Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker Moves to Control Professional Boards (But has the Medical Board made a Countermove?) 

 

Governor Baker’s recent move to control professional boards seemed a promising step and I provided detailed documentation to the Director of Constituent Services at the Office of the Commissioner for Public Health,  Helen Rush-Lloyd ( Helen.Rush-Lloyd@state.ma.us   617-624-5223 ) who informed me on June 7 she would provide the name of the appropriate contact person to respond.  The email can be seen here: Physician Health and Compliance Unit.   Last I heard it was turfed to attorneys at the Board by whoever the appropriate contact person was and I have not been able to get a name.  As this too appears to be a dead-end it is important to find out who is responsible.  This is a system in which they often place their own people into positions where they can block, punt, deflect, dismiss and otherwise derail valid complaints.  For example they have a “point-person”on the Massachusetts Medical Society ethics committee who blocks valid complaints from ever reaching review.  They are turfed at the door and I would not be surprised if they placed one of their own or one of their apologists into this venue as well and this requires the provision of a name to see who is responsible and who should be held accountable.

Baker moves to control professional boards By Christian M. Wade Statehouse Reporter May 11, 2016 BOSTON — Dozens of independent boards that regulate doctors, barbers, electrical workers and a…

Source: Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker Moves to Control Professional Boards

Really in need of funding-Please donate to DisruptedPhysician.com

Please donate to DisruptedPhysician.com if you can!  Making some serious gains and really need funding at this point.  Please donate here.

https://www.gofundme.com/2ccpj29j

Screen Shot 2016-08-09 at 4.29.40 AM

 

Screen Shot 2016-08-09 at 5.43.49 AM

Defending MA BORM Deb Stoller’s Five-Year Concealment of Fraud–Nothing Left but Logical Fallacy and Lies

Bertram knows these are crimes.  I have also informed him that since 2011 there have been multiple suicides related to allegedly falsified alcohol tests at the same lab seen here and the ongoing concealment  of laboratory fraud is equally abhorrent as those who engage in it.  I am unclear of his motive in defending a cover-up of forensic fraud in the wake of other lab scandals but  one thing is for certain.  When  this racket is exposed the record will show who knew about it and when.

Source: Defending MA BORM Deb Stoller’s Five-Year Concealment of Fraud–Nothing Left but Logical Fallacy and Lies

Defending MA BORM Deb Stoller’s Five-Year Concealment of Fraud–Nothing Left but Logical Fallacy and Lies

Screen Shot 2016-08-08 at 5.07.23 PM

“To be sure, and to put this matter to rest for the Court once and for all, the Board has retrieved from off site storage those materials before the Board in December 2011. The documents that Dr. Langan claims were “suppressed” are in fact there—and this should not be surprising given the Board’s many orders since that time, all of which have disclaimed any reliance on the July 2011 PEth test.”

“Documents are typically entered into the electronic repository after being used or after a proceeding not before”

—Assistant Attorney General Bryan Bertram who is defending the Board of Registration in Medicine (“Board”) before Justice Hines in my case before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.

Related:  MA Board Attorney Deb Stoller’s Fraud Upon the Court

Screen Shot 2016-08-06 at 3.58.19 PMThe excerpt above is taken from the 2006 Massachusetts Board of Registration in Medicine  Annual Report and describes the Board’s  Document Imaging Unit.   The Document Imaging Unit scans agency documents into an electronic database and according to the Boards 2009 Annual Report has “allowed the agency to standardize and automate its processes for storing and retrieving documents.”   The  quotes above it are from Assistant AGO Bryan Bertram in response to recently acquired documents proving that Board attorney Deb Stoller was provided irrefutable, undeniable and  unequivocal evidence of forensic-fraud between the Massachusetts PHP (Physician Health Inc.) and a drug testing lab but concealed it and has been concealing it for over five-years.

The appeal to an imaginary storage unit and cart-before-the horse logic are just two of many absurdly illogical and nonsensical statements that he has used to defend the indefensible.

On June 8, 2016  I requested a handful of documents from the Board of Registration in Medicine under a new Records Reform Act that had up until now been refused.   146 pages of docs were received within 24 hours and can be seen here:   Langan PDF copy

Only one of the five documents had a legible date-stamp on it.   The rest were blurred and indecipherable. Requests for clarification have been stifled with the last response from the Board on  June 17th claiming they were “working on it. ”  Multiple subsequent inquiries have been ignored.  Verifying these dates should be simple and take a matter of minutes.  Why all the fuss?

The only document with a legible date stamp was a December 15, 2011 letter  from my attorney  requesting  an attached “litigation packet ” be considered at a December 21, 2011 Board proceeding.  (I had requested the “litigation packet” as one of the documents but had never seen the letter).    Needless to say it wasn’t.

 

 

Screen Shot 2016-08-08 at 7.29.02 PM

.

Screen Shot 2016-08-08 at 7.23.35 PM

Both the letter and the 47-page “litigation packet” are date-stamped   January 17, 2012.

The letter is addressed to physician health and compliance unit (PHCU) Board counsel Deb Stoller and cc’d to her underling Tracy Ottina.  The documents show clearly that the two were in possession of these documents  prior to a December 21st Board hearing.  They are date-stamped 27 days after the hearing and to support his claim that    “documents are typically scanned into the electronic repository after being used or after a proceeding, not before” Bertram uses the transcript of the same proceedings as an example as the December 21  document is date stamped  December 29 (8 days after the proceeding).  Apples and oranges.  Scanning a a transcript of a proceeding into the Board’s Digital Imaging Unit the following week is  understandable  but scanning a document that was submitted as evidence to be heard at that same proceeding  27-days after it took place and 18-days after the record of the proceeding was scanned is not.  It is very fishy for a number of reasons and defies common sense.

Screen Shot 2016-08-08 at 7.58.21 PM

But  Bertram claims the date-stamp is meaningless and wants to put the matter to rest once and for all.   In his  response opposing  a Motion to Produce Documents  (he does not want to produce them) he provides 3 footnotes (presumably to give an impression of legitimacy)  providing confirmation that the documents had been  carefully considered  at the December 21, 2011 proceedings by reviewing not only its minutes and records but procuring the original documents that were being stored off-site.

Screen Shot 2016-08-06 at 4.00.50 PM

Bertram also claims PHS has not committed any crimes because they have not been charged with any crimes.  This is called denying the antecedent or inverse error.  It is a logical fallacy where the consequent is an indicative conditional  claimed to be false because the antecedent is false. ( A, then B; not A, therefore not B).    

If it is raining, then the grass is wet.
It is not raining.
Therefore, the grass is not wet.

The argument is invalid because there are other reasons for which the grass could be wet such as spaying it with a hose.   There are multiple reasons for which someone who committed a crime has not been charged with a crime.

There is always a time-frame between the two and many who commit crimes never get caught.    Luck, stealth, cleverness, and multiple other variables might be involved.  Jimmy Savile molested and raped scores of children for decades and he was never caught.  As a major fundraiser for hospitals this fiend had free rein to prey on sick and helpless  little kids in hospital beds .

Screen Shot 2016-08-08 at 10.41.14 PM.png

They have not been charged with any crimes because the very agencies capable of charging them with crimes are ignoring or otherwise overlooking them for various reasons.  If I see someone being stabbed in the back  I can reasonably conclude they committed a crime. Savile got away with what he did because of a culture of deference. Because he was powerful others made allowances for him.  Monsters thrive in a culture of deference.

 

A Culture of Deference

According to Policy 94-002 (which has disappeared from the Board’s website) Board counsel for the Physician Health and Compliance Unit (PHCU) was created outside the Enforcement Division of the Massachusetts Board of Registration in Medicine (Board).  PHCU advises the board on issues related to drug and alcohol abuse and mental or physical impairment that may affect a doctor’s ability to practice and unit staff prepare and present cases to the board’s complaint and licensing committees to make sure identified impaired physicians comply with the terms of any rehabilitation agreements. According to Policy 94-002 the responsibilities of PHCU Board counsel include “serving as a hearing officer in some cases and resource in all cases involving physician health and compliance issues.”

The Board appoints a “hearing officer” to conduct an adjudicatory proceeding according to the procedures set forth in the Massachusetts Administrative Procedures Act. Mass. Gen. L. ch. 30A. It is the hearing officers responsibility to make all decisions regarding the admission or exclusion of evidence. Administrative procedure requires that hearing officers consider the probative value of the evidence and file it in the Administrative Record.

Massachusetts Board of Registration in Medicine PHCU Board counsel is run by attorney Deb Stoller with attorneys Robert Harvey and Tracy Ottina.  They have been given the power to act as “hearing-officers” on cases and present cases to the Board and  recommend disciplinary action.

Medical Boards provide deference to their physician health experts and their in-house compliance counsel who have been given the power of  judge, jury and executioners.

They give little thought or time to what is presented as predetermined fact. That the Board is not under any active supervision from the executive branch has been confirmed in writing to the Massachusetts Legislature by Governor Charles Baker in a letter accompanying his Bill (H.4188) which aimed to finally establish a framework for active supervision and oversight over the Board.

As independent units within the board who act as hearing officers and present cases the PHCU may be working with PHS in the same manner as the drug-testing labs engaging in laboratory fraud and the “PHP-approved” assessment and treatment centers that are “tailoring” diagnoses. It appears that Stoller and the PHCU is not representing the best interests of the Commonwealth  but those of the state physician health programs and under current management state PHPs represent the best interests of the billion dollar drug and alcohol assessment, testing and treatment industry.  The PHCU’s are clearly part of the racket.  It is a rigged game with a stacked deck existing within a culture of deference.

Obtaining the evidence is one barrier that has prevented exposure of this corruption. Another is the unwillingness of agencies available to hold them accountable. PHS has no oversight or accountability and the labs and assessment and treatment centers have minimal oversight. As these are non-FDA approved lab tests the FDA provides no oversight.   They  have  pushed public policy recommending  regulatory agencies provide deference to their authority and expertise.

This creates an organizational systems failure as the Board is deferring to the state physician health program and the states attorney Generals are deferring to the Board.   Each  complacent  in the integrity and good-faith of the agency before it.   This creates a complete organizational systems failure.

Governor Baker’s recent move to control professional boards seemed a promising step and I provided detailed documentation to the Director of Constituent Services at the Office of the Commissioner for Public Health,  Helen Rush-Lloyd ( Helen.Rush-Lloyd@state.ma.us   617-624-5223 ) who informed me on June 7 she would provide the name of the appropriate contact person to respond.  The email can be seen here: Physician Health and Compliance Unit.   Last I heard it was turfed to attorneys at the Board by whoever the appropriate contact person was and I have not been able to get a name.  As this too appears to be a dead-end it is important to find out who is responsible.  This is a system in which they often place their own people into positions where they can block, punt, deflect, dismiss and otherwise derail valid complaints.  For example they have a “point-person”on the Massachusetts Medical Society ethics committee who blocks valid complaints from ever reaching review.  They are turfed at the door and I would not be surprised if they placed one of their own or one of their apologists into this venue as well and this requires the provision of a name to see who is responsible and who should be held accountable.

The totality of evidence provides clear and convincing proof that PHCU Board counsel Deb Stoller has been suppressing evidence for years. The filed Administrative Record was missing every item I submitted including a critical document he claims was lost due to my “hand-delivery” of it.   I still cannot wrap my head around the connection between hand-delivery and losing it. I believe he’s so entrenched in his pervasive denial of facts and outside opinion and so used to shifting the burden and blaming me he couldn’t think of anything else.

One thing is for certain. The Board does not want to produce the records to Justice Hines. I realized this after I filed the “Motion to Expand the Record” as Bertram made it clear on multiple occasions the Board would not object to anything I filed with the Court to add to it.   Had I not known about the 10-day time limit to file the a motion to expand the record the Court would be limited the documents provided and none of mine were included. This is another administrative law trick frequently used to control the information that is seen.  If the December 2011 documents were considered then I would like to hear the logic.  The documents in question show black letter law crimes. They show specific crimes.   Any schoolchild could detect them.   The documents show flagrant forensic fraud  between Dr. Luis Sanchez and the VP of Lab Operations at USDTL Joseph Jones and this is  representative of the top-down corruption and unethical tone at the top that pervades this system.

None of the forensic fraud or perjury or concealment has ever been addressed by the Board and missing  evidence and unaddressed key arguments provide clear and convincing proof that Stoller has been concealing evidence for years.

Screen Shot 2016-08-08 at 5.51.35 PM

  Dr. Luis T. Sanchez, M.D. served as the Director of the Massachusetts physician health program, Physician Health Services (PHS) from 1998 until 2013.   He is past President (2005-2009) of their national organization, the Federation of State Physician Health Programs (FSPHP).

In  Disruptive Behaviors Among Physicians   stresses the importance of  of “clear expectations and standards”  and  values and codes-of-conduct in the practice of medicine and calls on physician leaders  “commit to professional behavior.”

One measure of integrity is truthfulness to words and deeds.  These people claim professionalism, ethics and integrity.  Colluding with a laboratory to intentionally misrepresent laboratory data is laboratory fraud and covered under Title 18 of the United States Criminal Code (Wire fraud 18 USC 1343, False Statements 18 USC 1001, Conspiracy 18-USC 371, False Claims 18-USC 287 and Obstruction of Justice 18-USC 1505). I believe all of these are applicable here. In addition Dr. Sanchez violated M.G.L 156 (B) Section 69 by making false statements to a state agency.  Later documents show clear evidence of his perjury and concealment.   August 6, 2014 to Langan with health materials.

The fact that medical boards and public health departments are aware of criminal acts being committed  by this “authority” and others like him yet do nothing to address its existence will inevitably lead to worse.  A culture of deference allows this type of behavior to fester and thrive for years and even decades.  If dictatorships can be defined as systems in which there is a prevalence of thinking in destructive rather than ameliorative terms then the the physician health movement fits.

Many of the  “PHP-approved attorneys” who ostensibly represent doctors who are under PHP monitoring but only do so within the boundaries of the PHPs wishes are former board attorneys and assistant AGOs.  My suspicion is that the PHPs have preferred attorneys they use within the AGOs administrative legal division and the agency at large is unaware of what happens within this system.

Lord Acton warned that we should not make moral allowances for powerful people just because they are powerful. If a common man murdered someone, Acton explained, he should hang. But when a king or queen murders, we make allowances for it. “I would hang them higher than Haman, for reasons of quite obvious justice, still more, still higher, for the sake of historical science” Acton wrote.  The same dynamic applies here.

One thing is for certain.  There should be zero-tolerance for forensic fraud perpetrated by those in positions of power.   This is  worse than Annie Dookhan as her victims were abstractions.  She did not see the damage that resulted from her laboratory misconduct.

And as far as I can find, these documents are the most elaborate and complete representation of the mechanics of forensic fraud available and show the sequential steps between the requesting party and complicit lab.   The documents also show how easy laboratory misconduct is accomplished as well as the moral detachment of the involved parties.

Bertram knows these are crimes.

 I have also informed him that since 2011 there have been multiple suicides related to allegedly falsified alcohol tests at the same lab seen here and the ongoing concealment  of laboratory fraud is equally abhorrent as those who engage in it. I am unclear of his motive in defending a cover-up of forensic fraud in the wake of other lab scandals but  one other thing is for certain.  When  this racket is exposed the record will show who knew about it and when.  

Screen Shot 2016-08-06 at 4.07.24 PM

Screen Shot 2016-08-06 at 4.07.34 PM

The 146 pages provided within 24 hours is the package containing the December 11, 2011 docs and all the others with smudged dates.  I already have the documents but I need the dates.

Screen Shot 2016-08-06 at 4.03.22 PM.png

Bertram 11:16:15 e-mail requesting he address the issues

Bertram e-mail 11:16:15 requesting he address key arguments.

Bertram e-mail 12:7:15

 

 

 

Screen Shot 2016-08-06 at 7.24.18 AM

 

Screen Shot 2016-08-09 at 4.29.40 AM.png

Please donate–Making significant gains.

//funds.gofundme.com/Widgetflex.swf

 

Screen Shot 2016-08-09 at 3.11.12 PM

 

 

Screen Shot 2015-07-03 at 2.51.31 AM

Fraud Upon the Court

“Fraud Upon the court” occurs when the judicial machinery itself has been tainted, such as when an attorney, who is an officer of the court, is involved in the perpetration of a fraud or makes material misrepresentations to the court. Fraud upon the court makes void the orders and judgments of that court.

Bulloch v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985 states: “Fraud upon the court is fraud which is directed to the judicial machinery itself and is not fraud between the parties or fraudulent documents, false statements or perjury. … It is where the court or a member is corrupted or influenced or influence is attempted or where the judge has not performed his judicial function — thus where the impartial functions of the court have been directly corrupted.”

It has recently become evident that the  Director of the Board of Registration in Medicine’s Physician Health and Compliance Unit, attorney Deb Stoller,  has been unethically and unlawfully withholding and concealing documentary evidence that is not only exculpatory to  me but reveals that  Physician Health Services (PHS) engaged in misconduct and fraud.   She has essentially been concealing their crimes.

The “Administrative Record” filed by the Board was absent copious documentation of major importance and all of it was submitted through the care of Ms. Stoller.  The missing documents include multiple petitions and supporting documents that are neither irrelevant nor superfluous. Each of these documents contains sufficient indicia of reliability to meet probative value.Concealing material fact, misrepresentation and making false statements to a state administrative agency is unethical. It constitutes abuse of power and fraud.

Fraud on the court occurs where a party tampers with the fair administration of justice by deceiving “the institutions set up to protect and safeguard the public” or otherwise abusing or undermining the integrity of the judicial process. Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238, 246 (1944).

The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit skillfully defined the concept of fraud on the court in Aoude, supra at 1118, as follows: “A `fraud on the court’ occurs where it can be demonstrated, clearly and convincingly, that a party has sentiently set in motion some unconscionable scheme calculated to interfere with the judicial system’s ability impartially to adjudicate a matter by improperly influencing the trier or unfairly hampering the presentation of the opposing party’s claim or defense.”

Ms. Stoller is in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct including Mass.R.Prof.C. 3.4(c). Fairness to Opposing Party and Counsel which states in part: A lawyer shall not: (c) knowingly disobey an obligation under the rules of a tribunal except for an open refusal based on an assertion that no valid obligation exists.

Mass.R.Prof.C Advocate Rule 3.3 Candor Toward The Tribunal reads:
(a)A lawyer shall not knowingly:
(1) make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer; (3) offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false. If a lawyer, the lawyer’s client, or a witness called by the lawyer, has offered material evidence and the lawyer comes to know of its falsity, the lawyer shall take reasonable remedial measures, including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal. A lawyer may refuse to offer evidence, other than the testimony of a defendant in a criminal matter, that the lawyer reasonably believes is false; (b) A lawyer who represents a client in an adjudicative proceeding and who knows that a person intends to engage, is engaging or has engaged in criminal or fraudulent conduct related to the proceeding shall take reasonable remedial measures, including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal,; (c) The duties stated in paragraphs (a) and (b) continue to the conclusion of the proceeding, and apply even if compliance requires disclosure of information otherwise protected by Rule 1.6.

And under Mass.R.Prof.C. 8.4(c, d, h. It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to: (c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation; (d) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice; (h) engage in any other conduct that adversely reflects on his or her fitness to practice law.

The Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) reviews the Board’s decisions in part for constitutional error, see Mass.Gen.L. ch. 30A, Sec. 14(7), and is permitted to gather evidence “in cases of alleged irregularities in procedure before the agency [when those irregularities are] not shown in the record.” Mass.Gen.L. ch. 30A, Sec. 14(5). The Court may look beyond the record if it appears the agency deliberately or negligently excluded documents that may have been adverse to its decision.

 

On a writ of certiorari, the court’s review “is confined to the record and is for the purpose of correcting legal error, [and therefore] the inquiry about the presence or absence of genuine issues of material fact, germane to summary judgment procedure, is inappropriate. . . . [The reviewing court] need only inquire whether the commission’s decision was ‘legally tenable and supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole.”‘ Gloucester v. Civil Serv. Comm’n, 408 Mass. 292 , 297 (1990), quoting Commissioner of Health & Hosps. of Boston v. Civil Serv. Comm’n, 23 Mass. App. Ct. 410 , 411 (1987). See G.L.c. 31, s. 2 (b); Mayor of Revere, supra at 319-322.

Fraud is distinguished from negligence, ignorance, and error by virtue of the fact that it is intentional; involving some level of calculation. Negligence is: “the failure to use such care as a reasonably prudent and careful person would use under similar circumstances.”   In a professional context, it is defined as: “conduct which falls below the standard established by law for the protection of others against unreasonable risk of harm… it is characterized chiefly by inadvertence, thoughtlessness, inattention, and the like.”.  Fraud, in contrast, is not accidental in nature, nor is it unplanned.  Those who commit fraud know what they are doing and are deliberate in their efforts. They are also aware that it is unethical, illegal, or otherwise improper.

Fraudulent intent is established by examining the documentation of decisions and behaviors associated with those under suspicion. As explained in Coenen: “Manipulation of documents and evidence is often indicative of such intent. Innocent parties don’t normally alter documents and conceal or destroy evidence.”

As explained in Black’s Law Dictionary,  fraud is an intentional distortion of facts and truth for the purposes of inducing another to give up something of value that they possess or to relinquish a legal right that they might otherwise retain. It is additionally defined as a “false presentation of a matter of fact whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations or by concealment of that which should have been disclosed which deceives and is intended to deceive another.”

I believe it is safe to conclude that the parties here participated in fraud.

The “litigation-packet” did not merely show “chain-of-custody” issues but forensic fraud. Misrepresenting invalid forensic test results as valid is the definition of forensic fraud. Ms. Stoller should have immediately assessed the “clear-weight” of this evidence, entered it into the docket for reconsideration and given me an opportunity to be heard. She did not.

The Federation of State Medical Board Policy specifically requires strict “chain of custody.” She violated the Board’s very own standards and then blocked me from returning to practice by putting barriers in place, refusing to allow independent evaluations and protracting the time –drawing this out in order to cause as much damage as possible to my family and me.

PHS has convinced the Board not to “second-guess” their decisions and apparently the Board has convinced state AGOs to not “second-guess” theirs; each presupposing the integrity of the individuals and validity of the decisions of the agencies in question. As a result complaints by doctors of serious crimes and abuse are ignored. Fact and truth do not matter as the agencies blindly support one-another. This removes all aspects of accountability including answerability and justification for one’s actions. It is a flawed system.

In the past the SJC has overturned the Board’s decisions on due process grounds, see, e.g., Morris v. Board of Reg. in Medicine, 405 Mass. 103, 110, 539 N.E.2d 50, 54 (1989) (vacating Board decision because proceedings “denied [the physician] fairness in a due process sense.”).

 

This interference with the administration of Justice, abuse of authority and denial of constitutional rights warrant the Board Orders be reversed, vacated and corrected. “The touchstone of due process is protection of the individual against arbitrary action of government.” (Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 558 (1974). “[i]n a just society those who govern, as well as those who are governed, must obey the law.” (United States v. Leon, 104 S. Ct. 3430, 3457 (1984) (Stevens, J., dissenting).

The Courts have held that the Massachusetts and Federal Administrative Procedure Acts require both the agency and the court to consider the entire record, including testimony given at the hearing. In Friends of Edgartown Great Pond v. DEP, 446 Mass. 830, 845 (2006), the SJC recognized that the agency must consider the hearing evidence, finding the agency hearing complied with the Administrative Procedure Act requirements because “the record illustrates that over the course of the five-day hearing, the administrative law judge carefully considered all of the relevant evidence.”

The record compiled here illustrates that over the course of four years the Board not only failed to carefully consider any of the relevant evidence but most likely never saw any of it.

Our Constitution mandates that level of legal process due to reflect “respect enforced by law for that feeling of just treatment which has been evolved through centuries of Anglo-American constitutional history and civilization.” Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Comm. v. McGrath, 341 U.S. 123, 162, 71 S.Ct. 624, 95 L.Ed. 817 (1951) (Frankfurter, J., concurring)

Ms. Stoller violated multiple professional regulations, ethics and the law in an ongoing campaign in which she blocked the administration of justice. By concealing the truth she prevented both exculpatory evidence favorable to my case and detrimental to the opposing party (involving misconduct and crimes from ever coming to light. It is quite clear the full Board never saw these documents. The fact that the latest Board action did not have any of the documents or petitions submitted over the past year is prima facie evidence of Fraud on the Court.  Ms. Stoller needs to be held accountable and I am requesting the SJC uses whatever power it has available to make certain this occurs. Ms. Stoller needs to be disciplined for her actions and this discipline needs to be commensurate with her crime.  In this case nothing less then disbarment and criminal charges would fit that bill.

The Regulatory Capture of American Medicine by the Drug and Alcohol Testing, Assessment and Treatment Industry

But in this Court, what Diff’rence does appear!
For every one’s both Judge and Jury here;
Nay, and what’s worse, an Executioner.

William Congreve, The Double-dealer

Screen Shot 2016-08-06 at 2.21.37 PM

Regulatory capture is a form of government failure that occurs when a regulatory agency created to act in the public interest, instead advances the commercial or political concerns of special interest groups that dominate the industry or sector it is charged with regulating and introduced in an article by George J. Stigler in 1971 entitled The Theory of Economic Regulation. The main idea of the article can be summarized in Stigler’s (1971: 3) affirmation that:

“…as a rule, regulation is acquired by the industry and is designed and operated primarily for its benefits.”

The basic hypothesis of Stigler is that an industry may use—or rather abuse—the coercive public power of the State to establish and enforce rules in order to obtain private gain.

Historians will at some point recognize 1995 as the “regulatory capture” inception point of American medicine when the  Federation of State Physician Health Programs ( FSPHP ) forged a relationship with the Federation of State Medical Boards (FSMB), the national organization responsible for the licensing and discipline of doctors and memorialized in a 1995 Journal of Medical Licensure and Discipline(Vol82N3)with articles claiming high success rates in eight state PHPs.

An accompanying Editorial written by past President of the FSMB Barbara S. Schneidman, MD, MPH concluded that:

“cooperation and communication between the medical boards and the physician health programs must occur in an effort to protect the public while assisting impaired physicians in their recovery.”

Roger A. Goetz of the the Florida Impaired Practitioners Program, for example reported that 84% of all referrals to the PRN “Occur prior to any violation of the Medical Practice Act or any evidence of patient harm.” Journal of Medical Licensure and Discipline(Vol82N3)  As protecting the public from patient harm is the primary directive of medical boards those statistics seem pretty impressive!   That the PRN prevented inevitable spirals of drug addled and besotted doctors from mayhem is questionable as how many were just like Leonard Masters?  After being accused of overprescribing Goetz told Masters he could either relinquish his license or have an evaluation. Masters chose the evaluation thinking he would be returning in 4-days but was diagnosed as an alcoholic and spent 4-months.  He didn’t even have a drinking problem.  He successfully sued G. Douglas Talbott and the facility for false imprisonment, malpractice and fraud.

Screen Shot 2016-08-06 at 2.38.30 PM

Goetz was also instrumental in promoting the chronic-relapsing brain disease model as a pathway to return revoked medical licenses.  No matter how abhorrent their  behavior,  by misplacing blame on the “disease” doctors who should have hung up their smocks forever quickly returned to practice as they didn’t do it the drugs or alcohol did.    In this manner serial sex-offenders, pedophiles,  date-rapists using roofies and fiends who replaced dying cancer patients narcotics with saline and let them die in agony were quickly returned to the fold.    The error in this thinking is that for the most part drugs and alcohol may induce good people to do disinhibited things or stupid things but they do not make good people do bad bad things. Empathy and moral compass are innate and the majority of doctors would not roofie drinks or take away dying patients pain meds under any influence. Unfortunately no test exists for psychopathy.

Many found employment as medical directors of these specialized programs and others became active in their states PHPs.

Since that time the FSPHP has duped the FSMB easier easier than a carney dupes a rube.

They asked the FSMB to approve public-policy to request state medical boards provide absolute deference to their state PHPs as their experts in all things related to physician health and to agree to never ever question their decision making skills regarding monitored doctors lest it “undermine a culture of professionalism” and this was agreed to.

Deference is acceptable but agreeing to blind deference and accepting the delusion of infallibility is unwise.  A culture of deference is unacceptable.  Lord Acton noted in a letter to a friend that the main point he was trying to get across when he wrote “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely”was not that power corrupts powerful people but that power corrupts other people.  This dynamic certainly holds here. They make allowances.

Since that time they have expanded from ‘impaired physicians” to “disruptive physicians” to the “aging physician.”  They have gained power and autonomy without regulation or oversight and by removing transparency and absolutely zero accountability they have essentially run amuck.

Screen Shot 2016-08-06 at 2.27.57 PM

In 1995 this was a simple but growing shakedown scheme using a medical license to extract money under the threat of its loss. The PHP refers doctor X to “PHP-approved facility” for an evaluation and the “PHP-approved” facility tells doctor X you will stay here until I say so or I tell the PHP you ain’t gettin your license back.  Doctor X  stays because he knows the PHP can do it as the PHP is not going to be questioned by the medical board.They refer to it as “contingency-management” but it essentially meets the criminal definition of extortion.

Business has boomed since 1995 as they introduced non-FDA approved drug and alcohol tests into the market even though they are unvalidated with very low specificity. Junk-gadgets such as the SCRAM alcohol monitoring bracelet and the Soberlink cellular photo breathalyzer have been promoted as accurate and valid.  None of this has any oversight but their linkages with the drug and alcohol testing, assessment and treatment industry has become an enormous gold mine.  Both the drug-testing and assessment and treatment industry are multi-billion dollar enterprises.

The FSMB even made it public policy for medical boards to provide deference to PHPs and consider them experts in all things  physician health.   In this manner they have introduced a panoply of junk science, brought legions of polygraph examiners out of their basements and rebranded the 360 degree personal development employee assistance tool as a bona fide diagnostic instrument used for disruptive physician evaluations.  The FSMB has also accepted concocted and imaginary concepts such as “potentially impairing illness” and “relapse without use” as not only nonfictional but medically scientific truth.   If they proposed tiddlywinks for assessment of the “aging” physician the FSMB would probably buy it.  Is potentially potentially impairing illness next.?   There has been no apparent inquiry or opposition to this.

Accountability requires both the provision of information and justification for actions and they have minimized both.  Prohibiting doctors from obtaining their own assessments, medical records and drug-testing records markedly reduces risk of exposure as does prohibiting release of those records to third parties.   Cash only prevents inquiry from insurers. The PHPs have no oversight or regulation.  The drugscreen-shot-2016-02-09-at-3-39-27-am and alcohol testing labs have no FDA oversight as the tests are non-FDA approved. Other than accreditation agencies such as the College of American Pathologists there is no agency to investigates error or misconduct. CAP cannot sanction.  The assessment and treatment centers have little oversight or regulation.   In sum this system refuses to provide information and even if they did provide information they do not have to justify it to anyone and no agency exists to punish them even if they could not justify it.  Zero accountability.

And with zero accountability corruption not only thrives but is inevitable.   The simple extortion scheme from 1995 has now grown to around two dozen “PHP-approved” assessment and treatment centers and state boards require that only “PHP-approved” facilities be used and specifically excludes non “PHP-approved” facilities.   The preferred facilities engage in “diagnosis rigging” and false diagnoses to warrant unneeded treatment.  The labs such as USDTL and Quest engage in laboratory misconduct and will create a falsely positive test at client request.    It is a closed system where everything is kept within the PHP circle.

And complete regulatory capture has been achieved through autonomous units within Boards that essentially serve as PHP protection units and hired guns.  They protect the PHP and their friends and also act as an assassin squad to do whatever the PHP wants them to do to suspend, revoke and interfere with the medical licenses of doctors any which way they want.

In Massachusetts Policy 94-002 created Physician Health and Compliance Unit (PHCU) Board counsel as an independent unit outside the enforcement division of the Massachusetts Board of Registration in Medicine by design.

These units were created at the request of state physician health programs ostensibly to monitor the compliance of doctors under monitoring their monitoring contracts.   The MA PHCU Board counsel is run by attorney Deb Stoller and also includes attorneys Robert Harvey and Tracy Ottina.

Screen Shot 2016-08-06 at 2.22.27 PMPHCU Board counsel were additionally afforded the  power to act as both “hearing-officers” on cases and present these same cases to the Board and recommend disciplinary action. This was by design also.  They were set up to hold all the cards and it is a stacked deck.

This additional circle around the closed-loop system provides an additional layer of protection to prevent the fraud and abuse from being discovered.  That the  Massachusetts Board is not under any active supervision from the executive branch has been confirmed in writing to the Massachusetts Legislature by Governor Charles Baker in a letter accompanying his Bill (H.4188) which aimed to finally establish a framework for active supervision and oversight over the Board.

These units enforce PHP policy and requirements including the restriction of assessments to the out of state (“PHP-approved”) assessment and treatment centers and forbid any outside assessments.    Any doctor in Massachusetts will be forced to go to Georgia, Alabama, Arkansas, Kansas  or some other remote venue for an evaluation under the guise of special knowledge.   Any doctor reported to the PHCU as “non-compliant” is summarily suspended. Truth and evidence are irrelevant. The opinions of all outside experts no matter how qualified or how many are not only dismissed they are patently ignored  with eyes wide shut.   They simply do not register anything outside the racket.  They abuse administrative law procedure to dismiss, deflect and delay.   Having the power to act as both a  hearing-officer to accept or exclude evidence and present cases to the Board and make disciplinary recommendations provides them with absolute power to render judgment.   It means they are in charge of every decision made, and they have the power to be rid of whomever they choose as judge, jury and executioner.  The Board’s simply defer to PHCU Board counsel and give little thought or time to what was presented and ratify whatever is asked. They are uninformed and disengaged.

The system is almost foolproof.   It is a culture of impunity and deference.  To make matters worse states Attorney Generals defer to the medical-board and their physician health experts.  The AGO represents the state agency and its expert in legal challenges and crimes reported by doctors are dismissed at the outset.  The agency responsible for investigating rackets and laboratory and healthcare fraud as well as civil rights violations and color of law abuse is the states AGO. No one is minding the minders.

The assistant AGOs representing boards appear to use the same tactics as the PHCU Board counsel and a similar moral disengagement mentality but it is unclear what the interface is with the PHP/medical board and states AGOs.  If anyone has any insight please advise as I have not figured it out.  Perhaps they agreed to deference to the medical board/PHP just as the medical board agreed to deference to the PHP.  Perhaps they have specific administrative attorneys who they use or even a cadre within but it is implausible that the entire AGO would be supporting the rehab racket.

But in the final analysis this has resulted in is a complete systems failure where corruption and abuse is occurring as a product of bad apples in plain view and within the walls of regulatory medicine with each agency deferring to the integrity and honesty of its predecessor. This is not good governance.

Historians will someday look back at the fall of American medicine and wonder how it was allowed to happen and link systemic as well as specific problems pervasively plaguing the profession with regulatory capture by the drug and alcohol testing, assessment and treatment industry.

 

Screen Shot 2015-07-03 at 2.51.31 AM

Screen Shot 2016-08-08 at 5.51.35 PM

The “PHP-Blueprint”–A Trojan Horse for Profit and Wider Social Control

The ASAM White Paper on Drug Testing promotes random testing of everyone using the Non-FDA approved tests of unknown validity currently used in state physician health programs. This will be implemented through the healthcare system by removing procedural protections currently in place under federal guidelines. This is sure to be a boon for anyone battening and fattening off the Drug and Alcohol Testing Industry Association or rehab racket gravy train but a burden and pain for the rest of us.

Source: The “PHP-Blueprint”–A Trojan Horse for Profit and Wider Social Control

EtG–The Rosie Ruiz of Bent Science and Bad Medicine

The original pitch to the medical boards for Etg  was done by ex-felon Greg Skipper who is one of the Federation of State Physician Health Program (FSPHP) “impaired physician” architects.  He notes no conflicts of interest yet he is the one who introduced the test as a laboratory-developed-test (LDT) to NMS labs to get it marketed and avoid FDA oversight.   At the time he got this accepted with “regulatory sanctification” by the Federation of State Medical Boards (FSMB) there was only one study done on it involving 14 male psychiatric inpatients authored by him and the patent holder!

The Displacement of the idea that facts and evidence matter, by the idea that everything boils down to subjective interests and perspectives is — second only to American political campaigns — the m…

Source: EtG–The Rosie Ruiz of Bent Science and Bad Medicine

The Dictatorship of the Federation of State Physician Health Programs (FSPHP)

Dictatorships can be indeed defined as systems in which there is a prevalence of thinking in destructive rather than in ameliorative terms in dealing with social problems. The ease with which destruction of life is advocated for those considered either socially useless or socially disturbing instead of educational or ameliorative measures may be the first danger sign of loss of creative liberty in thinking, which is the hallmark of democratic society. All destructiveness ultimately leads to self-destruction—Leo Alexander

Screen Shot 2015-04-08 at 9.36.31 AM


 


The  importance of recent articles published on  Medscape and in the British Medical Journal critical of state Physician Health Programs (PHPs) cannot be overemphasized. Physician Health Programs- More Harm Than Good? by Pauline Anderson broke new ground as it was the first mainstream medical publication to address the serious concerns so many of us are aware of  but can do nothing about.  Jeanne Lenzer’s “Physician health programs under fire” published  in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) shines further light on state physician health programs and discusses the lack of transparency, oversight and accountability and profit motive of these programs. Direct and serious questions that deserve direct and serious answers.    What we need now is fuel for the fire. We need a conflagration and we need to name the enemy and that enemy is the Federation of State Physician Health Programs (FSPHP). The FSPHP is both an illegitimate authority and an irrational authority and this is easily proved.

Physician Health Programs (PHPs) were Originally funded by medical societies and staffed by volunteers and existed in every state by 1980.,  The equivalent of Employee Assistance Programs (EAPs) for other occupations. Their purpose was to help sick doctors and protect the public from harm.   Over time, however, these programs have been subverted by special interest groups representing the drug and alcohol testing, assessment and treatment industries whose primary agenda is to sell the  “PHP-Blueprint” to other occupations and groups.  This is being done by falsely claiming  unparalleled success for doctors treated by PHPs and they are touting it as , the “new paradigm” when in reality this model. subjects doctors to all manner of abuse in a system of institutional injustice and a culture of harm.    Many of these horror stories were told in the comments section of the Medscape article and a subsequent article by Dr. Pamela Wible, MD entitled Do Physician Health Programs Increase Physician Suicides?  

The stories we have heard are  articulate, consistent, believable and very sad.  Many of those who were previously silent out of fear and due to threats have now come forward.  It can no longer be ignored or deflected. The Federation of State Physician Health Programs (FSPHP), however, has remained silent. We are hoping this will garner some interest in the mainstream media.  The  FSPHP needs to be held accountable for their actions. This includes both answerability and justification for their actions. The silence and inane answers of FSHPH and its President Doris Gunderson speaks volumes.

“Science under dictatorship becomes subordinated to the guiding philosophy of the dictatorship.” So begins Medical Science Under Dictatorship1 written in 1949 by Leo Alexander and published in the New England Journal of Medicine. Alexander acted as consultant to the Secretary of war and the Chief Counsel for the Nuremberg trials.

The guiding philosophic principle is Hegelian or “rational utility” and “corresponding doctrine and planning”, Alexander said “replaced moral, ethical and religious values” and Nazi propaganda was highly effective in perverting public opinion and public conscience. He explains how this expressed itself in a rapid decline in standards of professional ethics in the medical profession.   This all “started from small beginnings” with subtle shifts in the attitudes of physicians to accept the belief that there is such a thing as “a life not worthy to be lived.”

In 1985 the British Sociologist G.V. Stimson wrote of a new form of professional control in the United States that had emerged in the preceding decade whose “success rests on the ability to take certain areas of conduct such as alcoholism and drug abuse (which are formally disciplinary issues) and handle them as diseases.”2

Stimson writes:

“The impaired physician movement is characterized by a number of evangelical recovered alcoholic and addict physicians, whose recovery has been accompanied by an involvement in medical society and treatment programs. Their ability to make authoritative pronouncements on physician impairment is based on their own claim to insider’s knowledge.”2

Among these authoritative pronouncements was the use of specialized treatment centers. Many professionals were critical of these programs including Assistant Surgeon General John C. Duffy who criticized the “boot-camp mentality”4toward doctors and American Society of Addiction Medicine President Leclair Bissel who when asked in a 1997 interview when the field began to see physicians as a specialized treatment population replied “when they started making money..”.” 5

Amid reports of abuse, coercion and control in facilities using a doctor’s medical license as “leverage,” the Atlanta Journal Constitution ran a series of reports in 1987 documenting the multiple suicides of health care practitioners at one of these programs (5 while in the facility and at least 20 after discharge).6   Neither these suicides nor a large settlement against the same facility (finding a non-alcoholic doctor was intentionally misdiagnosed as an alcoholic and forced into months of treatment)  for fraud, malpractice, and false imprisonment involving intentional misdiagnosis7 generated any interest among the medical community at large.

And by 1995 the door had closed as the Federation of State Physician Health Programs ( FSPHP ) relationship with the Federation of State Medical Boards (FSMB), the national organization responsible for the licensing and discipline of doctors,  was forged.  A 1995 Journal of Medical Licensure and Discipline(Vol82N3) contains articles outlining the high success rates of these programs in 8 states with an editorial comment from the FSMB that concludes:

“cooperation and communication between the medical boards and the physician health programs must occur in an effort to protect the public while assisting impaired physicians in their recovery.”8

The Federation of State Medical Boards (FSMB) has approved any and all policy and regulation put forth by the impaired physician movement  then organized under the Federation of State Physician Health Programs (FSPHP) with no apparent inquiry or opposition.

In 2003 Dr. Gregory Skipper, one of the key players of the impaired physician movement partnered with NMS labs to develop the alcohol metabolite ethyl-glucuronide (EtG) as a laboratory developed test13 14 he proposed be used as a monitoring tool for covert alcohol use in physicians after a pilot study involving just 14 psychiatric inpatients.15

The policy entrepreneurship this group so effectively uses to advance their goals can be seen in the August 25, 2004 Journal of Medical Licensure and Discipline which contains articles both presenting the problem 11 and providing the solution.11   The EtG was then introduced as an accurate and reliable indicator of covert alcohol use and the impact of this cannot be underestimated as it introduce to the market not only unregulated non FDA approved tests for forensic use but tests reaching further back into history then those used by workplace drug-testing programs.

IMG_1686The limitations of any test needs to be understood both in the forensic and clinical context but there is a lot less flexibility in the forensic context when people’s liberties, freedoms or property rights ( as with a medical license) are in jeopardy.

Sensitivity and specificity need to be carefully considered.  The positive predictive value of a test is the true positives over the true positives plus false positives.  If you are going to sanction somebody as a result of a single test that test needs to have 100% sensitivity.

When workplace drug testing was introduced debates over both the accuracy and scope of tests occurred. The employees right to privacy and the employers right to have a drug-free workplace were discussed with the general consensus being testing for impairment was a legitimate concern but preservation of private life should remain.

What was done here dissolves both.

PHP programs require abstinence from all substances including alcohol and strict adherence to 12-step doctrine9 yet many of the physicians monitored by them are neither addicts nor alcoholics. Requiring abstinence from drugs and alcohol while using non-FDA approved Laboratory Developed Tests in monitoring programs is a dangerous combination. The suicides reported by the Atlanta Journal Constitution in 1987 were prior to the introduction of these tests. Adding these tests of unknown validity to an already abusive program of coercion and control would only worsen the situation.

I have been hearing of multiple suicides involving both the fear of results and false results. I have also been hearing of doctors who have killed themselves because they were suffering from depression but did not seek help as their fear of being ensnared into the PHP outweighed the need to get help.

Three decades after G.V. Stimson so accurately defined the impaired physician movement the impaired physician movement defines the professional control of medicine..   Their involvement in medical society physician health programs (PHPs) and treatment programs has evolved into absolute control of both. Pronouncements on physician impairment have evolved from insider’s claims to written edict.   And their reach has extended from impairment due to drugs and alcohol to “potential impairment” and “relapse without use.” Their reach has extended from drug and alcohol impairment to all other aspects of medicine and the impact has been profound.   Medicine has been subordinated to the guiding philosophy of the impaired physician movement and doctors are dying in droves du to institutional injustice.

How does the profession of medicine reconcile the fact that we have allowed an as yet non ABMS recognized “self-certification” specialty full reign over those who are ABMS recognized?  How is it that we allow non-FDA approved Laboratory Developed Tests (LDTs) of unknown validity on doctors coerced into state Physician Health Programs (PHPs)?    A recent debate in Washington calling for regulation of  “clinical”  LDTs just took place and the fact that they are being used for “forensic” purposes in doctors is incomprehensible.   Has anyone noticed it is the same people introducing the tests who are claiming PHPs are the “gold standard,” trying to push them on other EAPs and calling for more widespread use of these tests?

The use of non-FDA approved Laboratory Developed Tests (LDTs) for drug and alcohol testing  is currently limited to PHPs and the criminal justice system. (i.e. monitoring programs in which those doing the testing have power and those being tested have no power). That may soon change. See  Drug Testing and the Future of American Drug Policy and The American Society of Addiction Medicine White Paper on Drug Testing describing the plans for widespread expansion of this drug testing to other groups including kids.

Those involved in the Massachusetts General Hospital Laboratory Medicine, Toxicology and addiction medicine departments looked critically at these tests and decided hands down against using them. Why? Because no evidence base exists and the potential harm far outweighs any perceived benefit.  “Research” has been done on those being monitored by PHPs and the criminal justice system and Drs. J Wesley Boyd, M.D., PhD, and John Knight, M.D. of Harvard Medical School who collectively have over two decades of experience as Associate Directors with the Massachusetts PHP, Physician Health Services, Inc. addressed this research in a 2012 article published in the Journal of the American Society of Addiction Medicine entitle Ethical and Managerial Considerations Regarding State Physician Health Programs.  The allegations that PHPs are engaging in research in violation of the Nuremberg code ( that was a direct result of the Nuremberg trials for which Dr. Alexander acted as consultant ) should have raised some eyebrows.   It hasn’t.

Screen Shot 2015-04-13 at 9.53.44 AM

If the ASAM becomes recognized by the ABMS  as is now occurring “addiction medicine” specialists will inevitably join hospital formulary, clinical laboratory and ethics committees to erect the same scaffold seen in the PHPs and those with hidden agenda will be able to outvote those of good conscience and critical reasoning.  Patient care will then be subordinated to the guiding philosophy of the impaired physicians movement.

This system of institutional injustice is killing doctors by suicide as the medical societies and Departments of Public Health have given PHPs full autonomy and authority and it is poised to impact patient care.

I challenge you to name any other company, organization, group or agency within or related to the profession of medicine and the field of science that is bereft of absolutely all  transparency,  regulation or oversight?  It does not exist.

The PHP scaffold has deliberately  removed themselves from all aspects of accountability including answerability, justification of actions and the ability of outside actors to hold them in judgment of any information provided by answerability.   Heads I win, tails you lose.   That is a big red flag in itself. and those not currently being held accountable may very well be after you next as their grand plan includes expansion to many other groups including workplace employee assistance programs  (EAPs), the Department of Transportation, athletes, students and even kids!

Doctors have been afraid to talk about this for fear of being ensnared themselves.  Those already in these programs have remained silent out of fear, threats and punishment.  It is my hope that the articles published by Paula Anderson, Pamela Wible  and Jeanne Lenzer will open the door to mainstream media coverage and result in the outrage this deserves.    As Leo Alexander states in the closing words of this paper–“Yes, we are our brother’s keepers.

In The Argument of Fascism Ludwig von Mises wrote:

It cannot be denied that Fascism and similar movements aiming at the establishment of dictatorships are full of the best intentions and that their intervention has, for the moment, saved European civilization. The merit that Fascism has thereby won for itself will live on eternally in history. But though its policy has brought salvation for the moment, it is not of the kind which could promise continued success. Fascism was an emergency makeshift. To view it as something more would be a fatal error.

4-stage-plan1

Disrupted Physician 101.4–The “Impaired Physician Movement” takeover of State Physician Health Programs

The validity and reliability of opinions lie in their underlying methodology and evidence base. Reliance on the personal authority of any expert or group of experts is the fallacy of appeal to authority.

Physician Impairment The Sick Physician: Impairment by Psychiatric Disorders, Including Alcoholism and Drug Dependence…

Source: Disrupted Physician 101.4–The “Impaired Physician Movement” takeover of State Physician Health Programs

“Forget what you see Some things they just change invisibly”–Elliott Smith

Why are we tolerating the use of junk science against those in the medical profession? A direct question that begs for a direct answer. — Disrupted Physician

“That everyone shall exert himself in that state of life in which he is placed, to practice true humanity towards his fellow men, on that depends the future of mankind.” – Albert Schweitzer “By and by never comes” –St Augustine “A day’s impact is better than a month of dead pull”-Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. […]

via Why are we tolerating the use of junk science against those in the medical profession? A direct question that begs for a direct answer. — Disrupted Physician