Psychiatrist Andrew J. Kolodny of the CDC: Narcotics Nazi Division

Psychiatrist Andrew J. Kolodny is a quack.

He is NOT qualified, licensed nor Board Certified in Pain Management and has NO medical expertise in the field or treating chronic pain patients, whatsoever.

Psychiatrist Kolodny makes his money off of addiction, addiction centers and addiction therapy drugs (tagged the treatment drug for life) which is considered more addictive, more severe withdrawal symptoms, more severe side effects than RX opioids, in addition to being more expensive.

Psychiatrist Andrew J. Kolodny, is the founder and Executive Director of PROP, an anti-opioid extremist on steroids, who ran the Phoenix House chain of so called “non-profit” addiction treatment centers and is responsible for the 2016 CDC Guidelines, increasing the pharmaceutical levels of all opioids, reclassifying them to insane levels.

He also makes money from court cases.

CAN THE QUACK!

When the Trump administration announced new restrictions on opioid prescriptions covered by Medicare, the plan drew strong criticism from patients and physicians across the country.

The proposed rule, which would have required insurer approval of prescriptions totaling 90 or more morphine milligram equivalents (MME) per day, generated nearly 1,400 online comments and they were overwhelmingly negative. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) noted two months later, in April 2018. “Physician groups opposed the forcible/non-consensual dose reductions due to the risks for patients of abrupt discontinuation and rapid taper of high dose opioid use. Similarly, we received hundreds of letters from patients who have taken opioids for long periods of time and are afraid of being forced to abruptly reduce or discontinue their medication regimens with sometimes extremely adverse outcomes, including depression, loss of function, quality of life, and suicide.”

Which went completely ignored.

Narcotic Nazis" at the CDC…are the Cancer destroying millions of lives, with their lies.

And President Trump…why are you perpetuating our suffering?

T4 Program, also called T4 Euthanasia Program, Nazi German effort—framed as a euthanasia program—to kill incurably ill, physically or mentally disabled, emotionally distraught, and elderly people. Adolf Hitler initiated the program in 1939, and, while it was officially discontinued in 1941, killings continued covertly until the military defeat of Nazi Germany in 1945.

Tiergartenstrasse 4—involved virtually the entire German psychiatric community. A new bureaucracy, headed by physicians, was established with a mandate to kill anyone deemed to have a “life unworthy of living.” Some physicians active in the study of eugenics, who saw Nazism as “applied biology,” enthusiastically endorsed this program.

An important criterion was economic. Nazi officials assigned people to this program largely based on their economic productivity. The Nazis referred to the program’s victims as “burdensome lives” and “useless eaters.”

The program’s directors ordered a survey of all psychiatric institutions, hospitals, and homes for chronically ill patients.

Physicians oversaw gassings in chambers disguised as showers, using lethal gas provided by chemists. The SS (Nazi paramilitary corps) staff in charge of the transports donned white coats to keep up the charade of a medical procedure. The relatives then received condolence letters, falsified death certificates signed by physicians, and urns containing ashes. The murder of the handicapped, intellectually or physically disabled and emotionally disturbed Germans who by their very existence violated the Nazi ideal of Aryan supremacy. They were termed “life unworthy of life.” An economic justification was also employed as these Germans were considered “useless eaters.” was a precursor to the Holocaust.

https://www.britannica.com/event/T4-Program

Nazi policies and practices also sought to repress civilian gun ownership and eradicate gun owners in Germany and occupied Europe.

The registration of all firearms and the confiscation thereof, was required for “public safety.

Constitutional rights were suspended, mass searches for, seizures of guns and dissident publications ensued. Police revoked gun licenses of those who were not “politically reliable.”

https://www.nationalreview.com/2013/12/how-nazis-used-gun-control-stephen-p-halbrook/

>>5958831

>>5948987

>>5948109

>>5947623

>>5947670

>>5947516

>>5947417

They all knew that it was never a Doctor Prescribed Opioid Crisis, it was always an illegal heroin & illegal fentanyl flooding of the US.

78% of the Oxycontin overdoses were NOT Doctor Prescribed… but purchased on the black market illegally, etc. They have known this since 2009.

And how many chronic pain patients that have undiagnosed cancer or other fatal illnesses that could be treated….are too afraid of mentioning other painful symptoms, because they may be dropped by their Physicians or have already been dropped and have no Doctor to go to?

Your ignorance has dire consequences!

>>5958847

>>5958831

>>5948987

>>5948109

>>5947623

>>5947670

>>5947516

>>5947417

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) is introducing federal legislation to promote "red flag" gun prohibition and confiscation order schemes. Sadly, this legislation was encouraged by President Donald Trump, who once famously said, "take the guns first, go through due process second."

This may be the most dangerous anti-Second Amendment legislation in the 2019-2020 congressional session – not only because of what it would mean for gun owners, but because it is widely supported by anti-gun Democrats and Republicans alike.

"Red Flag" laws allow people to secretly petition a judge to have your guns taken away WITHOUT due process. The petitioners do not have to prove you have committed a crime – they can take your gun rights away, followed by a warrant for confiscation of firearms, ammunition, magazines, and gun parts.

And these petitions can sometimes be ex parte – without you even having notice or being present to defend against the petition.

In fact, in some states, a court “may consider any other evidence of an increased risk for violence, including, but not limited to….[e]vidence of recent acquisition of firearms, ammunition, or other deadly weapons.” In other words, if someone recently exercised their Second Amendment rights, that could be construed as evidence that they are an “increased risk for violence” and should have a "red flag" order issue against them.

In an ex parte situation, the subject of an order might not even know about it, let alone voluntarily decide to give up their property once they do know. And if it’s an order issued after notice and a hearing, then that subject, if they really are dangerous, gets to maintain possession of weapons until someone takes their weapons from them—if they can find them—or until there’s a warrant, search, and seizure of property. 

While a firearm is, of course, personal property, the interest at stake here is far more substantial than the deprivation of a mere possession. “[T]he right to keep and bear arms” is “among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty.” McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 3042 (2010). And by establishing a scheme that would prohibit possession (and allow for seizure) of firearms, "red flag" laws strike at the core of the Second Amendment: the right to keep and bear arms in the home for self-defense. District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 630 635 (2008).

But it gets worse. "red flag" laws and their underlying statutes skip past due process. The Due Process Clause guarantees that “[n]o person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”  (U.S. Const., amend. V.)  Because “[t]he right to prior notice and a hearing is central to the Constitution's command of due process,” United States v. James Daniel Good Real Property, 510 U.S. 43, 53 (1993), the “general rule” is “that individuals must receive notice and an opportunity to be heard before the Government deprives them of property.”  (Id. at 48.) 

If someone is dangerous enough, due to criminal activity or mental health problems, to be a real threat to themselves or others, then there are many laws by which families, friends, or law enforcement can more appropriately and effectively respond to them.

But if the government does not have enough evidence to investigate or charge a person with a crime or hold them for a mental health evaluation, then the government has not met its burden for taking away rights and property under any scheme. 

"Red flag" laws stand for the proposition that everyone is guilty unless they can prove their way out of an accusation. And "red flag" laws are unconstitutional and dangerous. 

FPC strongly opposes “red flag“ laws on practical, policy, and constitutional grounds.

Please stand with us and OPPOSE this legislation!

https://www.oneclickpolitics.com/messages/edit?promo_id=5101#

>>5958847

>>5958831

>>5948987

>>5948109

>>5947623

>>5947670

>>5947516

>>5947417

>>5958873

Report: Nearly half of combat veterans complain of chronic pain

Nearly half of a group of infantry soldiers who had seen combat in Afghanistan have reported experiencing chronic pain and 15 percent said they recently used opioid pain relievers, according to a study released Monday.

Of 2,597 active-duty Army troops surveyed three months after their redeployment, 44 percent said they experienced recurring or unceasing pain after returning from Afghanistan, according to the study, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association Internal Medicine.

The number of soldiers affected by chronic pain was a surprise to researchers, said Robin L. Toblin, the lead author of the study, one of the first to quantify the impact of recent wars on the prevalence of pain and narcotic use among soldiers.

”War is really hard on the body,” said, Toblin, who is affiliated with the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research.

But she said that researchers didn’t expect that nearly half of young, otherwise healthy men who were not seeking medical treatment would suffer from chronic pain.

Opioids, whose pharmacological effects resemble morphine or other opiates, are strong medicines that can relieve pain caused by serious injuries.

Of the chronic pain sufferers, 48.3 percent reported pain duration of a year or longer. More than half — 55.6 percent reported nearly daily or a constant frequency of pain. About half — 51.2 percent — reported moderate to severe pain.

The survey did not ask for the location of the pain, Tolbin said.

The troops’ reported use of opioid pain relievers — 15.1 percent of all surveyed troops and 23 percent of those with chronic pain — was also far higher than the estimated civilian use of 4 percent. But that finding was less of a surprise, she Toblin said.

The findings “suggest a large unmet need for assessment, management and treatment of chronic pain and related opioid use and misuse in military personnel after combat deployments,” the study authors note.

“The nation’s defense rests on the comprehensive fitness of its service members — mind, body and spirit. Chronic pain and use of opioids carry the risk of functional impairment of America’s fighting force,” they wrote.

According to a 2010 report by DOD’s Pain Management Task Force, “Pain is a disease state of the nervous system and deserves the same management attention given to any other disease states,” according to a 2010 task force report.

But pain management is a special challenge in military settings, the report said.”

“The transient nature of the military population, including both patients and providers, creates extraordinary challenges to providing continuity of care, something very important to pain management.”

Data for the JAMA study were collected in 2011 from an infantry brigade redeployed from Afghanistan, and most of the 2,597 survey participants were men, 18 to 24 years old, high school-educated, married and of junior enlisted rank. Nearly half - 45.4 percent - reported combat injuries.

https://www.stripes.com/news/report-nearly-half-of-combat-veterans-complain-of-chronic-pain-1.291296

VA Tries to Confiscate Disabled Vet’s Guns, Stopped by Citizens and Sheriff Standing Guard

President Obama has said time and again that his greatest disappointment was that he was unable to enact new gun control legislation to further restrict the right of American citizens to keep and bear arms. In an effort to do an end run around Congress and enact some of that legislation, the Obama administration enacted some new policies that would make it impossible for some disabled vets to purchase guns and might even lead to their existing firearms being confiscated. That very nightmare scenario — the VA forcibly confiscating the firearms of a disabled veteran — almost happened in Idaho yesterday, but the VA was stopped in its tracks by a grassroots group of local residents. And the sheriff. And some politicians. All of whom stood on the man’s front yard to prevent the confiscation.

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/08/foghorn/breaking-va-tries-to-confiscate-disabled-vets-guns-stopped-by-citizens-and-sheriff-standing-guard/

Obama threatening veterans' gun rightsFeds send letters to warn those deemed 'incompetent' on firearms

In an apparent threat to Second Amendment rights, some American military veterans have received a letter from the Veterans Administration warning that their competency to handle their own affairs is under review, and if determined by government bureaucrats to be “incompetent,” they would be barred from possessing weapons.

http://www.wnd.com/2013/02/obama-threatening-veterans-gun-rights/#mxg2MFdhoOIuiVro.99

>>5958915

>>5958873

-Today, it's Red Flag Gun Confiscation Laws.

-37 States that make it easier to commit someone against their will & take away your gun rights. Because of the fake Dr. Prescribed opioid crisis.

They are all related.

There Are No Coincidences!

>>5958891

I thought that too…it's like what on earth do they have on him…or is it repetitive behavior on his part?

>>5958954

God Bless Our Guardians at the Gate!