Cdc Citizen Complaint: Fill & Download for Free

**If you receive OPIOID PAIN MEDICATIONS, PLEASE READ THIS**In April of 2019, the American Medical Association (AMA) released a statement commending the CDC for recognizing that their "2016 Guideline for Prescribing Opiate medication" had been misapplied. The CDC released the admission after receiving pressure from various medical associations, including the AMA, as well as thousands of complaints from patients that had been adversely affected by the CDC Guideline. The paragraph below began the statement issued by the AMA in 2019:"The AMA appreciates that the CDC recognizes that patients in pain require individualized care and that the agency’s 2016 guidelines on opioids have been widely misapplied. The guidelines have been treated as hard and fast rules, leaving physicians unable to offer the best care for their patients."Also taken from the 2019 AMA statement:"The guidelines have been misapplied so widely that it will be a challenge to undo the damage."I might have appreciated the CDC's acknowledgement of the "blatant" misapplication of their "Guideline", if, as a chronic pain patient that has been treated for severe pain for over ten years, the CDC's admission had had any affect on my pain treatment at all since that time. But, it has not. Not one thing was altered in the daily allowable dosage of opioid-based pain medication anyone can be prescribed. The opiate pain medications that once allowed me to live a quasi-normal life had been slashed by the CDC's 2016 Guideline to one-third of what had been effective.The CDC's "acknowledgement of misapplication", something commended by the AMA's 2019 statement, received very little, if any, press coverage when it was released. To my knowledge, it NOT reported by the national news media so the CDC's "admission of misapplication" apparently did not reach most doctors that prescribe pain medication. So things continued as they were.I feel this demanded nationwide attention and immediately! A public announcement statement involving the national media could have easily been arranged, after all, the 2016 CDC Guideline was something that deeply, VERY deeply, affected the lives of millions of American citizens. It mostcertainly had attracted lots of media attention when it was first issued and then put into effect as though it were "mandated" by law! Now we are told by the CDC it was "misapplied"...And somehow, incredulously, astonishingly, federal drug enforcement agencies like the DEA were allowed to "cherry-pick" a single item, and take it out of context: "the 90mg maximum allowable daily dosage". This "item" was "lifted" from the CDC's "Guideline on Prescribing Opioid Pain Medication", and almost immediately the "one size fits all" maximum dosage went into effect with the DEA and other drug enforcement agencies zealously enforcing this ill-placed mandate like a modern version of the gestapo.When the CDC Guidline was released in 2016, it is hard to overstate the devastating effect it had on millions of lives. I know, because I was one of the people affected. Many of us were quickly labeled "addicts" and often treated with disdain when we tried to have our legitimate opiate-based pain medication prescriptions filled.Many of us receiving these much needed medications were magically transformed into the stereotypical heroin addict laying in some filthy back alley (sarcasm). Some pharmacists spoke to me with sneered lip and a nasty derogatory attitude; one pharmacist reached across the counter and grabbed my shirt when I tried to explain how important the medication was to me. Other people in my life, people that knew me well and that had once treated me with common courtesy and respect, were now much colder and distant.In 2020 the AMA released a much more "forceful" 17 page document of "requests" and "specified changes" in the current wording of the 2016 Guideline that the AMA sent to the CDC. If it has received much press, I am unaware of it. Still, as the most powerful physician's organization in the United States, it is my fervent hope that the CDC will adapt the changes requested by the AMA. An internet search for the "American Medical Association" will take you to a link to their site. Once there, use the search bar on their site and search for "CDC Opioids". You can easily navigate to the AMA's 2020 document from there. I urge you to read it.I will try to keep this brief. The 2016 Guideline had several members of small anti-opiate group called P.R.O.P. (Physicians for Responsible Opioid Prescribing) appointed to the CDC Panel that drafted the 2016 Guideline. The co-founder of PROP, Dr. Andrew Kolodny, apparently used his friendship with the CDC Director in 2016 to get himself appointed to the CDC's final approval panel of the Guideline.There are government regulations, polices, and ethical standards in place prohibiting the appointment of biased individuals onto panels that are establishing policy that will affect the public in general, but these rules were apparently ignored by the CDC. Even if it is not illegal, the manner in which these appointments took place was highly unethical and needs to be investigted. To date, the CDC has refused to cooperate fully with investigations into possible impropriety regarding the Guideline; whatever information they have produced has been highly redacted (marked-through), so as to be almost useless. Why would they redact information on 1,000 pages of documents and claim it violated the personal confidentiality of certain individuals if they had nothing to hide?Dr. Kolodny tried to get the FDA to estalblish a maximum allowable dosage on opiates back in 2011, but the FDA turned his request down due to lack of evidence. Interestingly, if not very ironically, the very low maximum daily dosage Kolodny sought to be established in 2011 is the same exact dosage misapplied as a mandate in the 2016 CDC Guideline. There has never been a maximum daily amount of opiates established for opiates by the FDA due to the widely varying needs of individual patients.I wonder, How could one man's (misguided) vision to establish a maximum daily allowable dosage of opioids become a reality that adversely affected millions of people? As I just stated, Opioids were one of the very few medications under FDA purview that never had a maximum daily allowable dosage put on them due to the wide variances of individual requirements for pain relief.Another doctor out of Oregon who has worked closely with Kolodny and who has the same radical views about opioids as Kolodny is supposedly to be appointed to one of the panels that will be overseeing the rewriting of the 2021 Guideline, or whatever they will call it. I hope this does not happen, or if does, that the panel is balanced out with personnel just as biased in the "other direction".The following observations may have been answered or addressed before, so please forgive my ignorance and naïveté. There are a few basic questions I feel should be asked of whoever it is in the federal government that has oversight regarding "things that reek to high heaven" and "deception and foul play".In 1935 the United States Congress enacted into law "42 U.S. Code § 1395 - Prohibition against any Federal interference". The very first section (§ 1395) of this Federal law remains unchanged from it's original wording, enacted into law in 1935. The law was retitled in 1965 to it's current version.Since I am already knee-deep into what I am attempting to illustrate, I am posting the first short section of the law. Please read the "section" after the title carefully:Title 42 - The Public Health and Welfare, Chapter 7 - Social Security, SubChapter XVIII - Health Insurance for the Aged and Disabled42 U.S. Code § 1395 - Prohibition against any Federal interference"Nothing in this subchapter shall be construed to authorize any Federal officer or employee to exercise any supervision or control over the practice of medicine or the manner in which medical services are provided, or over the selection, tenure, or compensation of any officer or employee of any institution, agency, or person, providing health services; or to exercise any supervision or control over the administration or operation of any such institution, agency, or person."ThIs law pertains to Social Security and the protection the aged and the disabled, of which, at 68 years old and being placed on disability, I am a member of both categories. The beginning section "§ 1395"has remained unchanged for 85 years although the content of the rest of the law has been amended, cited, or "altered" many times to adapt to the changing times.Why was a guideline regarding the dosage of any prescription medication issued by ANY federal agency other than the FDA and why was it given such sweeping latitude?Why was the DEA seemingly involved in the this "plan"? It appeared to be "informed" when the Guideline neared publishing and poised to act immediately on it's (DEA's) "cherry-picked" "90mg maximum allowable daily limit" the moment it was released.From the observable actions taken, in many cases the DEA's intent "appeared" to be to frighten and intimidate doctors and pain management facilities into force "compliance" with the "90mg mandate", something it did all too well. As a federal agency used to performing unannounced raids on suspected drug dealers, the ferocity of the intimidation the DEA often used in enforcing the CDC Guideline was often needlessly overly-threatening especially considering the nature of the situation.Considering there has been "no hard evidence" that has been VERIFIED BY SCIENTIFIC STANDARDS that substantiates the CDC's "maximum dosage recommendation" (the CDC made little effort to stop the "misapplication"), what has occurred has drastically affected the lives of millions of Americans and in my opinion, is nothing short of government sanctioned torture for chronic pain patients prescribed opiate pain medications.Who asked the CDC (The Center for Disease Control) to write a guideline in the first place?Why was this ominous responsibility not placed on the FDA (The Food and Drug Administration), the federal agency in charge of overseeing all aspects of prescription medications?:::Oh, that's right, it was because for 80+ years, the FDA wisely left the determination of proper required dosage of opiates pain medication up attending physicians prescribing these medications; a person they knew was a highly skilled and trained professional, trained in the treatment of pain.:::When I stand back to look at what has been discovered so far regarding the 2016 "CDC Guideline for Prescribing Opioid Pain Medication", I find that the "facts" involved are "chilling" and deeply troubling to me.The manner in how the Guideline came into existence is abhorrent and so disgusting I find it hard to write about. But if those of us who suffer from Chronic Pain do not protest this travesty, and do so by screaming from the closest proverbial "mountain tops", who will?It is my most fervent hope that this entire SHAMEFUL debacle will end up in front of a congressional committee. At that time, I pray it will be properly dealt with.There appear to be a multitude of people who might prefer this be "swept under the rug" but this can not happen! This shameful fiasco has affected millions of innocent chronic pain suffering citizens and is one of the greatest failures of government endorsed actions, travesties of all time.

It’s impossible to know what Jen was thinking when she refused to credit the one term ex-president, but it might have been Trump’s statement, “I don’t take responsibility at all,” for the botched testing roll-out. Contrary to Trump’s assertion early on that “anyone who needs a test can get one,” the fact is that the administration did not provide tests until the pandemic was in full swing. Testing, which early on, could have provided a road map about where it existed and how fast it was spreading, did not occur on a large scale but rather in fits and starts as the CDC initially sent out tests that were defective, the FDA was very slow to approve privately developed testing that did work, all the while Trump was “playing down” the virus and it’s potentially deadly effects.I have not seen much about what the administration actually did to ensure the fastest production of a vaccine possible. Maybe they were effective, maybe not. Personally, it seems to me that any President would have put the full weight of the Federal government into development of the vaccine. Did Trump do anything special or unique? Was he more effective than a more normal president who might not have been watching Fox News all day and tweeting out vile, demeaning, uncivilized and cruel complaints about anyone who didn’t find him awesome? Somehow I doubt it.I would argue though, that a president who refuses to take any accountability for the multitude of failures by his administration, not to mention the psychological torment and angst he imposed on most citizens, who refuses to accept the will of the people to vote him out of office, and who in his last week in office incites an attack on the Capitol by armed followers who believed his Big Lie . . . Nah, he doesn’t get any credit. He acts like big fat tantrum throwing toddler, and as Dr. Phil says, “you don’t reward bad behavior.”Trump said he knew virus was deadly but still played down crisis: Woodward bookU.S. President Donald Trump acknowledged to a journalist early in the coronavirus pandemic that he played down the danger of the health crisis despite having evidence to the contrary, according to a new book.https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-book/trump-said-he-knew-virus-was-deadly-but-still-played-down-crisis-woodward-book-idUSKBN2602TRWhy Testing Can Slow The Spread Of The CoronavirusDr. Ashish Jha, director of the Harvard Global Health Institute, explains how testing for the virus could help get people back to work.https://www.npr.org/2020/03/22/819725459/why-testing-can-slow-the-spread-of-the-coronavirusWhy Testing Can Slow The Spread Of The CoronavirusDr. Ashish Jha, director of the Harvard Global Health Institute, explains how testing for the virus could help get people back to work.https://www.npr.org/2020/03/22/819725459/why-testing-can-slow-the-spread-of-the-coronavirus

This answer may contain sensitive images. Click on an image to unblur it.Yes, absolutely. Both Congress in D.C. and state congresses/legislators.(Check your internet connection, I like my memes)They keep restricting honest people’s ability to protect themselves.They create “gun free zones” that implement penalties on anyone caught bringing a weapon on that premises, even if that person has the proper licensing to carry otherwise, making it a barrel of fish for a bad guy to kill. 98% of mass shootings are in these “gun free zones.” But criminals don’t simply ignore these gun free zone signs, they specifically seek them out so they can ply their trade on defenseless victims.When real, proven solutions are suggested, they scoff at them because they involve arming good people to defend against bad. They would rather leave them defenseless to cower under desks and in closets, hoping the killer doesn’t do the mental coin toss leading him to their room.They claim that the shootings can be solved by restricting the rights of those that commit no crimes, assuming that even if they could (which they can’t) eliminate the tool, that we would magically become a peaceful utopia, ignoring the fact that these mass murders don’t require a gun at all.And what about common crime? Will restricting access to guns solve that problem?Oh, but restricting citizens access will eventually result in less black market guns available to the criminals, right? They say that would take care of it, just wait and see.Congress creates a background check system for gun sales, but then government agencies neglect to update the system with the proper personal information so people who should be prevented from purchasing a gun end up being approved to do so. If that’s not bad enough, when abuse of the system is found/reported, they fail to handle the problem as they should.They create lame (though maybe well intended) programs to prevent troubled youth from becoming another prison statistic, but then not only fail to think of potential negative consequences, they also fail to fix them when they become apparent either within the system as a whole or when it fails on an individual level.They fail to act when honest citizens try to do the right thing and report a potentially problematic individual. And when they get called out on their failure and of ignoring the evidence good people gave them, they go to the other extreme of saying they will strip a person of their rights without due process based on the complaint, with no or minimal evidence, by as little as just one person. Because stripping a person’s second amendment rights aren’t enough, we should ignore their fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth as well.Some state congresses make it nearly impossible for an honest citizen to obtain a carry license, telling them self defense isn’t a good enough reason to issue one. Meanwhile not only has the Supreme Court ruled that police are NOT required to protect you, but even if they do, their response time is on average 12+ minutes, assuming you are even able to make the call in the first place. Ask victims of individual attacks (rapes, assaults, home invasions, etc.) when they got the opportunity to call 911 when they were victimized. Do you think the victim gets to ask their attacker for a brief pause to make a phone call?Bureaucrats in cities with high crime and murder rates waste their time screaming for and implementing more restrictions on honest citizens while ignoring the real reasons for the violence: poverty, poor education system, bad or no jobs for their local residents, etc., leading to the proliferation of gangs and their violence in these cities. Instead of looking for real solutions, they spend their time and money attacking the innocent citizens that have nothing to do with the violence besides being the victim of it.The above is a bit old; with the latest stats we rank 10th in the world for firearm homicide overall, but the premise of the pic is still correct. Also, for overall homicide (not just guns) we rank 87th in the world, proving again that the strict gun laws in other countries show that criminals don’t need guns to kill and that despite the “proliferation” of guns in our country, we are very safe. But just how safe are we? With all these guns we have, how likely are you to be killed by one?They ignore data and research provided by their own people (FBI and CDC) that show that guns in the hands of good people prevent far, far more crime then they are used by bad people in the commission of crimes and save far more lives then are taken by them. They ignore the data that shows citizens licensed to carry are more law abiding then even the police are, yet say that only the police should have them. And they say this while being surrounded by their ARMED bodyguards. As a side note, this point is not limited to politicians, many anti-gun celebrities also employ armed bodyguards, even their new posterboy David Hogg, was witnessed in NYC with two of them in tow.They want to waste time and resources trying to ban certain types of guns and devices that have been proven to be of no consequence in reducing crime, and in fact will have the opposite effect in making it harder for honest people to defend themselves, again, proven by their own people and statistics and other stacks of real research.The various congresses and bureaucrats around our nation have already wasted their time and our tax dollars on 20,000+ firearm related laws, only a handful of which actually have some merit, and what has been accomplished? Criminals still commit crime. Criminals still ignore the laws. But what has been found is that despite the restrictions, the number of legal guns in civilian hands is at record levels and continues to rise, and yet despite what the politicians and media would want you to believe, crime is at historic LOWS in our country. Of course the exception to those low crime numbers are the areas with the most firearm restrictions; Chicago, Baltimore, D.C. Detroit, New Jersey, California, etc.As a final note, we have to remember that the 2nd Amendment wasn’t written solely for self defense against common criminals, it was written for self defense against the most dangerous of all.NOTE: all of the examples and information I stated in this post is available with just a little bit of Google work, but here are a couple of links to websites that compile much of it to get you started:Gun Facts - Debunking Gun Policy MisinformationGun Control - Just FactsWhile you may think these two sources are biased, you can use them simply as references and use their claims as the basis for further research to verify what they are saying.