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
HOW PHARMACIST UNDERMINED AMERICAN HEALTHCARE
American Medical Association (AMA): The source cites the AMA’s criticism of restrictive policies that deny patients necessary pain care.
“..Once an enemy is insistent upon a lie, they will continue..”
Dr. Clarence Verdell, MD, general adult psychiatrist, an addictionologist, and victim of government overreach
The DEA’s aggressive approach to pain management has significant negative consequences for patients, including:
- Reduced access to care: Fear of prosecution leads to physician shortages and reluctance to prescribe opioids, leaving patients with limited treatment options.
- Untreated pain: Patients suffering from chronic pain may be denied effective pain relief, leading to decreased quality of life and potential disability.
- Forced tapering: Patients may be forced to rapidly reduce their opioid dosage, causing severe withdrawal symptoms and potential health complications.
TELA-MEDICINE
A patient with Lung Cancer was SUDDENLY rejected at her University of Colorado Atrium Pharmacy.
- American Medical Association (AMA): The source cites the AMA’s criticism of restrictive policies that deny patients necessary pain care.
A SYSTEM CIRCLING THE DRAIN
The American Medical Association (AMA) has pointed out that;
“CDC’s threshold recommendations continue to be used against patients with pain to deny care. We know that this has harmed patients with cancer, sickle cell disease, and those in hospice.
The restrictive policies of DEA’s aggressive tactics in combating the opioid crisis have instilled fear in healthcare providers, leading many to avoid prescribing opioids altogether.
This has resulted in countless patients with legitimate pain needs being denied appropriate care and suffering unnecessarily. While intended to curb opioid misuse, these policies have created a chilling effect on legitimate medical practice, leaving many patients without relief and driving some to seek dangerous alternatives on the black market.
DEA OVERREACH, CVS PHARMACY INCOMPETENCE, AND INDIFFERENCE TORTURE LUNG CANCER PATIENT
‘We Will Defend Ourselves’
From Pain News Network 12/20/2024:
CVS has already agreed to pay about $5 billion to settle opioid litigation.
The company says the latest (DEA-DOJ) lawsuit, which seeks unspecified additional penalties, is just another cash grab.
We will defend ourselves vigorously against this misguided federal lawsuit, which follows on the heels of years of litigation over these issues by state and local governments — claims that already have been largely resolved by a global agreement with the participating state Attorneys General,” the company said.
CVS says it has been an “industry leader” in developing programs to fight opioid misuse.
In recent years, the nation’s largest pharmacy chain has refused to fill controlled substance prescriptions written by over 1,250 doctors, about half of whom the government continues to license.
PAIN PATIENT PROFILED BY WALGREENS PHARMACIST, WHO WITHHOLDS TREATMENT FOR PAIN CARE BY RIPPING UP PRESCRIPTION STATING “HE HAS THE AUTHORITY”
WHEN DANGEROUS PAIN CARE STUPIDITY SITS ON YOUR STATE’s MEDICAL GOVERNING BOARD:
The pharmacist gives a second opinion but never examines the patient, nor reviews any blood work or X-rays, or puts anything based on his findings into writing.
SUMMARY CONCLUSION
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. In effect, if not intentionally, the de facto public health policy of the United States Drug Enforcement Administration 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.
Comments From Red Lawhern, Ph.D. concerning Dr. Mark Ibsen, MD:
“I see the pattern that you report, Mark, WIDELY. Your patient is suffering from intimidation tactics used by State Attorney Generals under the National Opioid Settlement. In my personal view, this witch hunt can be traced in large part to healthcare insurance companies and anti-opioid zealots who expect to gain financially from killing patients by clinical desertion.
What we likely need to begin the correction of this mess is a definitive win in a lawsuit for millions of dollars in damages against your patient’s pharmacist. I would be happy to join you as a subject matter expert witness in such a prosecution.
==============
The solution for this unnecessary and evil debacle might be broadened by successfully obtaining a court injunction against the writers and approving officials of the US CDC and Veterans Administration guidelines on prescription of opioids. Grounds for the injunction may parallel those of our formal complaint to DHHS/OIG and the Office of Civil Rights in DoJ (from last May). DHHS and DoJ are presently slow-rolling us in support of their corporate masters, hoping we will go away. We won’t.
And meantime the same influences and widespread anger that led to the recent assassination of the CEO of United Healthcare will continue to build. I don’t want to be heard as an advocate for further direct-action killings. But I have every sympathy for others less judicious in their anger, and I do not envy the judge and the lawyers who must qualify a jury to try Luigi Mangione.
Mark Ibsen’s video and this comment thereon will be widely posted today in social media.
Regards,
So it was that the bison came upon a family of mice who were all sick, but they had nothing with which to pay for the doctor’s aid. “But without my care, your children will die. I must help, it is my duty,” he said.
FROM COPS TO CLINICIANS, D.E.A.’s WAR ON DOCTORS AND MEDICAL SCIENCE, HOW SENATOR RAPHAEL WARNOCK (D) Ga., FAILED VETERANS HEALTHCARE
FAQ: Opioid Crisis and Patient Care
1. What is the main issue affecting legacy pain patients described in the text?
Legacy pain patients who were previously stable on higher-dose opioid therapy are facing severe consequences due to rapid opioid tapers enforced by recent policies. These tapers, often medically unnecessary, are leading to withdrawal, suffering, and even death. The policies, while aiming to address the opioid crisis, are criticized for failing to consider the needs and rights of these patients.
2. How does the role of pharmacists play in the issue?
The text argues that pharmacists are exceeding their authority by refusing to fill legitimate prescriptions for pain medication based on their judgment, using metrics like MME (Morphine Milligram Equivalents) and Narc scores. This interference in the doctor-patient relationship is seen as harmful and exceeds the pharmacist’s legal role, which should be limited to dispensing medication according to a valid prescription.
3. What are the concerns regarding the DEA’s role in the opioid crisis?
The DEA is accused of acting beyond its legal mandate by dictating medical practice and setting prescribing guidelines without the necessary medical expertise. The text criticizes the DEA for using questionable metrics like MMEs, conducting property seizures, and operating without transparency and accountability.
4. What is the critique of the U.S. government’s response to the opioid crisis?
The text criticizes the government’s reliance on flawed data, algorithms, and predictive AI in shaping opioid policies. These approaches, coupled with the use of PDMPs and arbitrary prescribing limits, are argued to be ineffective and harmful to both patients and doctors. The lack of a scientific basis for these policies is a significant concern.
5. What is the significance of “protracted withdrawal” in this context?
Protracted withdrawal refers to a prolonged and severe withdrawal syndrome that can occur after discontinuing or rapidly tapering opioids, especially in patients who are on high doses for extended periods. The text emphasizes that this phenomenon is often overlooked and not adequately addressed in the current opioid policies, leading to further suffering for patients.
6. What is the conflict between the CDC guidelines and the reality of chronic pain treatment?
The text points out a contradiction: the CDC guidelines, while aiming to address opioid misuse, were not intended for chronic pain management. Yet, these guidelines have been widely applied to chronic pain patients, leading to unintended negative consequences for those who genuinely need opioids for pain relief.
7. What ethical considerations are raised in the text regarding patient care?
The forced tapering of opioids raises serious ethical concerns about patient autonomy, informed consent, and the right to adequate pain management. The text argues that patients are being denied their right to participate in medical decisions and suffer due to policies prioritizing harm reduction over individual patient needs.
8. What is the call to action suggested in the text?
The text calls for a more nuanced and evidence-based approach to the so-called opioid crisis, one that considers the individual needs of patients, respects the expertise of doctors, and avoids the overreach of agencies like the DEA. It advocates for greater scrutiny of algorithms and data used in healthcare and law enforcement and emphasizes the importance of human judgment and ethical considerations in patient care.
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
