reported by youarewithinthenorms.com
NORMAN J CLEMENT , RPH, DDS, NORMAN L. CLEMENT PHARM-TECH, MALACHI F. MACKANDAL PHARMD, BELINDA BROWN-PARKER, IN THE SPIRIT OF JOSEPH SOLVO ESQ., INC.T. SPIRIT OF REV. IN THE SPIRIT OF WALTER R. CLEMENT BS., MS, MBA. HARVEY JENKINS MD, PH.D., DAVID STEIN, MD IN THE SPIRIT OF C.T. VIVIAN, JELANI ZIMBABWE CLEMENT, BS., MBA., IN THE SPIRIT OF THE HON. PATRICE LUMUMBA, IN THE SPIRIT OF ERLIN CLEMENT SR., EVELYN J. CLEMENT, WALTER F. WRENN III., MD., JULIE KILLINGSWORTH, RENEE BLARE, RPH, DR. TERENCE SASAKI, MD LESLY POMPY MD., CHRISTOPHER RUSSO, MD., NANCY SEEFELDT, WILLIE GUINYARD BS., JOSEPH WEBSTER MD., MBA, BEVERLY C. PRINCE MD., FACS., NEIL ARNAND, MD., RICHARD KAUL, MD., LEROY BAYLOR, JAY K. JOSHI MD., MBA, ADRIENNE EDMUNDSON, ESTER HYATT PH.D., WALTER L. SMITH BS., IN THE SPIRIT OF BRAHM FISHER ESQ., MICHELE ALEXANDER MD., CUDJOE WILDING BS, MARTIN NJOKU, BS., RPH., IN THE SPIRIT OF DEBRA LYNN SHEPHERD, BERES E. MUSCHETT, STRATEGIC ADVISORS
Think about it, People…On Kolodny and Prop…, the DOJ has adopted eugenics or Neo-Eugenics. As David SteinMD put it, they’ve resurrected and repackaged the old eugenic philosophy so that history doesn’t repeat itself, but it, sure enough, rhymes.….@marktwain
THE mindset of a serial killer AND THE RISE OF NEO-EUGENICS
The evidence presented in this comprehensive article sheds light on the dehumanization and insidious corruption within American medicine, orchestrated by Dr. Timothy E. King, MD, and his accomplices in the healthcare insurance industry and rogue governmental agencies. The destruction of countless healthcare professionals’ lives and the endangerment of chronic pain patients due to King’s false expert testimony demand swift justice and accountability.
King’s Bizarre Fraudulent Patent Application HAS CAUSED DEATH CHARLES SZYMAN, MD
King patent the bizarre claim that his system can objectively determine whether a prescription is legitimate or not is ludicrous, bordering on the insane.
KING’S PATENT SUPPORTS THE EUGENIC THINKING THAT “ALL CHRONIC PAIN PATIENTS AND THEIR DOCTORS ARE SUB-HUMANS”
Specifically, his patent is without evidential support and contains the same flawed reasoning he used to have suspended the DEA licenses of thousands of medical practitioners, erroneously concluding, such as in the David Stein, MD case:
“Very often, a medical chart may show that the physician apparently does not care; the patient demands a narcotic, and they get it, which is totally inappropriate.”
King knows that the appropriateness of opiate dispensation can only be determined by the treating physician, in exactly the same way that a court case can only be determined by a judge or jury, the party best situated to weigh all the evidence in of opiate dispensation appropriateness.
Knowing there are no commonly accepted or published standards regarding opiate dispensation, Dr. Timothy E. King has nonetheless inserted verbiage into his patent application that evidences his attempts to make his opinion the standard of care and to cast all other opinions as criminal violations while DEA-DOJ, prosecutors, Courts have come to accept his work as Gospel:
“If an outside observer, e.g., a medical expert [Kind, looks at the same medical chart documentation the physician looked at and provided as foundational for their care of the patient, and the outside observer comes up with a different conclusion with regards to the legitimacy of the use of narcotics, then it is fair to hold the physician accountable … that they did not do that would be normal standard of care …”
QLARANT DEBUNKED!!! ALGORITHMS USED BY TIMOTHY E. KING, MD, IN THE PDMP SYSTEM DEBUNKED!!!
William Mapp, of Qlarant the company’s chief technology officer, stressed the final decision about what to do with that information is left up to people — not the algorithms.
Mapp said that “Qlarant’s algorithms are considered proprietary and our intellectual property” and that they have not been independently peer-reviewed.
“We do know that there’s going to be some error percentage, and we try to let our customers know,” Mapp said. “It sucks when we get it WRONG!!!!
DR. DAVID STEIN, MD., LAWSUIT AGAINST TIMOTHY E. KING
Thus, King’s knowingly fraudulent reasoning, if applied to the entire practice of medicine, would cause the criminal prosecution of all physicians whose clinical care did not adhere to the opinion of one self-appointed physician ‘czar’ in the relevant specialty.
In the case of David Stein, MD et al. King’s knowingly fraudulent reasoning caused Plaintiff Stein et al. to be illegally coerced into relinquishing the DEA license, and his opinion as to Plaintiff Stein that no reduction in pain with opiate dispensation constitutes evidence of physician wrongdoing is a knowing falsehood.
In this specific case, King knows that Defendant Stein’s patients experienced a reduction in pain because of the dispensed opiates and that if the opiates were discontinued, the pain would increase, causing insidious torture, suffering, and death.
THE BLACK STORK STORY OF DENYING AND WITHHOLDING TREATMENT BASED ON BIASES
“The silent film The Black Stork is released in 1917. Also screened under the alternate title Are You Fit To Marry?, this film is a fictionalization of the 1915 Baby Bollinger case in Chicago. The case occurred when Dr. Harry J. Haiselden of the German-American Hospital in Chicago faced trial after refusing surgery to the Bollinger infant, who was born with severe defects.
His refusal was determined to be a contributing factor in the infant’s death several days later. The film, in which Haiselden played himself, puts a pro-eugenics spin on the case.
The Black Stork was joined in theatres that year by two other strongly eugenic films, The Garden of Knowledge and Married in Name Only.
Black Stork was written by Haiseldon and journalist Jack Lait. The film tells the story of a man named Claude who has an inherited disease and marries despite warnings from his doctor. A child is born from the marriage who is severely disabled and requires surgery. However, the doctor refuses to do so, and Claude’s wife is granted a vision of her baby’s potential future.
In this future, the baby grows up with pain madness and turns to crime, and she concedes with the doctor’s decision to save her child this pain (Pernick, 1999). Black Stork frames a eugenic message with a mercy killing and is considered propagandistic in nature (Pernick, 1999).”
Timothy E. King’s overall strategy criminalize every aspect of all care
Timothy E. King’s overall strategy is to criminalize every aspect of all care provided by physicians whom the DEA and insurance industry have targeted, despite knowing that no commonly accepted or published standards exist for opiate dose dispensation due to the subjective nature of pain. Defendant King’s ‘Fraud on the Court’
DR. tiMOTHY E. KING THE mindset of a MENGELE AND REPACKAGING EUGENICS (NEO-EUGENIC)
When we dehumanize other, we conceive of them as subhuman animals or inanimate objects. This way of thinking enables us to treat the dehumanized population in ways that it would be morally impermissible to treat other human beings—for example, killing them, sterilizing them, or otherwise violating their basic human rights.
Conceiving other people as inanimate objects or nonhuman animals makes it morally permissible to treat them in ways that it is impermissible to treat fellow human beings.
Further, King provides some examples of what he views as illegitimate prescribing. King infers that certain conditions are risk factors for opioid use without providing evidence of causation. It’s important to note that association is not causation, especially when other co-morbidities are not properly factored in.
The inference is that lack of consideration of these associations constitutes criminal prescribing.
“Applicant started specifically looking at which mental health illnesses were associated with addiction overdose and considering that mental health was a risk factor that a prescribing doctor should know about, from the patient’s medical chart, and should take into account.” Another unsubstantiated conclusion without any supporting evidence to support it. “So, it stood to reason that if a patient comes in to see the doctor and has COPD, and is a smoker, and has respiratory depression, then it is more likely that this patient will have fewer reserves, and thus is more liable to an overdose.”
DEFENSE ATTORNEY RON CHAPMAN CROSS-EXAMINATION OF “THE RAT KING,” DR. TIMOTHY E. KING, MD
It should be understood that prescription opioids alone are not likely to be responsible for an increased death rate and that the cause is likely to be co-morbidities that may not be adequately controlled for in many studies. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31667741/
“In a nationally representative sample, opioid prescriptions were associated with increased short-term mortality only without adjustment for sociodemographics, health status, or utilization.
THE KING RAT KOLODNEY CONNECTION IN THE RESURECTION AND REPACKING OF EUGENICS
The relationship between prescription opioid use and mortality risk is more complex than previously reported, meriting further examination.”
In other instances, King demonstrates bias by only considering that the target physician is knowingly engaged in illegitimate prescribing.
“The target doctor can pull that patient’s PDMP data, which means that the target doctor knows that the patient is getting narcotics elsewhere, yet the target doctor goes ahead and prescribes narcotics to the patient anyway, then it can be safely concluded that the target doctor is prescribing narcotics “outside the usual course of medical practice”.
There may be several reasonable explanations. It often takes several days to input data into the PHYSICIAN DRUG MONITORING PROGRAM (PDMP), so the target doctor may not know if another prescription exists. The (PDMP) information may not have been pulled by staff in time for the doctor’s review. In many instances, the patient may have needed an opioid for surgery or an injury, and another treating physician prescribed it. This cannot be considered a criminal violation under most circumstances, but King doesn’t discuss any valid excuses.
DAVID STEINS, MD FOIA INTERVENTION
Another example, “For another example, a patient’s data shows that the patient was positive for oxycodone that they were being prescribed, but the data was negative for benzodiazepine that they were also being prescribed, and was also negative for any oxycodone metabolites; what that usually means is that the patient has likely scraped off a tiny bit of the oxycodone while they were in the bathroom and added it to the urine sample, thus the sample showed positive for oxycodone but not for the metabolites, i.e., the patient was not taking the oxycodone, and the target doctor knew that there was a “medication inconsistency”, or should have paid attention to that, but did not, because the data was in the chart! Yet, the next day, the target doctor went ahead and issued another prescription.”
As far as oxycodone is concerned, a positive UDS for oxycodone without metabolite can result for several reasons not discussed by King. For one, the patient may have been taking the medications inconsistently, and metabolites may not have been seen if the patient restarted the medication and the UDS was done before metabolites accumulated. Secondly, UDS does not necessarily detect all metabolites of oxycodone, and some people have different metabolic pathways.
Oxycodone glucuronides are not routinely tested on UDS, for example. Thirdly, some patients metabolize opioids more rapidly than others. And lastly, of course, laboratory error from improper laboratory procedures (calibration of equipment, etc.) or sample custody problems should be considered.
As far as giving the patient another prescription, it would be important to note that if the prescriber believed that the patient was taking some of their medications, it would be important to slowly taper the opioid in prefer to avoid the dangers of a precipitous withdrawal which could result in an MI, stroke, suicide, street medication use.
King’s patent is little more than a means of organizing data derived from medical records, pdmp, and arrest records. The bizarre claim that his system can objectively determine whether a prescription is legitimate or not is ludicrous, bordering on the insane.
In making a diagnosis, King claims that the causes of certain conditions can be conclusively determined. “Is the back pain caused by musculoskeletal factors, such as, for example, the patient being overweight, a smoker, aerobically deconditioned, presence of social stresses in the home or workplace, or marital stressors? The physician would be expected to look at these factors and determine that the patient’s problem may not require the use of chronic narcotics.” More often, when many factors are involved, one specific cause for a condition cannot be precisely determined. This is typical in patients with chronic pain.
APPEALS COURTS REJECT AND VACATE PHYSICIAN SENTENCING BASED ON MEDICAL EXPERTS’ FLAWED ANALYSIS AND TESTIMONY
“…The government may not use a small sample size to justify a much larger criminal punishment without explaining how that evidence satisfies its burden of proof. And courts must tread cautiously, too. At a minimum, any extrapolation must be shown to be reliable, and defendants must have a fair chance to challenge its reliability. Because Titus’s sentencing fell short, we will vacate his sentence and remand…”
King appears to make recommendations that are merely personal opinions and not based on scientific studies but, nonetheless can be determined by a chart review. Does this constitute criminal activity via illegitimate use? “If the patient, for instance, has not been cooperative with the treatment plan, e.g., has not lost weight, continues to eat unhealthily, and nothing has changed in their habitus, etc., then it is not appropriate for the doctor to prescribe narcotics.
A medical chart may often show that the physician does not care.” King does not provide any medical articles or studies that prove illegitimate use in any of the examples he cited.
King goes to ridiculous extremes when he claims he can divine a physician’s thoughts by simply reviewing a medical record. “Very often a medical chart may show that the physician apparently does not care: the patient demands a narcotic, and they get it, which is inappropriate.”
King also claims that his “invention” is effective. “The invention has been field tested for efficacy and legal foundation and improved incrementally. It has been recently highly modified to meet the requirements of legal prosecution, court acceptability, and medical accuracy, and has evolved into its current format.” If so, in view of the claims he has made as to the “invention’s” ability to determine whether a prescription is legitimate, he should be required to immediately divulge this information and show exactly how it was collected and proven to be effective.
DISMANTLE THE RAT KING NETWORK
The American medical system must be cleansed of such corrupt individuals who prioritize personal gain over the welfare of patients and physicians. Dr. David Stein, MD of Minnesota, writes in his notes;
“This case serves as a clarion call for reform, urging authorities to expose and dismantle the Rat King’s network of deception, restore innocent physicians’ livelihoods, and ensure ethical and compassionate healthcare delivery for all. Only through relentless pursuit of justice can we hope to reclaim the integrity and trust the medical profession rightly deserves.”
Conclusions
At this time, I urge that the medical board suspend Dr. King’s ability to act as an expert witness in federal court cases. He has clearly demonstrated bias and has a clear financial motivation to find the “target” physicians guilty of illegitimate prescribing.
REMEMBER THE PEOPLES OF HERERO AND NAM
I would also think that the board should review King’s own medical records and practices and determine whether King himself would pass his own “objective” standards. I am also fully aware of Roger Pellmann’s complaints and King’s false, misleading testimony he has given in federal court.
REMEMBER THE WORK OF DR. JOSEPH MENGELE, MD
FOR NOW, YOU ARE WITHIN
THE NORMS
DONATE TO SUPPORT THE DEFENSE OF HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS
SEND$100, $250, $500
TO ZELLE 3135103378
OR
CASH APP:$docnorm
