“EVIL DOESN’T SNARL AND HAVE HORNS IT WINKS AND
WEARS A TIE ALONG THE WAY”
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., 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
In The Case of Dr. Timothy King: A Recap of the Allegations
The controversy surrounding Dr. Timothy King, the “RAT KING,” has serious implications for the judicial system and the lives of healthcare professionals accused of opioid prescription misconduct. The saga of Dr. King’s involvement in various legal proceedings has garnered widespread attention and generated significant controversy.
The allegations against Dr. King, often referred to as the “Rat King,” center around his purported misuse of his expert status to perpetuate false narratives, biased interpretations, and unverified claims in federal courtrooms throughout the United States. These allegations were laid bare in a series of letters criticizing his actions and questioning the veracity of his expert testimony.
Those who have been closely following the developments of these cases have expressed concerns about Dr. King’s impartiality, credibility, and adherence to scientific principles in his capacity as a government expert on opioids and pain management.
Falsehoods and Misleading Statements: A Pattern of Deception
One of the core issues raised in these letters is Dr. King’s repeated use of false and misleading statements during court proceedings. An example cited pertains to Dr. King’s assertion that prescriptions of opioids should be deemed illegitimate if there is no objective evidence of functional improvement among patients. This premise, however, fails to account for the inherently subjective nature of pain – a critical factor in assessing the effectiveness of pain management.
Moreover, Dr. King’s purported bias comes to light when examining his stance on opioid addiction and the dangers associated with these medications. His sweeping statement that “opioid addiction and the dangers associated therein have been known for 3,000 years” raises questions about his willingness to acknowledge evolving scientific understanding and emerging research that challenges such a blanket assertion. Critics argue that this stance disregards nuanced insights into opioid usage and safety.
The Fallacy of Equivalencies: Challenging Dr. King’s Assertions
Another point of contention revolves around Dr. King’s use of morphine milligram equivalents (MMEs) to equate different opioids in terms of potency. Critics argue that this approach lacks a solid scientific basis and is more a product of convention than rigorous research. The fallacy of equianalgesic tables, derived largely from single-dose studies and expert opinion, underscores the questionable foundation on which Dr. King’s assertions rest.
Furthermore, Dr. King’s assertion that dosages exceeding 90 MMEs are associated with a 10-fold increase in drug overdoses has been met with skepticism. Critics highlight the lack of robust evidence supporting this claim and emphasize that such a statement oversimplifies the complex interplay between opioid dosages and overdose risk.
Implications of Dr. King’s Alleged Misconduct
Allegations of biased and false expert testimony underscore the need for transparency and integrity in legal proceedings. As the public continues to seek justice in opioid-related cases, it is crucial to ensure that expert witnesses like Dr. King adhere to rigorous scientific standards and unbiased practices to safeguard the integrity of the judicial process.(2)
Furthermore, the potential ramifications of Dr. King’s alleged bias extend beyond the courtroom. A systemic reliance on his testimony as a government expert may have inadvertently created a de facto standard of care that prescribers feel compelled to adhere to, potentially to the detriment of patient care and wellbeing. This influence may extend to insurance companies and other entities seeking guidance on opioid prescription practices.
FOR NOW, YOU ARE WITHIN
THE NORMS
END NOTES
1. Dr. Otmar Freiherr von Verschuer (16 July 1896 – 8 August 1969) a hero in American eugenics circles, functioned as a head of the Institute for Anthropology, Human Heredity and Eugenics was a German-Dutch human biologist and geneticist, having been funded by both the Carnagie and Rockerfeller foundation. who was the Professor of Human Genetics at the University of Münster until he retired in 1965, in May 1943 he wrote to the German Research Society
“…My assistant, Dr. Josef Mengele (M.D., Ph.D.), joined me in this research branch. He is presently employed as Hauptsturmführer (captain) and camp physician in the Auschwitz concentration camp. Anthropological testing of the most diverse racial groups in this concentration camp is being carried out …”
2.
