DOOR POLICY TOWARD CHINA
According to Peter Coy June 4, 2020, writing for Bloomberg Businessweek:
https://apple.news/AvxPYvb8jTuGUGQUvC4VQFQ
“Any modern analysis of race relation has to be grounded in the fact that the United States of America was built on the backs of enslaved African and that leading thinkers of the day defended slavery based on economic grounds.”
Coupled with the China Trade in Opium that built, fueled, and funded much of the industrial revolution in America generating massive wealth. Most, importantly, this helps further to understanding the attitudes of the Chinese Government and its people toward the United States and European Powers.
The 100 years of humiliation have further taught China, that no power will ever get close enough to ride its warships (armed with HVP guided projectiles) up the Yangtze and Pearl Rivers without facing a significant deterrent.
OPIUM WARS A DISPUTE OVER TRADING RIGHTS
CHINA BUILDS ITS INFRASTRUCTURE AND INNOVATION WHILE AMERICA SLEEPS
China through communism educated its people. The Chinese learned how to integrate socialism and capitalism, (they used socialism to get their act together) to educate and train their own people. When China succeeded at education, they employed capitalism against the West and beat them at their own game. The discussion between communism and capitalism has always been who would control the means of production and distribution, either one can produce or one can’t.
FOR EXAMPLE:
TIME MAGAZINE: BY CHARLIE CAMPBELL | PHOTOGRAPHS BY KEVIN FRAYER—GETTY IMAGES:
“The U.S. relinquished that leadership role upon the election of President Donald Trump. The real estate mogul has called global warming “an expensive hoax” and on June 1 vowed to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris Climate Accords, which aim to limit global temperatures to a 2°C (3.6°F) rise by 2100. China stepped immediately into the breach. Chinese President Xi Jinping has called the Paris Accords “a responsibility we must assume for future generations.”
The U.S. has also lost global leadership on the $100 billion global solar industry. American scientists invented the technology in the 1970s, though it remained peripheral until China did what China does better than anyone: mass-produced with incredible speed and booming efficiency.
As a result, the price of panels plummeted 40% over the last two years as demand has mushroomed. Four out of five solar modules installed around the world today are Chinese-made. “China’s investment in solar really is a gift to the world,” says Amit Ronen, director of the Solar Institute of George Washington University.”
ALEX GIBNEY’S DOCUMENTARY TARGETS THE WRONG FAMILIES, THE WRONG INSTITUTIONS AND FAILS TO DISCUSS THESES FACTS
“THE OPIUM WAR’S SECRET HISTORY“
The hidden secrets of the drug war waged on China by European Power also involved the Africa Slave Trade across the Indian Ocean, Ivory, Jade, tea which created a trade deficit between Britain and China see the videos:
NEW YORK TIMES
BY KARL E. MEYER
June 28, 1997
According to New York Times article 1997:
Losers rarely name wars, an exception being the conflict between Britain and China from 1839 to 1842, known bluntly ever since as the Opium War. To most Chinese, a century of humiliation began with this war, in which Westerners sought to force a deadly drug on an Asian people, and then imposed an unequal treaty that pried open their country and annexed the island that became Hong Kong.
In embarrassing truth, that is essentially what happened. As Hong Kong reverts to China at month’s end, many of us for the first time may see a bit of history from a different end of the telescope. Yet a further point needs making. Even the authors of the Opium War were ashamed of it, and Western protests against it marked the beginning of a concern with international human rights that in a fresh turn embarrasses today’s leaders in Beijing.
Along with the slave trade, the traffic in opium was the dirty underside of an evolving global trading economy. In America as in Europe, pretty much everything was deemed fair in the pursuit of profits. Such was the outlook at Russell & Company, a Boston concern whose clipper ships made it the leader in the lucrative American trade in Chinese tea and silk.
In 1823 a 24-year-old Yankee, Warren Delano, sailed to Canton, where he did so well that within seven years he was a senior partner in Russell & Company. Delano’s problem, as with all traders, European and American, was that China had much to sell but declined to buy. The Manchu emperors believed that the Middle Kingdom already possessed everything worth having, and hence needed no barbarian manufactures.
The British struck upon an ingenious way to reduce a huge trade deficit. Their merchants bribed Chinese officials to allow entry of chests of opium from British-ruled India, though its importation had long been banned by imperial decree. Imports soared, and nearly every American company followed suit, acquiring ”black dirt” in Turkey or as agents for Indian producers.
Writing home, Delano said he could not pretend to justify the opium trade on moral grounds, ”but as a merchant I insist it has been . . . fair, honorable and legitimate,” and no more objectionable than the importation of wines and spirits to the U.S. Yet as addiction became epidemic, and as the Chinese began paying with precious silver for the drug, their Emperor finally in 1839 named an Imperial Commissioner to end the trade.
Commissioner Lin Tse-hsu proceeded to Canton, seized vast stocks of opium and dumped the chests in the sea. This, plus a melee in which drunken sailors killed a Chinese villager, furnished the spark for the Opium War, initiated by Lord Palmerston, the British Prime Minister, and waged with determination to obtain full compensation for the opium. The Celestial Empire was humbled, forced to open five ports to foreign traders and to permit a British colony at Hong Kong.
But as noteworthy, the war was denounced in Parliament as ”unjust and iniquitous” by 30-year-old William Ewart Gladstone, who accused Palmerston of hoisting the British flag ”to protect an infamous contraband traffic.” The same outrage was expressed in the pulpit and the press, in America and England, thereby encouraging Russell & Company and most other American businesses to pull out of the opium trade.
Warren Delano returned to America rich, and in 1851 settled in Newburgh, N.Y. There he eventually gave his daughter Sara in marriage to a well-born neighbor, James Roosevelt, the father of Franklin Roosevelt. The old China trader was close-mouthed about opium, as were his partners in Russell & Company. It is not clear how much F.D.R. knew about this source of his grandfather’s wealth. But the President’s recent biographer Geoffrey Ward rejects efforts by the Delano family to minimize Warren’s involvement.
The family’s discomfort is understandable. We no longer believe that anything goes in the global marketplace, regardless of social consequences. It is precisely this conviction that underlies efforts to attach human rights conditions to trading relations — to temper the amorality of the market — a point that, alas, seems to elude the Socialist soon-to-be masters of Hong Kong.”
WARREN DELANO: PUTING WARREN DELANO’S HISTORY WHERE THE GOATS CAN GET IT
Simply putting Warren Delano in today’s language, he was both slave trader and international drug dealer on an even higher scale than El Chappo Guzman or Pablo Escobar. Mr. Delano worked for a major drug cartel supported by governments. Mr. Delanoe and other families hid their ill-gotten gains through endowments and support to nearly all Ivy League universities. Through generations, many have benefitted from the education and research received at these universities especially their law schools.
According to Testmax:
“Each of the eight Ivy League schools (Brown, Columbia, Cornell, University of Pennsylvania, Princeton, Harvard, Dartmouth, and Yale) has a reputation for excellence and for producing some of the best minds of the world. It is no surprise, then, that these five Ivy League law schools are preceded by their reputations for developing some of the most brilliant and influential legal professionals. All five schools always rank in the T14 list of law schools, and they each have rigorous academic curricula, tough standards for admission, and unique histories.
STRATIFICATION ECONOMICS AND THE CHINA TRADE(OPIUM TRADE)
The Emergence of the American Community in Shanghai
According to Sibing He, “Hong Kong and America’s China Trade in the Nineteenth Century,” paper presented at the International Conference on Hong Kong in the Global Setting, organized by the Department of History, the University of Hong Kong, 10-12 January 2011:
The first British consul at Shanghai, Captain George Balfour, arrived in the port city in November 1843 and formally declared the post open to foreign trade. British and American trading firms soon rushed to Shanghai, the gateway to the Yangtze valley, in order to gain access to the richest market in central China. This regional entrepôt was immediately transformed into the center of international trade. Henry G. Wolcott, the representative of Russell & Co., went to Shanghai soon after the city was made a treaty port in 1843. In the same year, Russell & Co. also sent G. F. Davidson to the newly established British Crown Colony of Hong Kong to serve as its agent. By 1844, only a year after opening as a treaty port, Shanghai housed eleven British and American mercantile firms with a total of twenty-three traders, including the prominent British firms, Jardine, Matheson & Company, and Dent & Company.
The China trade in the 19th century was the foundation of the wealth of several New England families, who in turn helped to finance the industrialization in the USA, particularly the development of railroads to the American West. At the center of this elite network of families were three brothers: Thomas Tunno, Robert Bennet, and John Murray Forbes. Their mother was the youngest sister of Thomas Handasyd Perkins, a leading public figure in Boston and the founder, with his brother, of the firm J. and T.H. Perkins of Boston and Canton. In 1830 the firm was merged with Russell & Company, a commission agency founded by Samuel Russell in Canton in 1824 to trade opium, woolen and cotton cloth, and other commodities in exchange for silk, porcelain, and tea. The Forbes brothers led Russell & Co. – in its heyday the most powerful American merchant house on the China coast – from 1830 to its dissolution in 1891. (4)
ALEX GIBNEY’S DOCUMENTARY DISTORTS AND EXCLUDES OPIOID DEATHS PRIOR TO THE YEAR 2000
Not only does the documentary interjects a false narrative and a conscious bias concerning opioid deaths their timeline starts in 2000 thru 2021 with 500,000 deaths caused by overdose, Dr. Kolodny further deliberately misidentifies heroin with Oxycodone.
HEROIN VS. OXYCODONE
“Controlling the narrative, subliminal suggestion planting fabricated seeds”
HEROIN IS NOT OXYCODONE
For years law enforcement has controlled the narrative by destroying our character before we can be heard. They deliberately conflate these two substances
When administered orally, heroin or diamorphine experiences extensive first-pass metabolism by way of deacetylation to generate the active metabolites 6-monoacetylmorphine (6-MAM) and morphine 5,6. Alternatively, when given as an injection the acetyl groups present in the diamorphine/diacetylmorphine compound confer the substance lipophilicity that facilitates diamorphine’s rapid crossing of the blood-brain-barrier 5,6. Once in the brain, diamorphine is metabolized via deacetylation to the active 6-MAM and morphine metabolites as well 5,6. Despite diamorphine possessing little to no opioid agonist activity itself, its rapid transit across the blood-brain-barrier elicits a far faster onset of activity in comparison to the extensive first-pass metabolism of oral administration 5,6. Regardless, the metabolism of diamorphine to morphine makes heroin a prodrug for the delivery of morphine 5,6.
3DDownload Similar Structures
Morphine is subsequently a mu-opioid agonist. It acts on endogenous mu-opioid receptors that are spread in discrete packets throughout the brain, spinal cord and gut in almost all mammals 1. Morphine, along with other opioids, are agonists to four endogenous neurotransmitters 1. They are beta-endorphin, dynorphin, leu-enkephalin, and met-enkephalin 1. The body responds to morphine in the brain by reducing (and sometimes stopping) production of the endogenous opioids when morphine is present 1. Endorphins are regularly released in the brain and nerves, attenuating pain. Their other functions are still obscure but are probably related to the effects produced by morphine besides analgesia (antitussive, anti-diarrheal)
OXYCODONE
Oxycodone
The full mechanism of oxycodone is not known.Labe Oxycodone is metabolized by CYP3A4 to noroxycodone and by CYP2D6 to oxymorphone.11Noroxycodone is a weaker opioid agonist than the parent compound, but the presence of this active metabolite increases the potential for interactions with other drugs metabolized by the CYP3A4 pathway.
3DDownload Similar Structures
The central opioid effects of oxycodone are governed primarily by the parent drug, with a negligible contribution from its circulating oxidative and reductive metabolites.81 Oxymorphone is present only in small amounts after oxycodone administration, making the clinical relevance of this metabolite questionable.
Although the CYP2D6 pathway is thought to play a relatively minor role in oxycodone metabolism, at least 1 study has reported oxycodone toxicity in a patient with impaired CYP2D6 metabolism.41 The authors of this report suggested that failure to metabolize oxycodone to oxymorphone may have been associated with the accumulation of oxycodone and noroxycodone, resulting in an inability to tolerate therapy.
Andrew Kolodny MD
“America’s War on Drugs has had a profound role in reinforcing racial hierarchies. Although Black Americans are no more likely than Whites to use illicit drugs, they are 6–10 times more likely to be incarcerated for drug offenses. Meanwhile, a very different system for responding to the drug use of Whites has emerged.” (3)(4)
One of the most troubling examples of research bias appeared on December 5, 2019, New York Times on ” A Rare Case Where Racial Biases,’ Protected African-Americans.
A ‘Rare Case Where Racial Biases’ Protected African-Americans
By Austin Frakt and Toni Monkovic
- Published Nov. 25, 2019
Updated Dec. 2, 2019
Fewer opioid prescriptions meant fewer deaths (possibly 14,000), but the episode also reveals how prevalent and harmful stereotypes can be, even if implicit.
When the opioid crisis began to escalate some 20 years ago, many African-Americans had a layer of protection against it.
But that protection didn’t come from the effectiveness of the American medical system. Instead, researchers believe, it came from racial stereotypes embedded within that system.
As unlikely as it may seem, these negative stereotypes appear to have shielded many African-Americans from fatal prescription opioid overdoses. This is not a new finding. But for the first time, an analysis has put a number behind it, projecting that around 14,000 black Americans would have died had their mortality rates related to prescription opioids been equivalent to that of white Americans.
Starting in the 1990s, new prescription opioids were marketed more aggressively in white rural areas, where pain drug prescriptions were already high. African-Americans received fewer opioid prescriptions, some researchers think, because doctors believed, contrary to fact, that black people 1) were more likely to become addicted to the drugs 2) would be more likely to sell the drugs and 3) had a higher pain threshold than white people because they were biologically different.
A fourth possibility is that some white doctors were more empathetic to the pain of people who were like them, and less empathetic to those who weren’t. Some of this bias “can be unconscious,” said Dr. Andrew Kolodny, a director of opioid policy research at Brandeis University.
This accidental benefit for African-Americans is far outweighed by the long history of harm they have endured from inferior health care, including infamous episodes like the Tuskegee study. And it doesn’t remedy the way damaging stereotypes continue to influence aspects of medical practice today. “The reason to study this further is twofold,” Dr. Kolodny said. “It’s easy to imagine the harm that could come to blacks in the future, and we need to know what went wrong with whites, and how they were left exposed” to overprescribing.
The prescription-opioid-related mortality rates of black and white Americans were relatively similar two decades ago, but researchers found that by 2010, the rate was two times higher for whites than for African-Americans.
Because African-Americans were less likely to receive those prescriptions, they were less likely to become addicted — though they were more likely to endure unnecessary and excruciating pain for illnesses like cancer.
The researchers, Monica Alexander, a statistician with the University of Toronto; Mathew Kiang, an epidemiologist at Stanford; and Magali Barbieri, a demographer at the University of California, Berkeley; published their study in the journal Epidemiology.
ANDREW KOLODNY’S, THINKING IS DANGEROUS AND FURTHER GIVES TACIT SUPPORT TO RACIAL BIAS IN MEDICAL CARE TREATMENT
There is absolutely no amount of prejudice, that can be justified, in any form of medical care treatment to support racism. Andrew Kolodny MD, has worked as an adviser to DEA, NIH, CDC, and has testified numerous times before the United States House and Senate. Dr. Kolodny’s opinions have shaped United States drug policy as well that found in academia, however, they are seriously flawed.
Dr. Kolodny’s thinkings allow for the withholding and or the denial of medical care, based upon a preconceived racial bias, supported by a foundation of erroneous science. The assertions and conclusions drawn by Dr. Andrew Kolodny and those who conducted this research are seriously flawed and further demonstrates how bias undermines healthcare for all Black people.
These misconceptions are ingrained in people at a young age, too, according to Dore, Hoffman, Trawalter et. al., Researchers who asked black and white children to rate each other’s pain determined they’d adopted a“weak racial bias” by 7 years old and a“strong and reliable” bias by 10 years old. (37)
Joseph RanNazziSI AND HIS “BIG LIE”
HISTORY OF FALSE MISREPRESENTATIONS AND Abuses
Joe Rannazzisi, a former high-ranking DEA agent presentation sits upon a foundation of rubbish. Under Joseph Ranazizi the DEA engaged in profiling and Indiscriminate use iso against small pharmacies black and enter into settlements with larger corporations.
‘Mr. Fletcher, based on his experience, training, and expertise, reasonably believed that all prescriptions filled were for a legitimate medical purpose’’ and that he ‘‘frequently exercised independent judgment to determine if the prescriptions were for legitimate medical purposes, and often refused to fill prescriptions written by licensed medical doctors, including Dr. Volkman.’’
Mr. Fletcher had told a DEA Investigator ‘‘that it was ‘not [his] job to question a physician.’ ’’ Id. Based on the above, the Order alleged that Respondent ‘‘knew, or should have known that [the] controlled substance prescriptions it filled for patients of Dr. Volkman were for no legitimate medical purpose.’’ Id.
on an opinion of an Investigator who lacked adequate information to properly assess his credibility. Moreover, the inconsistency between Respondent’s claim that in prescribing for eDrugstore he only wrote a ‘‘small minority’’ of controlled substance prescriptions and the evidence regarding the total number of prescriptions, the amounts he was paid for the respective types of prescriptions, and his compensation, provides further reason to question the ALJ’s conclusion.
The ALJ also found it significant that the Agency had not produced any evidence that Respondent mishandled controlled substances since the institution of the proceeding. However, because Respondent failed to file a timely renewal application, thus allowing his registration to expire (and also had his State license suspended), he lacked authority to handle controlled substances for a substantial portion of this period. In addition, the weight to be given this circumstance is significantly diminished by the fact that he was then in the midst of a Show Cause Proceeding.
FROM WESH NEWS ROOM ORLANDO FLORIDA 2015
JOSEPH RANNAZZISI, guidlines and policies has caused increases in patient suicide:
Pete Giarrusso, who runs a Longwood motorcycle shop, is an expert at making things run better — except when it comes to his wife’s health. His wife’s doctor prescribed the muscle relaxer, Soma, after neck surgery, but he said Walgreens refused to fill it.
“They say, ‘We don’t feel comfortable filling the prescription,'” Giarrusso said. “They make us feel like drug addicts.”
FROM WESH NEWSROOM ORLANDO FLORIDA 2015
MORE RANNAZZISI ABUSES AND CORRUPTION OF DRUG MEDICATION PROTOCOLS
Helena B. Hansen, an assistant professor in the Department of Psychiatry at New York University, examines the recent history of White opioids to show how a very different system for responding to the drug use of Whites has emerged, in which addiction is treated primarily as a biomedical disease.
Meanwhile, more punitive systems that govern the drug use of people of color have remained intact. At this seminar, Dr. Hansen argues that public concern about White opioid deaths creates an opportunity to reorient U.S. drug policy toward public health for all—and make proven harm reduction strategies widely available.”
Dr. Hansen argues that public concern about White opioid deaths creates an opportunity to reorient U.S. drug policy toward public health for all—and make proven harm reduction strategies widely available.
@lauraphylmills: 60 Minutes Fails to Represent Pain Patient Perspective. 3/5/2019
“In a Feb. 24 segment, CBS’s 60 Minutes accused the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) of igniting the overdose epidemic in the United States with its “illegal approval of opioids for the treatment of chronic pain.” While the program highlighted the adverse consequences of misleading pharmaceutical marketing and lax government oversight, this segment failed to consider the perspective of patients who legitimately use opioids for pain, stigmatized them as drug-seekers, and propagated misconceptions about the overdose crisis, such as the idea that opioid treatment for chronic pain is indisputably illegitimate and is driving overdose deaths in the US.” See link
In 2017 Former Utah Senator
ORIN HATCH
This video is the game-changer that exposes the nature of DEA/DOJ abuses in targeting BLACK OWN PHARMACIES: Senator Hatch on DEA and Opioid Crisis and Abuse| C-SPAN.org
https://www.c-span.org/video/?435395-3/senator-hatch-dea-opioid-crisis
ThESE videoS more than demonstrates Mr. RanNaziziSI’S abuses AND CORRUPTION
CANCER PATIENTS DENIED MEDICATIONS FROM WESH NEWS ORLANDO, FLORIDA
The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration is making plans for a major expansion of its monitoring of prescriptions for opioids and other controlled substances, with the goal of identifying virtually every prescriber, pharmacy, and patient in the country that shows signs of drug diversion or abusing their medication. (5)
In a request for proposal (RFP) made in early September, the DEA asked software contractors to submit bids for the creation of a nationwide data system that would track “a minimum of 85 percent of all prescriptions” for Schedule II through V controlled substances. The RFP was first reported by the website Filter. (1)
Critics say the surveillance program will have a chilling effect on many healthcare providers, who are already fearful of being flagged by law enforcement for prescribing and dispensing opioids and other medications to patients suffering from pain and other illnesses.
“DEA agents have no business second-guessing health care providers’ decisions on medical needs and patient care. That’s a job for state licensing boards – and only when there is a valid complaint to investigate.”
Mr. Rannazzisi is not a whistleblower (we have confronted him before at one of his forums). Mr. Joseph Rannazzisi, misguided policies have injured many law-abiding people and must be examined by Congressional Oversight and Investigation.
THE FORM: THE TESTIMONY OF THE FILTERED NEGROE DIVERSION INVESTIGATOR RICHARD JAMES ALPERT
JANUARY 28, 2019
Thus, the testimony of Richard James Alpert in the matter of Pronto Pharmacy LLC, Tampa Florida January 28, 2019, demonstrates their gross incompetence and failure to investigate. If these two would have investigated, they would have easily found the people of Pronto Pharmacy LLC always adhered to the rules, regulations, and laws which govern pharmacy.
We demand that the CSA certificate of Pronto Pharmacy LLC., be returned unrestricted, and both Alpert and Sullivan be removed from employment from the Federal Government for fraudulent misrepresentation and abuse of authority.
JUDGE DOWD: And is it your job, is it part of your investigation in these cases to reach out to the prescribing physicians to determine if there’s a legitimate medical reason to justify the prescription, the opioid or whatever that’s actually prescribed? Is that part of your investigation?
DI ALPERT: That wasn’t part of my investigation. No sir.
Mr.Sisco: Okay. So you talked to the patients, right?
DI Alpert: Did I talk to the patients?
Mr.Sisco: Yes, sir.
DI Alpert: No, sir
Mr.Sisco: You didn’t talk to the patients?
DI Alpert: No, sir
LOW HANGING FRUIT
FOR NOW,
YOU ARE WITHIN THE NORMS
REFERENCES: PETER COY:
The required audio narrative to be listened to by all readers of this article presentation is from Bloomberg Business-week, By Peter Coy, June 4, 2020, 5:00 AM EDT, “Racial Repression Is Built Into the U.S. Economy,” One hundred fifty years after the Civil War, the color of money is still white states:
“The economics profession has had a hard time getting a fix on racial discrimination. Quite apart from its cruelty, it seems … illogical…….the question is urgent because racial discrimination is the fuel of the anger and discontent that have spilled onto the streets. The trigger was the asphyxiation death of George Floyd in Minneapolis under the knee of police officer Derek Chauvin, who’s been fired and charged with second-degree murder”………Can economists help us find a way out of the chaos?
REFERENCES: OPIOID METABOLISM:
1. World Health Organization Cancer Pain Relief: With a Guide to Opioid Availability 2nd ed.Geneva, Switzerland: WHO Office of Publication; 1996. [Google Scholar]
2. Practice guidelines for acute pain management in the perioperative setting: an updated report by the American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Acute Pain Management. Anesthesiology2004;100(6):1573-1581 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
3. AGS Panel on Persistent Pain in Older Persons The management of persistent pain in older persons. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2002;50(6)(suppl):S205-S224 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
4. American Pain Society Guideline for the Management of Pain in Osteoarthritis, Rheumatoid Arthritis and Juvenile Chronic Arthritis 2nd ed.Glenview, IL: American Pain Society; 2002:184 [Google Scholar]
5. Andersson GB. Epidemiological features of chronic low-back pain. Lancet 1999;354(9178):581-585 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
REFERENCES: CHAD KOLLAS
1. Mattson CL, et al. MMWR, February 12, 2021. 70(6):202-7 (or see https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/pdfs/mm7006-H.pdf).
2. See https://twitter.com/BethDarnall/status/1366901343642742784.
3. See https://twitter.com/ChadDKollas/status/1365661703191560192.
4. See the CDC Pain Guidelines at https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/65/rr/rr6501e1.htm.
5. See https://twitter.com/supportprop/status/1362043581544947712.
REFERENCES: PETER J. PITTS
REFERENCES: PAT ANSTON, PAIN NEWS NETWORK
REFERENCES: MIKE BARNES ESQ
7. Snyder CA. An open letter to physicians who have patients with chronic nonmalignant pain. J Law Med Ethics 1994;22:204–5.
- Cited Here |
- PubMed | CrossRef
REFERENCES: CHARLES BLOW
