WMC Standard of Care Based on FDA Dictates

Update on Turner v. WMC

Hello SMF family! Earlier this week, our legal team was in court for a 3-day long hearing before the WMC regarding the license of Dr. Michael Turner. Before sharing our update, we wanted to share the opening statement written by Karen Osborne, Attorney with SMF. Great job, Karen! Thank you for working tirelessly for We the People!

---

Thomas Jefferson once said, "Was the government to prescribe to us our medicine and diet, our bodies would be in such keeping as our souls are now." Unfortunately, this hearing demonstrates that this is exactly where we find ourselves today.

Today, we are beginning a hearing in which the standard of care is a forgone conclusion and has been since September 22, 2021. On that day, the WMC had a special meeting, which was noticed solely for discussion, where no public comments were taken, and where, contrary to Washington law, official action was taken. The only item on the agenda at that meeting was the discussion of the COVID-19 Misinformation Position Statement. Despite the meeting being noticed only for discussion, the statement was adopted unanimously by those in attendance. The discussion included the following statement that made clear that the position statement adopted a standard of care that would subject practitioners to discipline: 

Deputy Director Micah Matthews said, “I think what you are doing here is you are considering the position of the commission with respect to these items. That means that if you so adopt this, then that is how the commission is going to view these items and that it will be subject to some sort of discipline. What you are doing is putting the licensees and the public on notice that this is how you view these issues. For the purposes of this meeting, I would call it a fairly black-and-white decision of ‘Do you view this as appropriate guidance for the staff as you move forward with respect to how you view complaints and potential practice violations or not.’”

The standard of care adopted by the WMC was based solely on the dictates of the FDA, which itself admits to the use of off-label prescribing and that the approval of a drug does not limit its use solely to its advice or consent. The Statement included the following:

“The WMC relies on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's approval of medications to treat COVID-19 to be the standard of care. While not an exhaustive list, the public and practitioners should take note:

· Ivermectin is not FDA-approved for use in treating or preventing COVID-19.”

The WMC uncritically relies upon other government entities to determine the standard of care. As Jefferson said, the government now prescribes our medicine and therefore "keeps" or has control of our bodies.

Using government dictates to determine the standard of care has nothing to do with the actual practice of medicine, nor does it consider the actual experience and understanding of doctors who were treating COVID on the front lines. This means that the traditional definition of the standard of care being "the standard developed in the field by the doctors doing the work" has been rejected for a theoretical standard created by individuals hired by a government entity or working in a lab. All real-world experience of doctors is dismissed as unimportant and useless. Thus, doctors are at the mercy of priori-developed protocols. Our bodies are definitely held by the government, just as Jefferson warned would happen.

Indeed, this reliance on government dictate is contrary to Washington law. Dearinger v Eli Lily & Co Washington Supreme Court Case in 2022 states, "law governing medical practice requires physicians to exercise independent judgment in deciding whether to prescribe a specific drug (“See Dearinger v. Eli Lilly & Co., 199 Wn.2d 569, 580, 510 P.3d 326, 332 (2022).

Indeed, to require that a doctor rely solely on the determination of a long-arm third party such as a drug company or a government agency requires a dereliction of duty by the doctor to exercise independent judgment.

Dr. Turner has exercised independent judgment and acted as a prudent physician would in the same circumstances. He did not rely upon propaganda coming out of the FDA, such as calling Ivermectin horse paste, but rather did his own research. Research he did for a good reason. Like everyone during the pandemic, he wanted to help prevent morbidity and mortality. He was aware that no treatment was going to be 100% effective, but he also did not accept the nihilism foisted upon physicians regarding higher-risk individuals such as the elderly. His research indicated that Ivermectin was very safe and possibly effective, particularly early in the disease process. This created a positive risk/benefit analysis, and he began prescribing it to good, though not 100% effect.

Indeed, no treatment, whether in the hospital or out of the hospital could claim 100% effectiveness. Many people died under hospital protocols, too.

The state must meet the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that Dr. Turner caused harm or an unreasonable risk of harm to his patients. This burden cannot be met unless the standard of care is a foregone conclusion.

The WMC experts have opined that the risk of harm was minimal in four of the five patients. If the risk of harm was minimal, I ask you to consider what the countervailing risk of no early treatment for these high-risk elderly patients would have been. It is an uncommon practice, and not a prudent practice, to leave such patients to their fate. Ask yourself whether it is ethical to withhold a very safe but potentially effective therapy amid a pandemic for the sake of creating research through random controlled trials. In those circumstances, I ask this panel to consider the ethics of that.

Further, Dr. Turner had an extensive write-up informing the patient about the care he was offering. Lack of informed consent cannot be proven.

The only one of Dr. Turner's patients to tragically die was Patient A. In this instance, the WMCs expert has claimed that Dr. Turner's treatment created a delay in treatment. This cannot be proven by clear and convincing evidence. First, it will be shown that the patient himself did not seek help for six full days, so if treatment was delayed, it was due to the decisions of the patient, not Dr. Turner. Second, it will be shown that Dr. Turner gave detailed instructions about when to go to the hospital and that the patient followed those instructions. Those instructions were comparable to the admission policies of the hospital, advising that Patient A seek hospital care once his O2 levels had dropped below 89. Additionally, it will be shown that when Patient A presented to Dr. Turner, monoclonal antibodies were riskier and were not necessarily easily obtained or available. Patient A presented to the hospital precisely at a point the hospital was likely to admit him. Any time sooner and he likely would have been sent home. Therefore, the WMC cannot prove by clear and convincing evidence that treatment was delayed. ‘

---

Now that the hearing is complete, we are just waiting on the final decision from the Washington Medical Commission. While the facts presented above are clear and convincing, it remains to be seen what the ultimate decision will be. We will keep you all updated.

Your continued support through donations, prayer and sharing our content is imperative to our mission and is so appreciated. Onward!