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., IN THE SPIRIT OF LEROY BAYLOR, JAY K. JOSHI MD., MBA, AISHA GARDNER, 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
Summary
Several sources criticize the current US opioid policy, arguing that it’s misguided and unethical. They contend that restrictions on opioid prescriptions are harmful to patients in pain and that the policy is based on flawed data and misinformation.
The sources highlight the work of Dr. Noah Nesin in Maine as a key example of this flawed approach, citing his influence on opioid policies and questioning his methods. Criticism is directed toward the media’s uncritical acceptance of this policy, and the authors call for donations to support legal challenges against it.
The overall argument is that the current approach is causing unnecessary suffering and needs reform.
THE GLADWELLIAN PROTOCOLS THE TIPPING POINT OF PAIN CARE DENIAL
For more than a decade, the US and international public has been hearing that prescription opioid pain relievers are always and forever a “BAD THING” — and that doctors and Big Pharma companies are supposedly responsible for an epidemic of addiction and drug overdose-related deaths.
richard “red” lawhern, ph.d
It almost turns my stomach. I’ll track down this jackass and send him a link to my recent paper on an “Indictment” of healthcare policy based on medical research.
In effect, if not intentionally, the de facto public health policy of the United States concerning the regulation of opioid pain relievers and of clinicians who employ them in pain management.
This has become one of intentionally restricting the availability of opioid therapies to patients and driving doctors who employ opioids out of practice or into prison – even when consistent with prescribing practices approved by the US Food and Drug Administration.
This article reviews and assesses the fraudulent medical work of Dr. Noah Nesin, MD, of Maine, and the Schmidt’s CSS Model: Compassionate Tapering published clinical and demographic data that, in the aggregate, reveal that the entirety of present US public health policy on the regulation of opioid pain relievers is fundamentally misdirected and wrong on both facts and ethics.
DR. NESIN’S CONCEPT COMPLETELY IGNORES THE PAIN OF SICKLE CELL DISEASE
BACKGROUND
Dr. Nesin serves as the chair of Maine’s Academic Detailing Advisory Committee, the body which oversees the Maine Independent Clinical Information Service, sits on the Advisory Committee for the Lunder Dineen Health Education Alliance of Maine, and on the Community Advisory Committee for Maine Health Access Foundation.
Dr. Nesin is also a member of Maine’s Opioid Clinical Advisory Group and Maine’s Governor has appointed him chair of the Maine Prescription Drug Affordability Board and also appointed him as a member of Maine’s Board of Licensure in Medicine. Dr. Nesin is the immediate Past-President of the Maine Public Health Association.
THE CENTER OF OF GLADWELLEAN IGNORANCE AND MIS-INFORMATION
Sadly, the Media’s embracement of Nessin’s disinformation and a gravitational ignorance of healthcare science and protocols are on trial in this video presentation.
OR SEND
TO CASH APP:$docnorm
ZELLE 3135103378
ALL WATCHED OVER BY MACHINES OF LOVING GRACE
BE SURE TO DONATE TO THE MARK IBSEN GOFUNDME DEFENSE FUND, WHERE THE SON ALWAYS RISES!!!
FOR NOW, YOU ARE WITHIN
THE NORMS
The Gladwellian Protocols: Unpacking the Opioid Crisis Narrative
Source 1: Excerpts from “Pasted Text”
I. The Prevailing Narrative: This section introduces the dominant public perception of the opioid crisis, attributing it to over-prescribing by doctors and pharmaceutical companies. It also highlights the author’s strong disagreement with this narrative.
II. Restricting Opioid Therapies: This section argues that US public health policy regarding opioid pain relievers is intentionally restrictive, hindering patient access and unfairly targeting prescribing physicians.
III. Dr. Noah Nesin’s Work: This section introduces Dr. Noah Nesin and his role in shaping Maine’s opioid policies, particularly highlighting the “Compassionate Tapering” model, which the author contends is discriminatory and ignores the needs of chronic pain patients.
IV. Dr. Nesin’s Background and Influence: This section provides biographical information on Dr. Nesin, emphasizing his extensive involvement in various healthcare committees and advisory boards, including those related to opioid policy.
V. Criticisms of the CDC and Misinformation: This section accuses the CDC of spreading misinformation about the opioid crisis and criticizes Dr. Nesin’s role in perpetuating this misinformation, labeling his work as “Gladwellian ignorance.”
VI. Call to Action and Support: This section urges readers to donate to legal defense funds for those challenging current opioid policies, specifically mentioning Dr. Norm and Mark Ibsen. It also directs readers to resources for further information and engagement, including a YouTube video, website, and musical piece.
VII. References: This section lists six sources cited by the author to support his claims, including articles on the opioid crisis, prescribing practices, and the impact of opioid settlements.
Source 2: Kenneth Prettingil CPP’s TikTok Commentary
I. Outrage at Dr. Nesin’s Video and Presentation: This section expresses outrage at a video featuring Dr. Noah Nesin discussing Maine’s opioid program. The author specifically criticizes a PowerPoint presentation by NP Eva Quirion, arguing that their approach is discriminatory towards chronic pain patients.
Source 3: YouTube Video “ALL WATCHED OVER BY MACHINES OF LOVING GRACE”
This source is a YouTube video, the content of which cannot be analyzed from the provided information. The title, however, suggests a possible critique of technological influence on healthcare and societal norms.
REFERENCES:
Briefing Doc: Opioid Crisis and the Targeting of Prescribing Physicians
Main Theme: This collection of sources argues vehemently against the prevailing narrative surrounding the US opioid crisis, which blames over-prescribing physicians and pharmaceutical companies. Instead, it positions the crisis as a result of flawed public health policy and misguided media narratives, focusing specifically on the case of Dr. Noah Nesin in Maine.
Key Arguments:
- Opioid prescribing is NOT the root cause of the crisis: The author, Richard Lawhern, Ph.D., strongly refutes the notion that doctors are to blame for the opioid crisis. He states, “This has become one of intentionally restricting the availability of opioid therapies to patients and driving doctors who employ opioids out of practice or into prison – even when consistent with prescribing practices approved by the US Food and Drug Administration.” He further argues that the data actually shows a decrease in opioid prescriptions alongside an increase in overdose deaths, primarily driven by illicit fentanyl. (Sources 1, 4, 5)
- Dr. Nesin and the Maine Model are presented as the embodiment of harmful policy: Kenneth Prettingil criticizes Dr. Nesin and his colleagues for creating discriminatory opioid programs in Maine. The video presentation by “docnorm” labels Dr. Nesin’s work as “fraudulent” and “disinformation” and blames the media for uncritically accepting this narrative. (Sources from Youtube and TikTok)
- The CDC is accused of spreading misinformation: The author claims that the CDC’s guidelines on opioid prescribing are based on faulty information and have led to detrimental consequences for chronic pain patients. (Source 3)
- The “Gladwellian” influence is blamed for fueling the fire: The term “Gladwellian” appears to be used pejoratively, likely referencing Malcolm Gladwell’s book “The Tipping Point,” which popularized the concept of social epidemics. This suggests the author believes the current narrative around the opioid crisis is a product of oversimplified and sensationalized media coverage.
Important Facts:
- Dr. Noah Nesin holds multiple influential positions in Maine’s healthcare system, including chair of the Academic Detailing Advisory Committee and member of the Opioid Clinical Advisory Group. He has been appointed by the Governor to various boards related to healthcare policy.
- The author cites several of his own articles and research papers to support his claims, highlighting the need to consult scientific evidence rather than relying solely on mainstream narratives.
- There is a call to action for donations to support legal defense funds for those impacted by the crackdown on opioid prescribing.
Quotes:
- “It almost turns my stomach… In effect, if not intentionally, the de facto public health policy of the United States concerning the regulation of opioid pain relievers and of clinicians who employ them in pain management.” (Richard Lawhern, Ph.D.)
- “Where is the acknowledgment of true pain patients…” (Kenneth Prettingil)
- “Sadly, the Media’s embracement of Nessin’s disinformation and a gravitational ignorance of healthcare science and protocols are on trial in this video presentation.” (“docnorm” YouTube video)
Overall Impression: This briefing document presents a passionate and contrarian perspective on the US opioid crisis. While it raises some valid concerns about the potential negative consequences of overly restrictive opioid policies, the tone is highly accusatory and relies heavily on personal opinions and interpretations of data. Further investigation and analysis of the cited sources and opposing viewpoints are necessary to form a comprehensive understanding of this complex issue.
LAWHERN’S CITINGS AND PUBLICATIONS
1. Lawhern RA, “Doctors Prescribing to their Patients Did Not Create the US Opioid Crisis”, American Council on Science and Health, January 9, 2023, https://www.acsh.org/news/2023/01/09/doctors-prescribing-their-patients-did-not-create-us-opioid-crisis-16787
2. Lawhern, RA, “US Opioid Guidelines 2022 – More and Less Than Meets the Eye” Medical Research Archives of the European Society of Medicine, Vol 8, No 11 (2023) August issue. https://esmed.org/MRA/mra/issue/view/155
3. Lawhern, RA, “Oversight on Revision of US CDC Opioid Guidelines: A Process Pre-Destined to Fail”. Nursing and Primary Care. 2023; 7(5): 1-10. https://www.scivisionpub.com/pdfs/oversight-on-revision-of-us-cdc-opioid-guidelines-a-process-pre-destined-to-fail-2988.pdf
4. Lawhern, RA, “Everything the government thinks it knows about the opioid crisis is wrong”, KevinMD, July 1, 2023, https://www.kevinmd.com/2023/07/everything-the-government-thinks-it-knows-about-the-opioid-crisis-is-wrong.html
5. Lawhern, RA, and Nadeau, SE, “Relationship Between Opioid Prescribing and Overdose Mortality”, Daily Remedy, October 27, 2024, https://www.daily-remedy.com/relationship-between-opioid-prescribing-and-overdose-mortality/
6. Irving, P, “The National Opioid Settlement Is Causing Drug Shortages” Pain News Network, September 11, 2023, https://www.painnewsnetwork.org/stories/2023/9/11/the-national-opioid-settlement-is-causing-drug-shortages
NESIN’S GRAY AREAS OF DECEPTION
FAQ: Opioid Crisis and Healthcare Policy
1. What is the central argument against the prevailing narrative surrounding the opioid crisis?
The main argument challenges the widely accepted belief that doctors and pharmaceutical companies are solely responsible for the opioid crisis. It asserts that this narrative is overly simplistic and fails to consider other factors, such as the complex nature of pain management and the role of public health policies.
2. Who is Dr. Noah Nesin and why is he a central figure in this discussion?
Dr. Noah Nesin is a prominent figure in Maine’s healthcare system, holding influential positions on various boards and committees. He’s criticized for his role in shaping opioid policies, particularly his involvement in the Maine Independent Clinical Information Service and the Schmidt’s CSS Model: Compassionate Tapering. Critics argue these initiatives are discriminatory against chronic pain patients and contribute to the restriction of opioid therapies.
3. How is the Center for Disease Control (CDC) involved in this issue, and what criticisms are leveled against them?
The CDC is criticized for disseminating misinformation and promoting policies based on flawed data. Critics argue that the CDC’s guidelines on opioid prescribing are overly restrictive and fail to adequately address the needs of legitimate pain patients. These guidelines, they argue, have contributed to the widespread fear and stigma surrounding opioid medications, ultimately harming patients who rely on them for pain relief.
4. What is the Gladwellian Protocol and why is it considered problematic?
The term “Gladwellian Protocol” seems to be used here as a pejorative term to describe the oversimplification and misrepresentation of complex issues, possibly alluding to Malcolm Gladwell’s popularization of the “tipping point” concept. In this context, it criticizes the tendency to reduce the opioid crisis to a single cause (doctors overprescribing) and propose simplistic solutions, ignoring the nuanced realities of pain management and addiction.
5. What is the relationship between opioid prescribing and overdose mortality, and how is this relationship often misrepresented?
Critics argue that the direct link often drawn between opioid prescribing rates and overdose deaths is misleading. While reducing prescriptions might seem like a logical solution, it’s argued that this doesn’t address the root causes of addiction and can actually push patients towards more dangerous alternatives, such as illicit fentanyl.
6. What impact has the National Opioid Settlement had on pain patients?
The National Opioid Settlement, while intended to hold pharmaceutical companies accountable, has been criticized for unintended consequences. One major concern is that it has contributed to drug shortages, making it even harder for patients with legitimate pain conditions to access necessary medications.
7. What alternative perspectives are being offered to challenge the dominant narrative?
Alternative perspectives emphasize the need for a more balanced approach to pain management that acknowledges the complexities of both addiction and chronic pain. They advocate for policies that prioritize patient-centered care, access to appropriate treatment options, and a reduction of stigma surrounding pain medications.
8. Where can I find more information and resources on this topic?
The provided text references several articles by Dr. Richard Lawhern, a vocal critic of current opioid policies. You can find his work on platforms like the American Council on Science and Health and KevinMD. Additionally, resources like Pain News Network offer insights into the impact of these policies on patients. Remember to evaluate all sources critically and consult with healthcare professionals for personalized advice.
The sources you provided indicate that the current US public health policy on opioid pain relievers is misguided and causing negative impacts on pain management and patient care.
Here are some of the effects of these policies, according to the sources:
●
Restriction of Opioid Therapies and Negative Consequences for Doctors
The policies have intentionally restricted access to opioid therapies for patients. Doctors who prescribe opioids are being driven out of practice or facing legal repercussions, even when their prescribing practices align with FDA guidelines. This creates a chilling effect on the medical community and discourages doctors from adequately treating patients with pain.
●
Misinformation and Lack of Scientific Basis
The sources argue that policies are based on misinformation and a disregard for healthcare science and protocols. They point to figures like Dr. Noah Nesin, who is accused of promoting disinformation about opioids. This lack of a scientific basis for policies leads to ineffective and potentially harmful approaches to pain management.
●
Drug Shortages
The National Opioid Settlement, aimed at addressing the opioid crisis, has ironically contributed to drug shortages. This further limits the options available to patients in need of pain relief.
The sources highlight a critical perspective that challenges the prevailing narrative surrounding the opioid crisis and its impact on pain management. They argue that current policies, driven by misinformation and a focus on restricting opioid access, have negatively impacted patients and medical professionals. This perspective emphasizes the need for evidence-based policies that prioritize patient care and access to appropriate pain relief options.
Here are the ethical and scientific controversies involved in the regulation of opioid pain relievers and the role of Dr. Noah Nesin in shaping these policies, as discussed in the sources:
Ethical and Scientific Controversies Surrounding Opioid Policy
●
The sources argue that the prevailing public health policy in the United States regarding opioid pain relievers is fundamentally flawed, both ethically and scientifically. This policy is characterized by the intentional restriction of opioid therapies, leading to difficulties for patients in accessing necessary pain management and driving doctors who prescribe opioids out of practice or into legal trouble, even when their practices align with FDA guidelines.
●
The sources contend that the current policy is based on misinformation and ignores scientific evidence, specifically regarding the relationship between opioid prescribing and overdose mortality. They highlight the work of Dr. Richard Lawhern, who argues that doctors prescribing opioids to their patients did not create the US opioid crisis.Lawhern’s research, cited in the sources, suggests that the focus on restricting opioid prescriptions is misdirected and fails to address the root causes of the opioid crisis.
●
The sources criticize Dr. Noah Nesin’s role in shaping opioid policy in Maine, alleging that his work is discriminatory and lacks acknowledgment of the needs of legitimate pain patients. Kenneth Prettingil, in a TikTok video, expresses outrage over a video and presentation by Nesin, which he believes demonstrates a discriminatory approach towards pain patients. The sources further accuse Nesin of spreading disinformation and contributing to the “gravitational ignorance” surrounding healthcare science and protocols related to pain management.
The sources present a strong critique of the current US approach to opioid regulation, highlighting ethical concerns about patient access to pain relief and scientific disagreements regarding the causes of the opioid crisis. Dr. Noah Nesin’s role in shaping opioid policy is specifically called into question, with allegations of bias against legitimate pain patients and the propagation of misinformation.
Screw these people, honestly! Do they think they are keeping any kind of faith they should be, when they are behaving in unethical manners? Patients everywhere are dying, wishing they might die, and having to save themselves all too often. So I will address something affecting me at the moment. It is no secret that I believe a few docs in each state should have shut the CDC down in 2016. A small group of doctors in each state could have done it. They would have been heard in a way patients are not. Then it would have been back to the drawing board for the DEA, Prop, et al.
Patient care has a huge chasm in it now where legacy pain patients are being dropped with no parachute. Did these people ever think about how difficult life might become for pain patients on higher dose opioid therapy and doing well? With these super-fast tapers (medically unnecessary btw) they should have known there would be big problems. Some of us are barely surviving, and it has become necessary for us to think outside the box. If the doctors are going to react by strictly following contracts that harm many of us, they need to understand that we shouldn’t have to rely on substances unapproved by the FDA or otherwise questionable. I’m not telling people not to save themselves. I am saying we shouldn’t have to when there are legal substances that would help us. Yet many doctors will refuse rescue meds in a time when a patient needs them due to poor health resulting directly from withdrawal from legal opioids which kept them stable medically. Even during the phase of lowering the medications to where they are no longer as effective requires some thought. I know that many of our good doctors have gone to jail, something that should NEVER have happened in a democracy. But if those left march in line like sheep and discard patients like trash, nothing can be accomplished. I suspect that many of us experience protracted withdrawal, especially those who once had good doses of a long acting opioid along with an opioid that releases immediately for the rougher pain. Why has nobody decided that since these tapers are not being done in any medically sound way, they needed to think of ways to support us rather than just discarding us or saying we are somehow not complying? WE DID NOT VOLUNTEER OR AGREE TO THESE TAPERS! That is supposed to be the first consideration.
Why are states allowing the complete ignoring of parts of the CDC’s fraudulent guidelines? I am referring to the fact that their scheme was not to involve the treatment of chronic pain. That is exactly who this is affecting the most.
I’m close to the point of realizing I will have no choice but surgery, and I wonder why it had to be now, instead of when things were still sane. If I can’t find somebody to get me into better condition again (treat my pain, really treat it!) then I will be in no condition to undergo neck surgery to keep that pesky disk in my neck from severing my spinal cord. So yeah, screw that. I won’t be having any surgery without a surgeon who knows to treat the pain post surgically and possibly before I am fit for surgery. Think outside the box…..please!