Why Is the FBI Denying My Access to Medical Care?

The FBI is in the process of denying my access to private and safe medical care.

The result of the agency's contact with the Ultrasound Department at the Palo Alto Medical Foundation, as well as with my physician, Winona Tan, directly, is that there are two investigations underway -- one in the Ethics and Compliance Office, the other in the Privacy Office of Sutter Health.

And still, no one has contacted me to say "We are prioritizing your health care in both safety and privacy.  Please come in to have testing and see your physician without further delay.  These are the ways in which we plan to ensure your safety and privacy, given your role as an FBI whistleblower."

To add to my concern, my online physician service, PlushCare, sent me an email last week to announce its updated "Terms of Use."

I emailed PlushCare administrators (info@plushcare.com) on Wednesday, August 10, 2022.  That communication is posted herewith:

For ease of reading, my letter states, in part, the following:

I am concerned about your updated Terms of use regarding the following:

•     medical record forwarding as required by applicable state and federal law

Because it appears that the FBI has routinely violated patient privacy and confidentiality laws in demanding access to the medical records of "targets of interest," I would like to know whether PlushCare or its parent company Accolade are signatory to Infragard.  If so, I assume that PluschCare and/or Accolade have agreed to accept pay from Infragard in return for forwarding the private medical records of those designated (unlawfully, I might add) as "targets of interest" by the FBI/Infragard.

I need to ask PlushCare and Accolade for explicit clarification of any relationships to Infragard and/or the FBI whatsoever.

I am a law-abiding American citizen who is seeking private and skilled medical care --- emphasis on the word private.

If I desired to invite the FBI into my clinical appointments, I would surely do so.

Despite the fact that FBI agents who have been corrupted by the far right wield badges and the public trust, I have not invited them into my clinical medical care appointments for the reason that they have shown themselves utterly unworthy of that privilege.  As an FBI whistleblower, my medical care is not a matter of national security.  It is a matter for my physician and myself.  A private matter.

Consequently, I request your immediate clarification of PlushCare/Accolade's relationships to the FBI/Infragard.  Beyond this, should any relationship to Infragard exist, I would appreciate knowing when this was initiated.  Your privacy policy appears to have been recently altered, as does your liability policy.  Taken together, these policy changes raise the alarm, frankly.

I look forward to your prompt reply.

Sincerely,

Lane MacWilliams

In this communication, I am posing questions that should be easy for a health care company to answer, frankly.

Do you prioritize patient care over and above any possible remuneration from the FBI?

Do you guarantee my privacy and my safety in accessing that care?

PlushCare's failure to respond specifically to these questions, alongside the silence of the Palo Alto Medical Foundation's Ana Tuifua and others, leads me to harbor profound concerns about the FBI's apparent protocol of separating law-abiding Americans from safe and private medical care simply because the FBI has wrongfully alleged that there is just cause for their having been designated "targets of interest."

Law-abiding American citizens should not be mischaracterized as "targets of interest" under any circumstances.

The FBI's intent in this case seems to surpass malice and reckless endangerment to reveal itself as something altogether more extreme:  the knowing and willful deprivation of appropriate medical care to law-abiding American citizens.

All of this begs the question:  how many "targets of interest" is the FBI assailing in this manner?

Is it Christopher Wray's contention that contributing Democrats and journalists are unworthy of access to safe and private medical care?

Does his opinion outweigh state and federal laws mandating that patient privacy and safety should be upheld at all times?

When law-abiding American citizens such as myself ask the FBI for materials responsive to their Freedom of Information Act requests, are they told, as I was told, that they will need to wait at least four and a half years to receive those materials?

Are we certain that their medical issues can be neglected for four and a half years without harm?

I don't think we are.

And so, I would ask for appropriate intervention in this matter from those who oversee FBI conduct.

No one should be blocked from access to safe and private medical care because they stand as a whistleblower in the service of their nation.

I believe the American public would agree.

I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct,

Lane MacWilliams