In His Words

The case synopsis below is from Dr. Turner's words. It addresses his experience with the Washington Medical Commission and how the Commission has attempted to regulate his practice. 

In case you missed it, I am listed as the chief plaintiff in a little piece of jurisprudence called Turner et al. vs. Washington Medical Commission lawsuit (accompanied by fellow intrepid doctors like Dr. Renata Moon, Dr. Ryan Cole and Dr. Richard Wilkinson).

This garnered a bunch of press – everything from front-page billing on the Sunday edition of our local paper, to RJK’s Children’s Health Defense, and even an editorial in the British Medical Journal (God save the Queen!). We had our first hearing last week and I have to say that our attorney -- Pete Serrano Esq.– did an absolutely superlative job. (Thank you Pete, and all of your talented and dedicated team at the Silent Majority Foundation. It is time to be silent no longer.)

On the surface, the issue revolves around providing Ivermectin (and other early treatments) as a telemedicine option.

As you know, Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine were stigmatized by the media, mainstream medical organizations, federal health institutions and state medical boards. The WA state medical commission (WMC) published a “COVID 10 misinformation statement” that cited the FDA as establishing the “standard of care”, and then boldly warned practitioners to “take note” that Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine are not FDA-approved for COVID.

Then -- just to make it convenient to squash such terrible care -- they conveniently provide a link to file a complaint and “encourage” the public and other practitioners to report any deviation from this standard of care.

Of course, I find this absurd and abusive on many levels:

1) The FDA does not have the mandate, authority nor expertise to determine what specific medicine may or may not benefit a particular patient at a particular point in time.

2) “Off-label” medication usage is common and appropriate in the right context

3) Complaints were accepted and used as a basis for investigation that were not even filed by the patient nor his/her immediate family.

I repeat: none of these complaints ever came from my patients or even close family members.

(On the contrary, my early treatment patients and family have overwhelmingly expressed appreciation and gratitude.)

One complaint, for example, came from an ER doctor after looking over my patient’s medication list. Another came from the patient’s granddaughter who lived across the state and was upset when she heard that grandma was given Ivermectin (I am not making this up).

Furthermore, none of my patients suffered any harm that could be directly tied to my treatments. In fact, looking back, my use of these medications was resoundingly successful, and I continue to be astounded with stories of hospitalizations averted and lives saved.

We, as plaintiffs, believe that these investigations into our licenses are an attempt to punish us for violating this “position statement” – a statement, which, contrary to due political process, is being treated and enforced as a “rule”, when it in fact has no such legal standing.

Why should you care?

Our case is (regrettably) just another galling example of the abuse of government power to harass and intimidate physicians.

It is also the next in bold series of countermeasures by concerned healthcare providers and sympathetic, capable lawyers all over the country (Godspeed to Drs. Apter, Bowden and Marik in their lawsuit against the FDA).

Our suit is a landmark event that should concern (and encourage) every person who cares about our constitutional rights and, specifically, the issue of medical freedom.

1) It challenges attempted government overreach (just like the FDA proclamations)

2) It seeks to stop the state from intimidating healthcare providers .

We need to get the bureaucrats out of the doctor-patient relationship. We must demand that our health officials let the evidence lead where it may and truly follow the science.