@yoavepstein271k@WarMonitorClips He got exactly what he deserved! Did the killer give any of the 7 that he killed in cold blood the opportunity to descalade the situation? He give up any consideration the moment he killed the first person. I'm guessing not one of the victims was one of your loved ones.
@karar0se2008@WarMonitorClips Armchair fucktard go join the force and let's see how you preform. He was outstanding running toward harm to neutlize threat, mission accomplished
@papergirlmacy You and Dopesick have caused so much pain to chronic pain patients with painful diseases and the elderly. They suffer everyday from your propaganda. RX down by over 60 % but overdoses up by over 60%. It was always illegal fentanyl overdoses. You got fame & rich harming others
@joeroganhq Claudia A Merandi Please have her on the podcast she is a advocate for chronic pain patients. She is the voice for chronic pain patients and elderly that have been abandoned or undertreated for pain. Doctor Patient Forum. #dontpunishpain
Since the Opioid MDL Lawsuits are winding down, I guess autism replaces the "opioid crisis" for the next wave of multidistrict litigation. And this guy replaces Andrew Kolodny...
https://t.co/3XTQ1FbKC9.
In their commentary, “Long-Term Opioid Therapy for Pain What Is Known About Harms—and Still Not Known About Benefits,” Bicket and Bateman bemoan the recent Food and Drug Administration (FDA) decision on opioid labeling (1). While both participated in the meeting upon which FDA made its decision (2), they mischaracterize “the clearest picture to date of long-term risk,” inappropriately using the broadest definition of Opioid Use Disorder (OUD), rather than citing the prevalence of opioid addiction determined by the FDA, which represented the agency’s original task (1, 2). During the hearing, Bicket inquired about measuring “moderate-to-severe OUD and its relationship to abuse,” to which Dr. Jana McAninch of FDA's Office of Surveillance and Epidemiology replied, “The primary definition of moderate-to-severe opioid use disorder was a way to operationalize the outcome of addiction,” which FDA post-marketing report (PMR) 3033-1 estimated to be only about 1.5% when adjusted for the presence of pain (2). Citing the misuse figure seems more disingenuous when realizing that Bicket failed to disclose a conflict of interest for receiving personal fees from a company that provides academic detailing on prescription medications (1, 2, 3).
JAMA’s limitations for editorial replies preclude a comprehensive response to other flaws in the commentary, but key points demand rebuttal. Bicket and Bateman repeat the hackneyed call for more “robust” research about the benefits of long-term opioid therapy (LTOT), ignoring many well-designed studies that have offered evidence of LTOT’s effectiveness and safety. Two significant examples employ methodologies that avoid the prohibitive ethical problem of depriving a control group from the benefits of a therapeutic intervention while participating in a long-term, randomized controlled trial (4, 5). In a cohort study of palliative care outpatients receiving LTOT over the course of four years, participants maintained 5-point reductions in pain intensity on a 10-point scale, maintained performance status despite serious illness and experienced reductions in overall overdose risk (4). An examination of a large FDA dataset showed “about one-third of patients successfully titrated on opioids to treat chronic noncancer pain demonstrated continued benefit for up to 12 months (5).” This evidence suggests patients with high-impact chronic pain or severe pain associated serious illness can receive safe and effective pain relief from LTOT and demonstrate clear benefits (4,5).
Instead of satisfying Bicket’s and Bateman’s insincere call for more research on opioid benefits, a comprehensive comparison “weighing the harms of continuation of therapy against the harms of discontinuation of therapy when caring for patients on long-term opioid therapy (6)” is long overdue and would offer a better opportunity for achieving balanced opioid policy. “Rather than prioritizing benefit, which is often subjective and more susceptible to discordance between the patient and provider,” opioid policymakers should “evaluate whether the projected harms of continuing opioids outweigh the projected harms of tapering or discontinuing opioids for [a] particular patient (6).” For too long, disingenuous tropes like that offered from Bicket and Bateman have dominated debates about LTOT; our patients deserve a more thoughtful approach to opioid policy.
References:
1. Bicket MC, Bateman BT. Long-Term Opioid Therapy for Pain: What Is Known About Harms-and Still Not Known About Benefits. JAMA. 2025 Aug 27. doi: 10.1001/jama.2025.13225. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 40864437.
2. U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Joint Meeting of the Drug Safety and Risk Management Advisory Committee (DSaRM) and the Anesthetic and Analgesic Drug Products Advisory Committee (AADPAC). May 5, 2025. Available at: https://t.co/2esW5xrcII. Last accessed on September 2, 2025.
3. Agniel D, Brat GA, Marwaha JS, Fox K, Knecht D, Paz HL, Bicket MC, Yorkgitis B, Palmer N, Kohane I. Association of Postsurgical Opioid Refills for Patients With Risk of Opioid Misuse and Chronic Opioid Use Among Family Members. JAMA Netw Open. 2022 Jul 1;5(7):e2221316. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.21316. PMID: 35838671; PMCID: PMC9287751.
4. Kollas CD, Ruiz K, Laughlin A. Effectiveness of Long-Term Opioid Therapy for Chronic Pain in an Outpatient Palliative Medicine Clinic. J Palliat Med. 2024 Jan;27(1):31-38. doi: 10.1089/jpm.2023.0251. Epub 2023 Aug 8. PMID: 37552851; PMCID: PMC10790545.
5. Farrar JT, Bilker WB, Cochetti PT, Argoff CE, Haythornthwaite J, Katz NP, Gilron I. Evaluating the stability of opioid efficacy over 12 months in patients with chronic noncancer pain who initially demonstrate benefit from extended release oxycodone or hydrocodone: harmonization of Food and Drug Administration patient-level drug safety study data. Pain. 2022 Jan 1;163(1):47-57. doi: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000002331. PMID: 34261978; PMCID: PMC8675053.
6. Lagisetty P, Kertesz S. Harms Versus Harms: Rethinking Treatment for Patients on Long-Term Opioids. Subst Abus. 2023 Jul;44(3):112-114. doi: 10.1177/08897077231190697. Epub 2023 Sep 22. PMID: 37737138.
@TuckerCarlson I'm sorry for the loss of your father. I'm also sorry that you felt the need to stigmatize chronic ill patients that do choose to use painkiller like my mother with bone, skin and lung cancer. You imply to die with dignity and clarity one has to refuse pain management. Shame on U
@ibdgirl76@JeffreyBSimon It's condescending, gaslighting and zero critical thinking of the physician. If a patient with heart disease or diabetes was treated like this they would be dead. Many are on multiple medications to control blood pressure and diabetes. Why is a pain patient treated any different?
So illicit opioids at a safe site = harm reduction, but opioids from a doctor = overprescribing? 🤔
How did #HarmReduction orgs go from fighting for safe supply to cheering on the crackdown on pain patients?
Make it make sense.
#SafeSupply#PainPatientsDeserveBetter
This is disturbing – Biden and Obama Democrats created a new beast, the “popup nonprofit shell” they suddenly launch to take in your taxpayer money supposedly for things like climate change and illegal immigration. Major front for taxpayer abuse with accusations of grift growing by the hour. Never saw it like this in decades covering IRS/taxes.
Check out the tax returns for one of these popup NGO shells, the Climate United Fund which got the biggest nonprofit grant in history out of Biden’s massive climate slush funds.
Kamala Harris and Biden’s EPA chief Michael Regan gave $7 billion total to the suddenly created Climate United Fund in April 2024 after it launched just five months earlier in November 30, 2022 when Its tax returns show it started with a tiny $547K in revs.
But it spent a massive $451K of that $547k in just two months in 2023, a quarter of that on legal fees and the majority $323K mysteriously blown on no one knows what because its tax returns don’t say.
It has no stipulated plans for how it will spend your $7B in tax $$, just ephemeral solar projects in Idaho, Arkansas, and Oregon that amount to only about $50M total, a fraction of the $7B. It also gave money out of that $7b to Power Forward Communities linked to Stacey Abrams.
It has little to no details on how much its officers get paid that you typically see on NGO 990s, in fact virtually no details, red flags that it’s a shell.
It supposedly is a partnership betw Dem insiders at investment firm Calvert Impact Capital, Community Preservation Corp. and a group called “Self-Help” (irony noted).
Beth Bafford is its CEO, a former “special assistant” in Obama’s OMB and a regional field director for the Obama Campaign.
As we tweeted about a month ago, it has ties to Democratic Party of California chairman and California State Treasurer Phil Angelides, Obama’s Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx, United Farm Workers of America co-founder Dolores Huerta and Patrice Willoughby of the Congressional Black Caucus.
Judge Glock, the Director of Research and Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute, noted on X that the Climate United Fund got your $7B ater submitting a small 49-page report. That was all it took.
@doge@whitehouse@PressSec@x@mtgreenee@SenJoniErnst@realDonaldTrump #DOGE #DOGEGOV #Trump #spending #DOGECAUCUS
BREAKING: @EPA Advisor Admits ‘Insurance Policy’ Against Trump is Funneling Billions to Climate Organizations, “We’re Throwing Gold Bars off the Titanic”
“It was an insurance policy against Trump winning.”
“Get the money out as fast as possible before they [Trump Administration] come in ... it’s like we’re on the Titanic and we’re throwing gold bars off the edge.”
Will @DOGE be willing to listen to how the corrupt @CDCgov manipulated data re: overdoses which led to MDs forcing millions on the addiction medication, Suboxone?
Maybe, maybe not