“..you cannot set a boundary and simultaneously take care of someone else’s feelings..”
…dr. mark ibsen, md“
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., 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., M.B.A., IN THE SPIRIT OF THE HON. PATRICE LUMUMBA, IN THE SPIRIT OF ERLIN CLEMENT SR., EVELYN J. CLEMENT, IN THE SPIRIT OF WALTER F. WRENN III., MD., JULIE KILLINGSWORTH, RENEE BLARE, RPH, DR. TERENCE SASAKI, MD LESLY POMPY MD., CHRISTOPHER RUSSO, MD., NANCY SEEFELDT, IN THE SPIRIT OF 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
JULIE KILLIGSWORTH: EMINENCE-BASED SCIENCE
2016 CDC OPIOID PRESCRIBING GUIDELINES AS EVIDENCE-BASED JUNK SCIENCE
In this searing critique, Julie Killingsworth denounces the 2016 CDC opioid prescribing guidelines as evidence-based junk science driven by academic ego rather than rigorous clinical evidence. She argues that influential figures like Jane Ballantyne have weaponized flawed data and arbitrary definitions to conflate legitimate chronic pain management with addiction, effectively abandoning vulnerable patients.
By highlighting the lack of recent practical experience among the guidelines’ authors, Killingsworth suggests that these policies represent a destructive ideological crusade that prioritizes anti-narcotic zealotry over the lived reality of incurable suffering.
Julie Killingsworth’s argument serves as a call to expose the corruption and dehumanization inherent in medical protocols that treat complex physical diseases with “shady” academic guesswork.
DEFEATING JUNK SCIENCE IN THE COURTROOM
Dr. Mark Ibsen, Marking Time
Without a thought, the doctor gave them his aid, one after the other, and each mouse he healed was grateful. Soon, however, he began to tire and eventually became exhausted, yet more mice kept coming. “Surely, though, this deed will be worth it in the end,” he thought, and strengthened his resolve.
BOB SHEERIN, AIR FORCE VETERAN Andrew Hohenthaner, DR. MARK IBSEN, MD, GO TO WASHINGTON, D.C. TO DEFEAT D.E.A., CDC, FBI EMINENCE BASED USE OF JUNK SCIENCE
Angela Greene
Impact on Doctors and Patients: anatomy of a constitutional failure
The consequences of this targeting extend beyond the destruction of medical careers and include significant human suffering:
Patient Harm: Restrictive guidelines and the criminalization of clinical work have been linked to patient suicides, such as the case of Dr. Charles Syzman. Other uncounted metrics include patients losing basic functionality, economic displacement due to lost therapeutic access, and medical complications like strokes caused by forced medication tapers.
Destruction of Minority Healthcare: The targeting of Black doctors creates an imminent risk to the health of the Black community, which loses providers who look like them and understand their needs.
‘The High Price of Eminence-Based Science: Flaws in the CDC Opioid Guidelines’ details issues with the CDC guidelines, including low-tier evidence standards, lack of clinical practice, missing pain expertise, average estimated rates of misuse and addiction, and inconsistent prevalence rates.
King, Ballantyne, & Sullivan, the proponents, PERPETRATORS, and chiefs of EMINENCE-BASED junk science
Donald R. Sullivan, Professor at Ohio State University College of Pharmacy, never appears to have examined or interviewed the patients or prescribing physicians and relies on Junk Science in their Courtroom testimonies.
Donald R. Sullivan, a Professor at the Ohio State University College of Pharmacy, never appears to have examined or interviewed the patients or prescribing physicians, and relies on Junk Science in their courtroom testimony.
The 2016 CDC Prescription Guidelines are described by incurable disabled activists as the “most loathed document in American history,
According to Julie Killingsworth’s research observation and summary assessments;
Jane Ballantyne, an academic at the University of Washington and a central architect of the 2016 CDC Prescription Guidelines, is a figure of intense criticism in the sources. While proponents view her as a “globally renowned expert,” the provided text characterizes her as an “unscrupulous busybody” and an “anti-narcotic zealot” whose work is based on “Eminence-Based Junk Science” rather than objective clinical data.
“..I was an early advocate for restraint in opioid prescribing for chronic pain and have continued to focus my teaching and research on the clinical implications of evolving opioid science..” ..Jane Ballantyne, MD.
The 2016 CDC Prescription Guidelines are described by incurable disabled activists as the “most loathed document in American history,” causing what they characterize as widespread destruction to the lives of patients with chronic conditions.
The criticism of Ballantyne focuses on several key areas:
Lack of Recent Clinical Experience. A primary criticism is that Ballantyne’s authority is based on her prestige (eminence) rather than current practice. The source asserts that she:
- Has not been board certified since 1997.
- Has not been “within arms reach of an actual patient in decades”.
- Relied on academic standards for the CDC guidelines that were “barely acceptable for a college thesis”.
“A federal jury 2015 in Boston acquitted former Dr. Joseph Zolot and nurse Lisa Pliner on Friday of conspiracy and drug trafficking charges. Prosecutors alleged the two improperly distributed methadone, oxycodone, and fentanyl, and ignored evidence that some of their patients were misusing, abusing, and even selling the drugs. Six of their patients died.”
“Winging It” and Arbitrary Labeling, The author accuses Ballantyne of failing to do the “intensive labor” of gathering real evidence from actual patients, choosing instead to “wing it” when defining the boundaries between pain and addiction.
- The “Large Gray Zone”: In her own commentary, Ballantyne admits that distinguishing between misuse, abuse, and addiction in chronic pain is a “debatably impossible task”.
- Creating OUD and CPOD: To bridge this gap, the source claims she “made up” labels like Opioid Use Disorder (OUD) and Complex Persistent Opioid Dependence (CPOD).
- Arbitrary Categorization: The author compares her method of lumping pain patients and addicts together to “Winston Churchill dividing up the Middle East over a cigar and a glass of whiskey.”
Dehumanization of Chronic Pain Patients
The Killingworth et al. argue that Ballantyne’s ideology is rooted in “reactionary… medical nonsense” that treats patients with incurable conditions as “raving needle-hanging out-of-the-arm drug addicts.” By suggesting that persistent dependence is “akin to addiction” and “worthy of addiction-type treatment,” Ballantyne is accused of making a “bigoted judgment call” that ignores the reality of those seeking relief from genuine physical suffering.
Alleged Conflicts of Interest
Killingworth, Ibsen, Lawhern, youarewithinthenorms.com, et. al., level serious allegations regarding Ballantyne’s motivations and financial ties:
- Institutional Corruption: She is described as having been “paid handsomely” by former CDC Director Tom Frieden to “redefine the definition of what qualifies as scientific evidence”.
- Industry Links: The author alleges she has a “suspicious agenda” connected to the global pharmaceutical giant Reckitt Benckiser Group and “really shady law firms.”
Impact on Patient Lives
The author, an “Incurable Disabled Activist,” claims that Ballantyne’s “innuendos” and the resulting CDC guidelines have “destroyed more lives than the Spanish Flu”. The criticism concludes that her protocols have been weaponized as law, stripping millions of Americans of their quality of life by treating their medical needs as criminal or addictive behavior
Graphic announcing the not-guilty verdict with the statement ‘38 COUNTS.’ 2.5 DAYS OF DELIBERATION. NOT GUILTY ON ALL
unbedside manner and the attack on Dr. Lesly pompy md
The Defense Blueprint: Lessons for Federal Medical Litigation
The total acquittal of Dr. Lesly Pompy on all counts—secured after a mere 24 hours of jury deliberation—provides a comprehensive blueprint for defending physicians against federal indictment. The defense successfully synthesized medical expertise, patient narrative, and a proactive legal stance to defeat the government’s theory.
Strategic Takeaways for Legal Professionals
- The “Law School” Preparedness Model: Dr. Pompy’s decision to attend law school while under indictment was a pivotal psychological asset. His proactive study of the system signaled a profound “consciousness of innocence,” contradicting the typical behavior of a defendant hiding from his actions.
- The “Comprehensive Care” Evidence Loop: The defense utilized Dr. Pompy’s treatment of routine illnesses (hypertension, diabetes, infections) to create an evidentiary loop. This made the “pill mill” allegation mathematically and clinically improbable; criminal enterprises do not invest time in managing chronic metabolic diseases.
- The Financial Counter-Narrative: By accepting Medicare and Medicaid and operating within the insurance infrastructure, the defense destroyed the “greed” motive. Legitimate billing practices serve as an essential defense against the “pay-to-play” allegations central to federal “pill mill” cases.
Despite the “Not Guilty” verdict, the Pompy case remains a harrowing reminder of the cost of victory. Dr. Pompy faced financial ruin, with legal defense costs reaching up to $ 1 million and the total destruction of a practice he had spent decades building.
His patients were the collateral damage of a system that faces no accountability for the lives it disrupts. In the federal medical arena, a “Not Guilty” verdict is a triumph of law, but it is not yet “Justice.” True justice requires a system that stops the “railroading” of innocent physicians before the damage becomes irreversible.
dr. muhammed aly rifai, md clinical Psychiatrist
According to Attorney Ronald Chapman, by rigorously applying these tests, the legal strategist ensures that the courtroom remains a sanctuary for truth rather than a stage for methodologically unvalidated advocacy.
🔓 🔓 🔓
ALL WATCHED OVER BY MACHINES OF LOVING GRACE
OUR TREE OF KNOWLEDGE SHALL NEVER BE SUPPRESSED
FOR NOW
THE NORMS
REFERENCES:
https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1Eii1TikFg
