Senior citizens are rattled by news that Medicare telehealth coverage could expire next month

Senior citizens are rattled by news that Medicare telehealth coverage could expire next month

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/senior-citizens-medicare-telehealth-coverage-expiring-rcna193487

Advocates say the coverage has bipartisan support, but efforts to make it permanent have been unsuccessful.

For Kaye Peterson, 67, the expansion of Medicare telehealth coverage during Covid-19 was a godsend.  

Peterson, who has Type 1 diabetes and lives in an assisted living facility, no longer drives, so she depends on extended family when she needs in-person appointments with specialists who are roughly an hour away from her home in Lebanon, Kentucky. But for routine primary care, she simply uses her iPhone. 

Soon that may no longer be possible. On March 31, Medicare telehealth “flexibilities” established during the Covid-19 pandemic are set to expire. Recent social media posts, including the one that alerted Peterson to the change, have prompted an outcry from beneficiaries and their families who rely on the service. 

“I’m in a care facility full of people in wheelchairs and on oxygen,” Peterson said. “It’s just a commonsense rule that needs to be extended.” 

Health advocates say the telemedicine options now at risk are particularly important for older adults who are homebound or, like Peterson, live in rural communities far from their doctors’ offices.  

The current flexibilities were enacted when Congress waived restrictions in March 2020 under President Donald Trump and were extended several times under President Joe Biden.

If Congress doesn’t act, on April 1, the previous rules will largely be restored, which means most telehealth appointments will be covered only if they’re provided in person at rural medical facilities.

There will be exceptions for certain services, such as mental health care and some visits for home dialysis treatments. 

A lapse could have ramifications for millions of Medicare beneficiaries. Roughly 13% of the nearly 22 million people with traditional coverage received a telehealth service from October to December 2023. 

Dr. Cecil Bennett, a family medicine physician in Newnan, Georgia, outside Atlanta, estimates that half of his clinic’s patients are on Medicare. Some already have telehealth appointments scheduled months out. He often uses telehealth to deliver simple information, like lab results, and fears that some patients may miss necessary appointments if they require in-person visits, allowing conditions to worsen.  

There will be exceptions for certain services, such as mental health care and some visits for home dialysis treatments. 

A lapse could have ramifications for millions of Medicare beneficiaries. Roughly 13% of the nearly 22 million people with traditional coverage received a telehealth service from October to December 2023. 

Dr. Cecil Bennett, a family medicine physician in Newnan, Georgia, outside Atlanta, estimates that half of his clinic’s patients are on Medicare. Some already have telehealth appointments scheduled months out. He often uses telehealth to deliver simple information, like lab results, and fears that some patients may miss necessary appointments if they require in-person visits, allowing conditions to worsen.  

In a statement to NBC News, Sen. Lisa Blunt Rochester, D-Del., who co-introduced a bipartisan bill to solidify the provisions when she was in the House, described the flexibilities as “vital” — “especially for those in underserved and rural communities and those with accessibility or transportation barriers” — and said she is still fighting for permanent protections.

Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., whose viral social media posts brought attention to the looming deadline, said he plans to introduce similar legislation.  

“What is the rationale for this other than making life more difficult for many seniors?” Khanna said on X.

With the fate of telehealth still uncertain, Bennett is waiting to see whether the appointments he has booked can proceed.

“I really hope that Congress acts quickly,” he said. “I know that they kick the can down the road — I’m fine with that as long as they keep kicking the can.”

Why Reliable Opioid Death Data is Impossible

Why Reliable Opioid Death Data is Impossible

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2024/07/why_reliable_opioid_death_data_is_impossible.html

If we’ve learned anything from our national COVID experience, it’s that science is not a collection of fixed, eternal declarations. Tools and terminology useful in the process of discovery can also be instruments of confirmation. A microscope can be a portal to the unexpected, or a prop in a theatrical performance.

True crime documentaries and news reports of deaths often feature a statement such as, “toxicology was performed,” “toxicology is pending,” or “toxicology showed X, Y and Z.” The word, “toxicology,” has an aura of a thorough, definitive procedure.

Typically, “toxicology” is understood as analogous to drug screening the living, but methods and reliability are very different. Usually screening for the living is something like a 10-panel test of a fresh sample of urine, plasma, or serum (occasionally hair), with results for limited categories (positive for opioid could mean morphine, oxycodone, or codeine, other medications, or recently-consumed poppyseed cake). Cross-positive results can be caused by unrelated consumption, such as quinine in tonic water (false positive for opiates), ephedrine, fluoxetine, metformin, and pseudoephedrine (false positive for methamphetamine,) and the proton pump inhibitor pantoprazole (positive for marijuana).

Because of the multitude of conditions and processes particularly affecting human remains, post-mortem testing is vulnerable to widely varied confounding artifacts and processes. Decomposition and/or bacterial action can alter the location or concentration of drugs or metabolites, a process called postmortem redistribution. In addition, physical and chemical changes within the body, or subsequent contamination, can create or destroy chemicals. Burial can affect results.

Factors affecting results are not only numerous, but often impossible to discover in retrospect. Who could determine temperature changes in a room in the hours or days before a body was discovered?

For post-mortem drug testing, whole blood collected from the femoral artery is preferred as somewhat shielded from ongoing changes. If unavailable, other options — all more vulnerable to confounding factors — include blood from the heart, tissue from solid organs, fluids from other areas of the body (e.g, eye or stomach). Some professionals recommend sampling multiple locations to potentially piece together better data.

Not only is there no standard set of tests, there aren’t standardized protocols for performing tests or collecting samples. The National Association of Medical Examiners publishes a list of recommended standards, but following them isn’t mandatory. Forensic procedures vary widely by location (there are over 2000 death investigation offices in the U.S.).

Regarding post-mortem drug testing, one professional stated, “There is no reliable or obvious connection between concentrations measured in life and subsequent to death. Consequently, concentrations measured after death cannot generally be interpreted to yield concentrations present before death. The definition of lethal concentrations is extremely difficult.”

Even if post-mortem results could reliably indicate concentrations prior to death, it wouldn’t prove the drugs caused the death. Individual sensitivity to medications varies. Anaphylaxis can follow previous unremarkable exposure. Combining medications can increase or decrease absorption, or produce a toxic interaction. Because metabolizing opioids varies widely, and tolerance increases with use, some people are unharmed by a dose that would suppress respiration in others. Prescribed morphine could be detected in a patient who died of cancer or a pain patient who was a passenger in a fatal car crash.

One paper I read discussed eight deaths attributed to drugs. Potential candidates for the study were excluded if there was missing medical and/or social history, or advanced decomposition. All the subjects studied had positive post-mortem drug assays — and physical details consistent with other causes of death, e.g., pneumonia. All had pulmonary edema, three with foam and/or fluid in the lungs. One woman had a history of suicide attempts, and plastic over her face. A 16-year-old girl had a potentially deadly heart condition, myocardial fibrosis. The paper said results were, “not specific but suggestive for drug abuse” with “no distinct findings indicating intoxication or poisoning” and “not evocative of specific substance misuse.”

Beyond difficulties interpreting post-mortem tests, reason for skepticism of drug-death statistics is raised by the way data is collected and formatted. The CDC’s coding for opioid overdoses is often applied to cases including multiple drugs. Among individuals counted as opioid overdoses, 69.2-87.5% have 1-4 other drugs on the death certificate, with benzodiazepines involved in 77%. For years, CDC codes counted as “prescription opioid overdoses” deaths linked to opioids that included illegally-manufactured fentanyl, and diverted methadone (The vast majority of methadone is not prescribed, but administered via substance abuse treatment. Methadone prescribing for pain decreased sharply from 2009 to 2019). For years, deaths were being attributed to prescription drugs the decedents most likely never used.

Further complicating matters, claims of rising opioid deaths is the inconsistent data CDC receives. In some jurisdictions, and some timeframes, overdose as a cause of death didn’t even specify a drug. This was the case for 12% of overdose deaths in 2017-18, and in 19- 22% during 2012-13.

Keep in mind only 7.4% of U.S. dead are autopsied. But every decedent gets a cause of death. Numerous causes of death, such as cardiac arrhythmia, leave no physical clues. These unreliable statistics center on a small number (3%) of U.S. deaths. Years of data massively overstating prescription overdoses, have justified policies with devastating effects for the estimated 50.2 million Americans with chronic, severe pain and pain prescribers. The data has been used justifying massive federal drug control spending ($261.3 billion, 2012-2020 with equal spending by state governments).

Government anti-opioid efforts focus — not effectively — on teens and young adults. But most deaths in the opioid overdose category are in the 45-54 age group — more frequently prescribed opioids for chronic pain. Risk of death from all kinds of causes is higher in the 45-54 age group, chronic pain adds slightly elevated risk.

Opioid death statistics are always good for a headline. A 2018 Boston Globe article reported 1/4 of Massachusetts residents knew someone who died from opioids. Massachusetts opioid death total in 2017 was 1,977 — 0.0289% of the state population of 6,863,560. A little quick math suggests that, for 1/4 of MA residents to know one of those unfortunate individuals, each decedent would have to have had approximately 867 friends and family (not counting out-of-state loved ones!). Massachusetts data available at the time could have shaped a very different article. The 2016 and 2017 totals — 2,107 and 1,977 respectively — showed opioid deaths had declined by 130 while Massachusetts’ population increased by 136,280.

It’s common that someone pointing out a flaw in a system or process, is met with demands that the criticism include recommendations for correction. Unfortunately, so many problems affect U.S. overdose death statistics — from unpredictable microbes, physical processes, and environmental conditions to the inconsistency in years-old data coding — that it’s not possible to even hypothesize a way to clean up the data. The best this observer can suggest is discontinuing use of fatally flawed statistics to drive federal policy and spending.

Shots Fired!! Two of the most prestigious medical journals just came out fiercely against epidural injections

Shots Fired!! Two of the most prestigious medical journals just came out fiercely against epidural injections / RFA.

The British Medical Journal just published a “Practice Guideline” paper with these damning statements:

“For people living with chronic radicular spine pain, the guideline panel issued strong recommendations against: epidural injection of local anaesthetic, steroids, or their combination.”

“For people living with chronic axial spine pain, the guideline panel issued strong recommendations against: joint radiofrequency ablation.”

The New England Journal of Medicine’s “Journal Watch” then doubled down on this stance (links in comments):

“The unfortunate reality is that some patients with chronic cervical or lumbosacral pain don’t respond to standard first-line noninvasive measures. They are understandably desperate for relief, and clinicians understandably feel obligated to “do something”.

However, none of the procedures covered in this guideline afforded clinically important pain relief with moderate certainty, according to the panel. In their concluding remarks, the authors also address the high cost of these procedures in the U.S., noting that “the substantial reimbursement… may act as a perverse incentive for their delivery.”

I’m a little bit stunned.

What do policy-makers want? For every spine patient to live eternally in a purgatory of PT and acupuncture and cognitive-behavioral therapy… even if they aren’t getting relief?

What is the impact of this philosophy on workforce productivity, long-term disability, and human misery?

Don’t get me wrong… I love the “less is more” mentality.

But do these journals/authors know the power of these words… especially when exploited by denial-addicted insurance companies?

It’s funny… a lot of conversations tend to pit spine surgeons like myself AGAINST our interventional pain colleagues.

On this day… maybe we need to band together.

Who else will act as custodians and stewards of spine care in this country?

Taif J. Mukhdomi Dr. Soubrata V. Raikar Raul Monzon MD Chris Centeno, M.D.

Your Body, Your Health Care

AVAILABLE APRIL 8TH. Pre-order at retailers now.

• Published By Cato Institute

At a time when individuals feel increasingly disenfranchised by their health care choices, Dr. Jeffrey A. Singer’s groundbreaking new book, Your Body, Your Health Care, offers a compelling vision for a future in which patients regain control over their health decisions and care. The book underscores the importance of personal autonomy, highlighting how the patient-practitioner relationship has been overshadowed in recent decades by paternalistic and overbearing government intervention.

As government regulations continue to encroach upon personal health care choices, patients find themselves at the mercy of policymakers dictating their treatment options, from which health professionals they can consult to what substances they can ingest. In this timely work, Dr. Singer, a seasoned surgeon and policy expert, delves into the philosophical underpinnings of a health care system that respects individual sovereignty and moral agency.

“In the following pages, I want to inform you about how lawmakers and policymakers at all levels of government have failed to heed the pronouncement that ‘every human being of adult years and sound mind has a right to determine what shall be done with his own body,’” Dr. Singer emphasizes. “I hope to expose the harmful unintended consequences of this paternalism. Finally, I want to point out roads leading to a future where the government respects the autonomy and rights of all adults.”

Your Body, Your Health Care not only validates the grievances of patients but also presents a philosophical framework for the relationship between individuals, the health care system, and the state. Through thoughtful analysis of issues such as prescription requirements, the right to self-medicate, access to harm-reduction techniques, and licensing laws, Dr. Singer proposes a road map for reforming health care policy that prioritizes individual rights and provides essential reading for anyone concerned about the future of health care in America. It serves as a clarion call for change, urging readers to recognize their rights and the preservation of personal sovereignty in America.

Praise for the book

“Dr. Singer’s writing is engaging and always informed by his clinical experience, sharp insight into the unintended consequences of policy, and ethical commitments. Your Body, Your Health Care is a book worth reading, arguing over, and thinking about. Ultimately, Dr. Singer’s book provides a stark reminder that patient autonomy is still a vital ethical principle worth keeping.”
—Jay Bhattacharya, MD, PhD, professor of health policy, Stanford University

“Dr. Singer’s book is well written, well researched, and very provocative. Whether or not the reader agrees with everything that Dr. Singer writes about the regulatory state, they will be challenged to think differently and/​or to defend to themselves why they disagree. If the reader is a policymaker, they may be taking notes as to legislation to propose.”
—Sen. Bill Cassidy, MD (R‑LA)

“In an era when government officials and health experts are way too quick not only to tell you what’s best for you but also to mandate it with the force of law, Dr. Jeffrey A. Singer’s Your Body, Your Health Care is a righteous vaccine for the body politic.… His maximalist case for patient autonomy, informed consent, and the right to self-medication is exactly what we need in a world that is busting open with nearly infinite new treatments and cures for everything that ails us.”
—Nick Gillespie, editor at large, Reason

“Singer delves into some of the most pressing and contentious health care issues in the United States today. His criticism of the FDA is both thought-provoking and disturbing, as are many other sections in the book. Everyone concerned about government intrusion on patient autonomy should read this.”
—Josh Bloom, PhD, director of chemical and pharmaceutical research, American Council on Science and Health

About the author

Jeffrey A. Singer is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and works in the Department of Health Policy Studies. He is president emeritus and founder of Valley Surgical Clinics Ltd., the largest and oldest group private surgical practice in Arizona, and has been in private practice as a general surgeon for more than 35 years.

Opioids – how forced tapers do more patient harm than just increased pain

Opioids – how forced tapers do more patient harm than just increased pain

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/opioids-how-forced-tapers-do-more-patient-harm-than-just-neen-monty-ugrwc

Taking away my opioid pain relief is not only medically endorsed torture, it is taking away my ability to access treatment for my severe, late-diagnosed, long-standing disease, CIDP.

I have been very sick lately.  Why?  Because I missed my fortnightly IVIG infusion.  This infusion is very important, it treats my severe, long standing, late-diagnosed chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP).

This is the worst pain that I experience.  It is constant and severe, neuropathic and nociceptive pain.  It is caused by the demyelination of my nerves, and the consequent spasming of my muscles.  Again, it is constant, severe, chronic pain.

It is secondary pain.  Secondary to another disease, in this case CIDP.  Having been in pain for almost 20 years, I have addressed all the psychosocial aspects of pain. I have modified all the modifiable features of my pain.

The only thing that reduces my pain, enough so that I can function for an average for four hours a day, is opioids. Oxycodone, to be precise.

My pain management doctor is force tapering me.

She has no medical reason to do this.  NONE. She is misinformed and following outdated guidelines.

But last time I checked guideless were….guidelines.

NOT hard and fast rules!

As a doctor, she is supposed to provide individualised care. She is supposed to use her clinical judgement, not just follow a checklist.  She is to improve my life, not destroy it.

But she has all the power and I have none.

I tried a day without pain medication a few weeks ago and it was unbearable. I lasted 26 hours before I caved and took the pain medication.

Two weeks ago, I saw my GP. And she berated me for abandoning the taper.  She insisted I try again.

So, I did.

I saw her Friday.  I forgot on Saturday and took my normal dose.  Sunday, I took the reduced, taper dose.

Sunday was unbearable.

Monday was unbearable.

I woke up Tuesday, unable to walk, let alone drive. I go every second Tuesday.  I called the infusion centre to let them know that I could not drive, and I could not sit in the infusion chair for four hours, even if I had transport.

They were very kind, empathetic and compassionate. At least two nurses there are openly outraged that this is happening to me. The doctor there is wonderful, but he can’t say much about the taper, but he is…perplexed, shall we say. At the treatment plan that is clearly making my life harder and ruining my functional life.   He is watching me deteriorate and he askes me why my pain doctor is doing this.  I told him ‘Guidelines’.  He shook his head but said nothing.

That Tuesday, after being unable to attend my infusion, I was so angry and fed up and unable to cope with the pain anymore that I took my normal dose. Tuesday was still agonising.

Wednesday, I took my normal dose, but it was not enough to cut it.  I was in terrible pain all day.

Thursday, I stated to feel a reduction in pain. Once pain gets out of control like that, its impossible to get it back under control with your ‘usual’ dose. So, the great irony here is that I wound up using MORE pain medications because of this asinine forced taper. To get my pain back under control.

But the other thing I realised is how much the IVIG infusion does for my other symptoms. The fatigue.  The dizziness on standing. The muscles weakness.  The general feeling of being sick…malaise? I don’t know if that’s the right medical word.

Feeling like you have the flu, all the time.  Aches and pains, sure. Severe neuropathic pain, sure. But the fatigue was unreal. The heaviness in my legs…I could barely lift them.  I needed a wheelchair, even in the house.   And my house is not set up for the wheelchair, because mostly I can get by with a walker in the house.

I spent most of the week in bed anyway, not just because of pain but because I was too weak and too sick to do anything.

My life is slipping away from me. Because this doctor is not only condemning me to constant, severe pain.  Pain that NO ONE can live a functional life with.  But also, she is preventing me from accessing treatment for my DISEASE.  She is preventing me from having any chance of remission or even slowing progression.

She is killing me. Plain and simple.

I’m sure most people will not be happy with that characterisation, but what would YOU call it?

She is killing me slowly and painfully. She is torturing me to death.

Again, my pain is not functional. It is not psychosomatic. It is not psychosocial. It is not primary. It is NOT non-specific.

It is pathological pain.

There is known disease process going on. Biopsy proven nerve damage, demyelination and remyelination, naked axons and axonal degeneration.  This is permanent, because four neurologists couldn’t read an MRI and ignored a lumbar puncture.  I have no ankle reflexes, which is impossible to fake, in case you think my biopsy was faked somehow.  And I have lost a lot of muscle mass.

I have severe disease. It is VERY painful.

The four neurologists who dismissed me as a neurotic or hysterical woman, and called it ‘functional’ ruined my life when they failed to diagnose my disease. Because of THEM, I live with constant, severe, pain and I live with severe disabling weakness.  IF they’d diagnosed me early, I would have had a chance at treatment, at remission. But no.  They were lazy and decided it was ‘functional’.  Thereby condemning me to a lifetime of pain and disability.

You could say my disease and disability are iatrogenic, because of doctor failure.   Four of them.

Now, insult to injury, pain management doctors refuse to treat the pain that severe, late-diagnose disease causes.

Just take a moment to consider just how FAR doctors have let me down. How badly they have failed me.

Ten years ago, presenting with severe disease, I would have been given empathy support and PAIN RELIEF.

Now? I am given pain science education which obviously does nothing for pathological disease.

I am given psychological treatments for pathological disease.

I am given the eye rolls, because ‘it can’t be that bad’.

I am given nothing.  No empathy, no compassion, no pain relief.

I am given nothing.

No one can argue that this taper is for my benefit.

This is happening to people all around Australia, every day.

Help us STOP THE FORCED TAPERS!

Pain Patient Advocacy Australia.

The FPM and the RACGP are using FLAWED AND OUTDATED opioid prescribing guidelines. HELP US UPDATE THE GUIDELINES AND STOP THE MEDICALLY SANCTIONED TORTURE OF PEOPLE LIVING WITH PAINFUL, PROGRESSIVE, INCURABLE DISEASE!

There’s Big Money in Withholding Pain Relief

There’s Big Money in Withholding Pain Relief

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2025/02/there_s_big_money_in_withholding_pain_relief.html

Pain is the most common reason for seeking medical care.  Although pain is experienced only by individuals, under federal policy, pain is a public health challenge, even a global health priority.  In a way, this isn’t surprising, as modern definitions of health and public health are expansive, even including transitory mental and emotional states.

Public health as a concept arose along with eugenics during the Progressive Era.  Although the two concepts weren’t completely congruent, both were compatible with government assuming authority to act on behalf of the health of the population.

Logically, a healthy community isn’t a thing.  All populations include some individuals with disease or infirmity.  But the concept of public health offers an opportunity for authoritarian control.  Health-linked government actions extend beyond reasonable efforts like  sanitation, clean water, and emergency stockpiles for disasters or epidemics.

Since 2010, the National Pain Strategy, created by the NIH and Institute of Medicine (IOM) has been our government’s “comprehensive population health-level strategy for pain.”  The Federal Pain Research Strategy (FPRS) was added later.  Congress has a Best Practices Inter-Agency Task Force to align with the NPS.  The NIH has an Office of Pain Policy.  The National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke has an Office of Pain Policy and Planning.

The Executive Summary of the FPRS lists these priorities: “dissemination and implementation of research to support the translation of scientific discoveries into clinical practice and improve the lives of people in pain.”  The IOM anticipates “cultural transformation in pain prevention, care, education and research” via population-level strategy.

The fact that millions of law-abiding Americans suffer chronic and severe pain is clearly not news to our government.  Massive federal funds are earmarked for research seeking alternative pain treatments and shoring up unfounded links between prescribed opioids and opioid use disorder, overdoses, and deaths.

Since 2005, the Blueprint for Neuroscience Research has funded research initiatives, training opportunities, tools, and neuroscience resources focused on pain.  Participating federal agencies include the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, National Institute on Drug Abuse, National Institute of Mental Health, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, and Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research.  The Blueprint’s 2025 budget is $2.8 billion.

Helping End Addiction Longterm (HEAL) dominates internet searches related to pain care.  Another collaboration of multiple federal agencies, HEAL funds 1,800 projects in 50 states and spent over $3 billion between 2019 and 2023.  Research funded by HEAL includes opioid use disorder and addiction, managing pain while reducing opioid use disorder, preventing opioid use disorder and addiction, new and non-addictive analgesics, new pain targets and mechanisms, and finding links between pain and substance abuse.

Opioid use disorder” — distinct from substance abuse disorder — was first incorporated in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fifth edition (DSM-5) in 2013.  NIMH refused to support DSM-5 because of inclusion of diagnoses not supported by laboratory measurements.  NIMH shifted funding away from research based on DSM-5.  Clearly, things have changed since then.

Drill into every federal funding opportunity involving pain, and the priorities are clear.  Connect prescribed opioids with opioid use disorder, substance abuse, or addiction.  Develop and promote non-opioid treatments.  Promote non-opioid treatments whether they work or not (they don’t).  Minimize prescribing and maximize demonization, as if prescribed opioids were a global threat to carbon-based life forms.

Problematic opioid use following a prescription is extremely rare.  JAMA data published in 2016 on over half a million surgery patients not prescribed opioids for at least a year.  A reference sample of 18 million subjects received no surgery or prescriptions.  Subsequent opioid misuse ranged from 0.119–1.14% for the surgery patients and 0.136% for reference subjects.  In 2018, the BMJ published data following over 2 million patients prescribed opioids for the first time after surgery.  The post-surgery misuse rate was 0.6%.  But federal budgets continue to support research seeking a link that years of data already disproved.

The Federal Pain Research Strategy Summary includes one key admission: “Novel pharmacologic treatments for pain have not emerged for some time.”  Not for lack of spending.

Often treatments prescribed for pain are not opioids, despite lack of evidence that alternative treatments have any significant benefit.  Psychiatric medications such as gabapentin, amitriptyline, and duloxetine have been prescribed off-label for decades, with scant evidence of efficacy.  Gabapentin withdrawal symptoms are remarkably similar to opioid withdrawal.  Spinal stimulation implants aren’t guaranteed to relieve pain, while patients have reported negative side-effects for years.  No alternative has yet shown effectiveness for pain that comes close to opioids.  All that can be inferred from existing evidence is that some physical treatments, like chiropractic, may help reduce pain in conjunction with an analgesic.

It’s almost refreshing to see an NIH publication admit that research focuses on “opioid use, misuse and addiction” with a “dearth of federal funding for studying interventional pain management.”  Interventional pain management means invasive procedures, including spinal stimulation, nerve blocks, and surgery.  Our modern medical establishment calls this a holistic approach.  Existing opioids have no place in this vision of pain care.

In 2017, half of Americans had tried alternative treatments, but only 20% used them instead of conventional care.  As of 2021, only 2% of Americans had tried acupuncture.

Among pain patients surveyed in 2024, 77% were willing to consider alternative treatments, and 65% were willing to try acupuncture.  Pain makes people desperate.  Desperation makes people vulnerable to unfounded ideas.

Untreated pain affects endocrine, cardiovascular, immune, neurological, muscle, and skeletal function.  Pain patients suffer exhaustion, memory deficit, attention deficit, and cognitive decline.  Decreasing activity, declining fitness, and increasing obesity are followed by joint weakness, neuropathies, muscle contractions, hypertension, and tachycardia.  “Cardiovascular death is a common occurrence among persistent pain patients, likely due to a multitude of factors.”

Government funding for anything-but-opioids continues.  Taxes pay for researching and promoting mindfulness (teaching pain patients what to think), swearing (when patients tire of being told what to think), placebos (faking re-classified as legitimate treatment), yoga (a religious practice), and deep brain stimulation.  So much more than merely wires inside your skull, deep brain stimulation is wires inside your skull plus bilateral upper chest implants.  When there’s effective oral medication (opioids), who would choose enough implants to qualify as a Borg?

The only transformation of pain care that should occur in the U.S. is to return prescribing decisions to doctors and stop government bureaucrats practicing medicine without a license.

 

 

United we stand, divided we fall

A video diatribe attacking yours truly over something that I SHARED ?

Bob Sheerin Favorites 

Admin
Top contributor

 onesdpSotrg853lgh9iucf7m17futih52i6t0c7m2h250a9h4h0ff877f0f3 

@everyone LOOK AT THIS IDIOT WHILE WERE GOING AFTER ALL THE LEGISLATION BILLS? WTF

This is so sad! I fought and won 50 million dollars + plus for pain pump patients all over the USA over all this! I found the attorneys and took thousands of messages and complaints! Not to mention it put my whole family in financial ruin but thanks for posting! Then turned around and exposed 83k complains from assorted implant groups mostly my groups …to expose the FDA! Not to mention Illinois patients who now have a bill wrote by Kat Hatz and John Flannery we offer every state to get your foot in their legislative door ..or.. Washington State patients and helping others get to their legislative meetings from other orgs? Did you ever do that? Then she gets 3 women whom I never met personally send me restraining orders that cost children to suffer for 6 months while I had to fight to get the TRO crapped on…. Get this selling illict fentyal and calling names Matter of fact I should post the restraining order now seeing they were gone when the lawyer squished them and of course gave the felon back his hunting rifles 🤣 Do they let felons have riffles now? I forget! For the love of god Stop! So maybe I should charge from now on! All of sudden I want to open a patreon page and talk about suboxone teeth and made up stories from the comfort of my home… Instead of being in Wahington DC 25+ times! My god APDF has appointments in Wahington DC for 16 of YOUR STATES! What is this women thinking? I will be suing her immediately for slander and accusing me of being a felon! I have Congressmen and Senators calling me weekly and she post this garbage? Y’all this women is a DEA worker… Its almost like she sabotages great projects if their not hers but then again I havent seen any projects besides Patreon (making money projects in a long ass time) if at all. I followed her for years and made donations to find out later they lost 20k in gofundmes to sue Kolodny! Then she said that wasn’t mine..🤣 What Dave Weland posted the videos of you asking for money? Or was that another 70 year old beauty queen. Let the poor lady take the fall.shame on You. While she’s promoting it? Then she blames it on my good friend Dr Feldman Maybe he needs to do a live and explain what really happened? So she waits til I have heart surgery to attack for the 9th time since our last blow out when I have kept absolutely quiet even know I know shes full of shit on atleast 4 projects 🤣! Nothing makes me madder than coming after me and torturing my kids with bullshit restraining orders and yeah that was so fun watching them suffer because of you and the people decided their fates! I’ve kept my comments to myself but I’m fucking tired of this idiot. Shirl and I had 5 or 6 Congressman who made sure we weren’t with DPF or DPPR or whatever you are now …before they even seen us! Point is they seen us and where were you again! Running your mouth on the internet is absolutely necessary but wrong dude Claudia… aim that nasty mouth at the real enemy you know your boss (Dea!) Not the broke guy who’s spend 300× times more than you with 200× times less money! Maybe she will figure out someday why 95% of APDF senior staff wised up and came from DPF or DPF who got attacked and now are at APDF. You would think she’d atleast shut her nasty face for the kids sake! Shows how much you mean to her! She will trade kids for vengeance 🤣 I’d really think about what she will do to you…. my god! Shit I still want my GFM back for suing Kolodny or maybe it went on that new Porsche everyone bought her 🤣 Hell I’ve gotten 50 times more done in this community and I’d be happy with a frigggen used Kia 🤣 So DC at the beginning of April and attack us in February hmmm…? Almost sounds like an agent of the goverment to me! Especially the timing! Last time was the Washington DC protest when we produced more folks than 15 of her Rally’s but she’s supposedly has 500 times the people we do? How does that add up? I’ll tell you bots lots of them! Oh I forgot APDF helped folks get there who couldn’t afford it? Gaurntee she won’t do that 🤣 so no more 6 people rallys for any of you! What an embarrassment!
And is just me or do we make fun of people who tried to take their own lives? How absolutely sick is this lady? How horrible! Again I say all our funds are public… Ask Claudia to show hers… but she won’t because she is now paying employees so she’s FOR PROFIT. LISTEN AGAIN SHES FOR PROFIT! This ends tomorrow so does her Porsche payment! So why does she want this to end? Yall may want to look at her Board of Directors and then look at the Rhode Island rules on 501c3s… no family members and must be in State! You’re paying her to work crappy bills in RI….Its the worst bill the pain community and its hurt more than helped especially for acute pain patients! When we gave free bills wrote by lawyers for free for all States without pain bills? Maybe I’m doing this wrong? Spend some of that money CM! But please send my 250.00 back for suing Kolodny that never happened? Do you know what I could do with that lost 20k that just up and disappeared? Damn that would help a lot of kids but so would Claudia not attacking every advocate that does anything and it seems like every Tuesday 🤣! Omg who attacks Steve Ariens for god sakes And for the record Ms. Claudia put your record up against any of APDF advocates or any other other boots on the ground orgs advocates that work for free and acually help folks! I’m glad you posted all that because you finally talked a lawyer into helping APDF sue you for free! See you do get stuff done with that nasty mouth of yours! What does the goverment pay you anyways? Attacking me again right before Washington DC for no reason knowing I’m sick says I’m getting closer to ruining your goverment friends and when I’m in DC you know for the 26th time on my own dime.. maybe you should donate some of those new Porsche payments 🤣 that would help more than sabotaging boots on the ground advocates that have scored massive wins over the last 5 years…. Put your record up or go away! You have great advocates spend that money and send them to DC instead of going to Library’s in states that people are dying in! Pay attention now… this is important…. If you don’t want to send them to DC send them to me and APDF will pay to send them like we have done from the beginning! Keep a close eye on a lot of States Claudia because now your gonna have to explain why a broke ass Foundation like APDF can work on all these states with little to no money and you with all the money hasn’t put out shit but love to slander folks acually doing something probably hurt your feelings just a little bit, but the huge things coming out in the next few months will show you….you better get something done quick because the little broke ass APDF foundation has huge things coming! Stuff you already said yall were working on 🤣 I’ll tag you just so you know PEOPLE ARE WATCHING! Oh and thank and your minions for getting my “X” page taken while in DC! Wow that’s not hate that’s sabotaging pain patients 🥲 What a shame! You’re a joke! My gut tells me if you were really a pain patient you wouldn’t be so ready to rip pain patients off. Put the money back in the community and I gaurntee you will actually get something done if you try hard enough! You don’t need to attack.. just do as much as everyone else then you won’t feel so bad! Notice Claudia knows the story and posted this morning anyways after I asked her for help years ago when this was going on and she said talk to my legislation 🤣 love advocates who give out medical information on people who ask for help and then put it out when she’s mad at you 🤣 great advocate 🤣 You ran off too many great advocates Claudia and if I’ve shown you anything in the last 7 years is I don’t back down from you nor will I ever! But I will be opening a patreon and acually offering advocates services.. I hate patreon but I think I hate you more… So I will be competing with you now and maybe I’ll get my used KiA 🤣🤣🤣

As seen on the web

Ozempic, Wegovy Shortage Is Officially Over Compounders given 60- to 90-day notice

Ozempic, Wegovy Shortage Is Officially Over

Compounders given 60- to 90-day notice

https://www.medpagetoday.com/endocrinology/diabetes/114324

The shortage of semaglutide injections (Ozempic, Wegovy) is over, the FDA announced on Friday.

The agency, along with maker Novo Nordisk, confirmed that supply now meets or exceeds both the current and projected U.S. demand. The injectable formulation of the GLP-1 receptor agonist has been in shortage since August 2022 due to increased demand.

“Patients and prescribers may still see intermittent and limited localized supply disruptions as the products move through the supply chain from the manufacturer and distributors to local pharmacies,” the FDA noted in a statement.

The shortage resolution applies to all strengths of semaglutide for type 2 diabetes, chronic weight management and major adverse cardiovascular event risk reduction.

The FDA said it will give compounders a grace period of 60 to 90 days to finish producing, distributing, and dispensing copies of semaglutide injection products to “avoid unnecessary disruption to patient treatment.”

Compounders are allowed to make copies of a drug only when it’s on the FDA shortage list, meaning the demand or projected demand of that drug exceeds the U.S. supply.

“We are pleased the FDA has declared that supply of the only real, FDA-approved semaglutide medicines is resolved, affirming that Novo Nordisk is meeting or exceeding current and projected nationwide demand,” said Dave Moore, executive vice president of U.S. operations and global business development and president of Novo Nordisk, in a statement

“No one should have to compromise their health due to misinformation and reach for fake or illegitimate knockoff drugs that pose significant safety risks to patients,” he added.

Two other GLP-1 receptor agonist products — dulaglutide (Trulicity) and liraglutide (Victoza, Saxenda) — still remain in shortage, the FDA noted.

Governor of Maine stated she is not going to follow Presidential EO on trans woman playing in female sports

On February 5, 2025, President Donald Trump signed an executive order titled “Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports,” which bans transgender women and girls from competing in women’s sports categories at educational institutions[1][2][4]. This order is based on the Trump administration’s interpretation of Title IX, the federal law prohibiting sex discrimination in educational programs receiving federal funding[2].

Key aspects of the executive order include:

1. Prohibition: The order mandates that transgender girls and women cannot participate in sports designated for females or use women’s locker facilities in educational settings[1].

2. Enforcement: The Department of Justice is directed to enforce this prohibition, and the Department of Education is tasked with scrutinizing schools suspected of non-compliance[1][4].

3. Funding implications: Educational institutions that do not comply risk losing federal funding[1][2].

4. Scope: The order primarily impacts high school, collegiate, and community sports[4].

5. International impact: The directive also affects professional athletics, urging officials to prevent transgender women from entering the U.S. for competitions and advocating for the International Olympic Committee to disallow transgender athletes in its events[1][4].

The Trump administration argues that this order is necessary to preserve fairness, safety, and opportunities for women in sports[1][4]. However, critics, including human rights organizations and LGBT advocates, have labeled the initiative as discriminatory[4].

This executive order represents a significant shift from the previous Biden administration’s stance, which had proposed regulations to protect LGBT students under Title IX[4]. The order has already influenced other organizations, with the NCAA announcing a new policy aligning with Trump’s executive order, prohibiting athletes assigned male at birth from competing in NCAA women’s competitions[5].

Citations:
[1] https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/2/7/whats-behind-trumps-ban-on-transgender-women-in-us-womens-sports
[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/05/us/politics/trump-trans-athletes-executive-order.html
[3] https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/05/politics/transgender-athletes-trump-executive-action/index.html
[4] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c20g85k3z35o
[5] https://ogletree.com/insights-resources/blog-posts/ncaa-bars-transgender-athletes-from-womens-sports-aligning-with-president-trumps-executive-order/
[6] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-executive-order-banning-transgender-athletes-womens-sports/
[7] https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/what-trumps-trans-athlete-ban-means-for-schools-and-states/2025/02
[8] https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-sign-executive-order-banning-transgender-athletes-womens/story?id=118468478
[9] https://www.cbsnews.com/minnesota/news/mn-attorney-general-trans-athlete-ban-opinion/
[10] https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-politics-and-policy/trump-upends-transgender-sports-landscape-stroke-pen-rcna192056
[11] https://www.npr.org/2025/02/05/nx-s1-5282137/trump-transgender-sports-executive-order
[12] https://www.mprnews.org/story/2025/02/20/ellison-says-trump-order-on-transgender-athletes-violates-minnesota-law
[13] https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-transgender-athletes-3606411fc12efffec95a893351624e1b
[14] https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-politics-and-policy/trump-executive-order-ban-trans-women-sports-rcna190767
[15] https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-administration-target-transgender-women-sports-white-house-says-2025-02-05/
[16] https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/02/keeping-men-out-of-womens-sports/
[17] https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2025/02/05/transgender-students-trump-executive-order/
[18] https://www.npr.org/2025/02/21/nx-s1-5305108/trump-janet-mills-maine-transgender-athletes
[19] https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/22/us/maine-trans-athletes-trump/index.html
[20] https://www.house.mn.gov/sessiondaily/Story/18497


Answer from Perplexity: www.pplx.ai/share