Dr. Patricia Derges Responds From Prison

From federal prison, Dr. Patricia Derges provided detailed written responses to the filmmaker addressing the charges brought against her. In these statements, she explains her actions, challenges the government’s narrative, and points to documents, recordings, and timelines she says were never fully examined in court. These responses reflect her perspective — shared under confinement — and form the foundation for the investigation presented in this film.

COVID-19 Fraud Scheme

Conviction: 3 counts of wire fraud.
Claims:
- Applied for $882,644 in CARES Act funds, claiming her nonprofit Lift Up provided COVID-19 testing.
- In reality, Lift Up’s clinic was closed during that period (March–June 2020).
- The testing was done (and already paid for) through her for-profit Ozark Valley Medical Clinic.
- She received $296,574 in CARES funds anyway, deposited it into Lift Up’s account, then transferred it to her for-profit clinic’s account.

Dr. Patricia Derges’ Response:

I am 100% innocent. I would not be fighting this hard if I were not.

It is critical that the public understand why this case was brought, because without that context, none of it makes sense.

Two things happened within the same week that made me a target.

1. COVID Treatment & the University of Utah

In March 2020, at the height of the COVID crisis, my amniotic-fluid treatment protocol was broadcast on television. At that time, thousands were dying, there were no effective treatments, and hospitals and pharmaceutical companies stood to make billions from costly and dangerous interventions.

My patients were being sent home within 48 hours.

During that broadcast, I referenced the University of Utah, which supplied the amniotic fluid. This suddenly placed the university in the spotlight. Evidence later revealed potential violations of federal organ-transplant law and the possibility of massive illegal profits. If proven, it would represent one of the largest university-based medical scandals in U.S. history.

Instead of investigating those violations, the prosecutor aligned with the university. Evidence favorable to my innocence was concealed. A key witness was falsely reported as incapacitated in the ICU to delay my trial—only for that witness to be seen active and healthy the next day.

Rather than expose a federal crime, I was made the scapegoat.

2. Political Threat

At the same time, I had just filed to run for Missouri State Representative. My platform included legislation protecting doctors through the Assistant Physician Law — legislation deeply opposed by powerful medical associations.

Four days before the election, the prosecutor convened a reverse proffer and pressured me to accept a plea. That meeting was recorded. I was told that if I did not take a deal, he had unlimited power and unlimited resources and would “keep coming.”

The message was clear: withdraw or be destroyed.

COVID Grant Charges — Key Facts

The COVID-related charges should never have been brought.

Only one branch of government — IRS Criminal Investigation — has authority over CARES Act cases. Neither the prosecutor nor the judge had jurisdiction, nor had they even read the CARES Act before pursuing charges. The Act itself anticipated widespread errors and built in protections for applicants.

The CARES Act charge was added late for one reason: to destroy the reputation of mission clinics nationally recognized for serving more than 25,000 indigent patients. Without those charges, the government’s narrative would not hold.

What the Jury Was Never Told

I did not apply for $882,644.
My only application was incomplete, rushed, and for approximately $90,000 — and it was rejected because funds were gone.
Three months later, Greene County unexpectedly received new funding and independently awarded $296,000 based on documented losses. I did not apply for those funds and was unaware of them until awarded.
The application never asked for a requested amount. The $882,644 figure represented total incurred and projected expenses, not an application amount.
COVID testing was performed by nonprofit mission clinics in Ozark, Branson, and East Springfield. My for-profit clinic did not perform COVID testing.
The for-profit clinic paid all expenses for the nonprofit clinics, including COVID testing. This arrangement was fully disclosed and documented, including through official county records and tax forms.
We did not double bill or profit.
COVID testing cost us $221 per test. Patients were charged $167 or less. Many tests were free. We lost money on every test.
The grant was for emergency services, not just COVID testing. Even without COVID expenses, we qualified due to losses exceeding $400,000.

The Only True Statement

Yes — the grant funds were deposited into the nonprofit account and later transferred to the for-profit account. This was allowed, disclosed, and necessary because the for-profit clinic had paid nearly $700,000 in expenses on behalf of the nonprofit.

Before any funds were used, the FBI seized the money. Nearly all of it was still there.

Despite this, I am being ordered to repay money the government already recovered.

Final Note

Had the prosecutor investigated honestly — or asked basic questions — none of this would have happened. Instead, critical evidence was hidden, reputations destroyed, clinics shuttered, and thousands lost access to care.

This is not just my story.
It is a warning about what happens when power chooses protection over truth.

Stem Cell Fraud Scheme

Conviction: 7 counts of wire fraud.
Claims:
- From 2018–2020, she sold amniotic fluid as a stem cell treatment.
- Marketed it through seminars, social media, and consultations as containing mesenchymal stem cells.
- In reality, the amniotic fluid from the University of Utah was “acellular” (no stem cells at all).
- Patients paid nearly $200,000 total for this treatment.

Dr. Patricia Derges’ Response:

From 2018 to 2020, I provided regenerative medical treatments. What the government later claimed about those treatments is fundamentally inaccurate.

Understanding the Science

First, an important distinction:
“Stem cells” and “mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) are not the same thing.

I have performed actual stem cell procedures since 2017. These involve extracting stem cells from a patient’s own bone marrow or fat, processing them, and reinjecting them. This is not an amniotic fluid treatment, and I was one of very few physicians in my region performing these procedures.

Amniotic fluid treatments are different. They are part of regenerative medicine and are widely understood in the medical community as activating and mobilizing the body’s own stem cells and MSCs through signaling mechanisms. Expert testimony at trial confirmed this understanding.

What I Did — and Did Not — Claim

I never once represented amniotic fluid injections as containing live stem cells.

My seminar materials explicitly state that there are no live stem cells in amniotic fluid, and recordings of those seminars confirm this. I gave public seminars precisely because many other clinics were falsely advertising “stem cell shots,” and I wanted to correct that misinformation. The government ignored those clinics entirely.

How I Was Trained

I was trained on amniotic fluid treatments by the University of Utah’s distributor. Both I and another physician were taught that the product involved mesenchymal stem cell activity. This understanding was reinforced by the university’s own brochures, website, product inserts, lab results, and COVID research trials — all of which routinely referred to the product as stem cell–related, cellular, or progenitor-based.

At no point did the University describe the product as “acellular.”

The Sudden Shift

Only after my COVID treatment success was publicly broadcast in early April 2020 did the term “acellular” suddenly appear — following a visit by the prosecutor to the University of Utah.

Within days, the university quietly altered its marketing materials and research language to add that term. Some government COVID research records were also modified, and my treatment was later removed entirely from a clinical trial. Months later, the university quietly removed the “acellular” language again.

A key university witness later confirmed under oath that these changes occurred — and that the university was fully aware of criminal conduct by its distributor, who is now serving a life sentence for unrelated crimes.

Why This Matters

Independent experts later identified potential violations of federal organ-transplant law involving the university’s handling and sale of amniotic products. I brought this information, with supporting evidence, to the prosecutor and offered to assist in an investigation.

No investigation occurred.

Instead, the focus shifted to me.

The Patients

Every patient treated either improved or was satisfied with their care. One patient withdrew before trial, stating they were happy with the treatment. Others testified to improvement. Government agents later visited patients’ homes, misrepresented my credentials, and attempted to pressure them into becoming witnesses.

Despite months of effort, very few patients sought reimbursement — a fact inconsistent with actual fraud cases. When that failed, the government attempted to list all treated patients for restitution regardless of their satisfaction.

The Financial Reality

I charged 80% less than comparable clinics so average patients could afford treatment. Any revenue went directly back into providing free and low-cost care through my mission clinics. I never took a paycheck.

The jury was never told this.

Closing Note

This case was not about patient harm.
It was about misrepresented science, altered records, and a narrative constructed after the fact.

The documents exist.
The recordings exist.
The timeline matters.

This documentary exists so the public can see what the official record does not explain.

Illegal Distribution of Prescription Drugs

Conviction: 10 counts of distributing controlled substances (Oxycodone & Adderall) over the internet without valid prescriptions.
Claims:
- Assistant physicians at her clinic couldn’t prescribe Schedule II drugs.
- They would examine patients, then tell her what to prescribe.
- Without personally evaluating the patients, she issued e-prescriptions and sent them to pharmacies.

Dr. Patricia Derges’ Response:

None of the prescription-related charges against me were legitimate.

My Licensing Authority

At the time in question, I held a full federal DEA license, authorizing me to prescribe Schedule II–V controlled substances. This was not an Assistant Physician DEA license. Federal authority governs prescribing power and supersedes state-level restrictions.

I was also licensed to practice medicine in Missouri as an Assistant Physician and held a full physician license in Florida, which is why a full DEA registration was issued to me.

Why the Charges Were Brought Anyway

The prosecutor initially attempted to charge me with illegal prescribing, but those charges were abandoned once it became clear that I held a valid federal DEA license.

Instead, the case shifted to reliance on an obsolete and selectively enforced rule requiring an in-person visit before prescribing controlled substances — a rule that is routinely interpreted flexibly in hospitals, emergency rooms, and clinics nationwide. If enforced literally, modern medical care would grind to a halt.

Ironically, on the first day of trial, my own attorney was treated in a local emergency room by a nurse practitioner and given a Schedule II prescription under a physician’s name he never saw — a standard and accepted practice.

Covering Physician & In-Person Requirements

The same rule the government relied on also allows prescribing when a physician is acting as a covering physician for another doctor who has already seen the patient.

In every prescription count charged against me, I met **at least one — and often both — of these requirements:

I had personally seen the patient, and/or
I was acting as a covering physician at the request of the patient’s regular doctor

All prescriptions at issue were refills, not new prescriptions. Over five years, I prescribed controlled medications to fewer than 30 patients — fewer than many physicians prescribe in a single week.

How Prescribing Worked in My Clinic

Refill evaluations are basic: vitals are taken, tolerance is confirmed, and no new issues are identified. These evaluations do not require an exam room and often occur informally, as they do in clinics across the country.

Contrary to the government’s narrative, assistant physicians did not instruct me on what to prescribe. These were long-standing medications already approved and monitored.

Our collaborating physician instructed us on how prescriptions were to be handled and was contractually responsible for overseeing them. That oversight did not occur until after federal agents became involved.

Key Patients Used to Support the Charges

Several patients central to the prescription charges confirmed that I had seen them in person and were prepared to testify to that fact. One such witness was never subpoenaed despite being easily located. His testimony would have undermined multiple charges.

In other cases, records showing that my collaborating physician had previously treated and prescribed for the same patients were withheld, even though that fact alone would have established my role as a covering physician.

In one instance, a prescription occurred during the earliest COVID shutdown period, when telemedicine was the only available option nationwide. Treating that as criminal would implicate thousands of physicians who did the same to keep patients alive and cared for.

Why This Mattered to the Case

Prescription charges made up a substantial portion of the indictment. Without them, the government’s case — and its sentencing enhancements — would have been significantly weakened.

These charges were not about patient harm or public safety.
They were about sustaining a narrative and increasing punishment.

Closing Note

No patient was harmed.
No prescription was outside my authority.
No charge survives a complete and honest review of the facts.

This documentary exists so the public can examine what the courtroom never fully did.

False Statements to Federal Agents

Conviction: 2 counts.
Claims:
- Told investigators the amniotic fluid contained stem cells (she had been informed it did not).
- Denied treating a patient with amniotic fluid for urinary incontinence (but she had).

Dr. Patricia Derges’ Response:

Both false-statement charges arose from a meeting I requested with federal agents on May 5, 2020. I asked for the meeting to answer questions and clear up any confusion.

We met outdoors because of COVID. The meeting lasted more than four hours. I had no attorney present and no patient records with me. The conversation was recorded by all parties.

False Statement #1: Amniotic Fluid and Stem Cells

The government alleges that I lied by stating that mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) were involved in amniotic fluid treatments.

During the meeting, I explained — consistently with my prior statements — that amniotic fluid works through signaling mechanisms that activate and mobilize the body’s own stem cells and healing processes. This explanation aligned with what I had been taught by the University of Utah and what was reflected in its marketing and research materials at the time.

That explanation was omitted from what the jury was shown. Instead, a single line was extracted from the conversation and presented out of context to create the appearance of a false statement.

The broader explanation — including how signaling works and why the distinction mattered — was withheld.

False Statement #2: Stress Incontinence Treatment

Near the end of the lengthy meeting, agents rapidly listed various procedures and asked whether I had ever performed them.

When asked about stress incontinence, I did not recall having treated a patient for that condition. I had no records with me, and it had been more than a year since I had treated many patients.

After receiving a subpoena and reviewing my records, I discovered that I had treated one patient for stress incontinence along with another condition. I immediately turned over the chart.

If I had intended to mislead investigators, I would not have produced that record. I did so because I was trying to be truthful — even when it did not benefit me.

Additional Context

During this same period, agents appeared to possess detailed knowledge of patient treatments that had not yet been subpoenaed. When questioned, an agent stated only that they had “their ways” of obtaining information. Requests for clarification about warrants or authorization were never answered.

Why This Matters

These charges did not arise from patient harm, financial gain, or public safety concerns. They arose from selective excerpts, withheld context, and retrospective interpretation of statements made during a voluntary meeting.

They were later used to support a broader narrative — not to uncover the truth, but to sustain a case.

Final Perspective

This case involved an unusually wide range of allegations, many of which were never fully examined in court. It is not possible to cover every issue in a single film.

For that reason, this documentary focuses on the COVID-related events — where the most serious questions arise, the most evidence exists, and the public interest is greatest.

The documents exist.
The recordings exist.
The timeline matters.

The film asks viewers to examine what happened — and decide for themselves.