It will be about ten weeks before we see the official results, but…
Opinion by “Deplorable” Consumer Advocate Tim Bolen
California Attorney Greg Glaser, a major player in the current “California Health Freedom” effort, was able to “view” the entire trial on MicroSoft TEAMS. The general public could only “listen.”
Greg wrote an interesting piece for Physicians for Informed Consent (PIC), a group that has provided wonderful support for the California doctors under attack.
Below I will give you a link to the original article. But before I do I am going to explain something legally technical used by Attorney Rick Jaffe in Stoller’s Defense. Something I know a whole lot about because I was part of the very effective 2004 “Health Freedom” team that got this legislation done to specifically protect doctors like Ken Stoller.
When you read down further you are going to wonder how we got the California Medical Board to actually sponsor this legislation (smile). But, that another story. In a different time and a different place…
To refresh your memory about these California “Vaccine Medical Exemption” cases you can click on:
About Attorney Rick Jaffe’s “Alternative Medicine” Defense…
California has something completely unique. Just below is an excerpt from an earlier article that explains what happened fifteen to twenty years ago in California – and how that work protects doctors like Ken Stoller MD.
“The California Health Freedom Movement in 2005 California was scarily effective.”
More, the victory was much larger than just reining in the California Medical Board.
We shut down the California Dental Board, completely, when they wouldn’t put out mercury warnings. The Governor appointed a new Board. Read about that here – “Quackpot Menace STEAMROLLERED in California…”
We also got legislation passed protecting our health care practitioners – a LOT of legislation. See Below:
Senate Bill 2100 in California, passed July 6, 2000, forced the California Medical Board to form a committee and begin a two year study of Alternative Medicine under VERY SPECIFIC guidelines.
Senate Bill 1691 in California passed in September of 2004 to make it legal for physicians to practice safe effective alternative medicine.
California Governor Gray Davis signed into law the most important Health Freedom bill in world history – California SB 577. “Governor Signs New California Health Freedom Bill – State Now “Wide Open.”
And, much more. We were on fire…”
The importance of the 2004 passing of SB 1691…
From the California legislature comes this explanation of SB 1691:
Purpose of this bill . This bill is sponsored by the Medical Board of California to provide informed consent to patients receiving alternative and complementary medical treatment, or advice from licensed physicians, while protecting those physicians from undue enforcement by the Medical Board. Informed consent requires that specified disclosures are made to the patient, and there is no patient harm resulting from the alternative or complementary medical treatment or advice. Background - There has been a belief in the alternative and complementary medicine community, and elsewhere, that the Medical Board takes disciplinary action against its licensees solely because they practice using alternative or complementary medicine and not just conventional allopathic medicine. Because alternative and complementary medicine often are based on a different philosophy of healing than conventional medicine, use of alternative and conventional medicine is viewed as often ineffective or fraudulent. Licensed physicians who practice alternative medicine can be judged as failing to meet the standard of care that is based on a conventional philosophy and practice of medicine.
SB 2100 (Vasconcellos), Chapter 660, Statutes of 2000, required the Medical Board to establish specific policies regarding integrating alternative and complementary medicine into the practice of medicine. That bill also required the Medical Board to review statutes and recommend modifications to the law, when appropriate, in order to assure California consumers that the quality of medicine in this state is the most advanced and innovative it can be. That bill also required the Medical Board to establish disciplinary policies and procedures to reflect emerging and innovative medical practices for licensed physicians. As a result of SB 2100, the Medical Board revised its disciplinary policies and staff training, and established a Non-Conventional Medicine Committee (Committee) to evaluate alternative and complementary medicine and its integration into the practice of medicine. The Committee, as a result of numerous meetings it held over the past two years, developed the language for SB 1691. The Committee’s proposal was reviewed and subsequently approved with some modification by the entire Medical Board.
According to various reports and studies, including a recent study published by the New England Journal of Medicine, millions of people in the United States have sought and received health care services from unlicensed health care practitioners who use alternative or complementary medicine. Alternative or complementary medicine includes a wide array of heath care practices that are not generally accepted as part of conventional medical practice. These practices can include some forms of health care that are currently licensed in California such as acupuncture, chiropractic, and many which are not, such as homeopathy, ayurveda, and kinesthesiology.
The Senate Business and Professions Committee held an informational hearing during the Legislative Interim of 2001 on Alternative and Complementary Medicine. At that hearing a large number of witnesses testified arguing that the current definition of medicine under the Medical Practice Act was too broad, and limited the provision of other types of health care to Californians who want access to those services in addition to conventional medical treatment.
There has been increased study and investigation into alternative and complementary medicine and health care at the national level – with studies being commissioned to ascertain the efficacy of various alternative health care practices and treatments. There is controversy whether these practices are effective, and if so who should be able to provide them if appropriate training or education is received.
Recently the Legislature passed SB 577 (Burton), Chapter 820, Statutes of 2002, which enacted the provisions of the Medical Practice Act that now permit unlicensed persons to offer alternative medical treatments and not be subject to discipline for practicing medicine, so long as the practitioner does not do specified forms of treatment (e.g., surgery, x-rays), discloses that he or she is not a licensed physician, and makes specified disclosures to the patient regarding the alternative nature of the proposed treatment and their qualifications to provide that treatment.
SB 1691 is similar to SB 577, in that it is intended to more clearly authorize licensed physicians to offer alternative and complementary medical treatment to their patients. Physicians must provide patients with the necessary relevant information regarding their treatment options, whether it is conventional or alternative and complementary, and what the licensee’s qualifications are in the alternative and complementary medicine treatment being provided. This latter disclosure is required by this bill because the alternative and complementary treatment are not typically taught in most conventional medical education programs and are not tested for in California’s physician licensing examination.
Arguments in Support . The Medical Board states that this bill takes positive steps toward allowing physicians to offer complementary and alternative medicine to their patients without fear of discipline by the Medical Board, so long as they properly document and provide information to their patients. The Medical Board believes that this bill will likely lead to an increase in the number of physicians willing to offer alternative and complementary medicine to consumers, while ensuring that certain safeguards are maintained for consumer protection.
Think for a minute about the tens of thousands of hours over a five year period; the meetings, the planning and execution of plans expended by this earlier generation of Health Freedom Fighters in California to get this “Alternative Medicine” legislation done…
Ken Stoller MD is an “Alternative Medicine” practitioner in California…
So, the so-called “Standard of Care” for ANY and EVERY activity of his and others like him is different and equal to conventional practitioners. THAT was the heart of his defense presented by Attorney Rick Jaffe.
Here is Attorney Greg Glaser’s column…
Recap From An Eye Witness — Dr. Stoller Trial Before the California Medical Board
“You can’t unread these studies. They are harming children.” Ken Stoller, MD (Medical Board Trial, September 22, 2020)
The Ken Stoller MD Trial is now complete before the Medical Board of California, so we have a good sense now of the case. By way of background, the Medical Board accused Dr. Stoller of writing ten ‘inappropriate’ medical exemption letters.
The trial went well because Dr. Stoller’s defense was very well documented and supported.
Dr. Stoller was the picture of professionalism as he navigated his medical records and the medical literature on vaccine risk.
The Medical Board’s expert witness (Dean Blumberg, MD of UC Davis) claimed there can only be one standard of care (CDC guidelines) and that it would be an “extreme departure” from such one standard of care for any doctor to write a medical exemption outside the “list” of CDC contraindications/precautions, save for extremely rare circumstances with a documented pathophysiology. Dr. Blumberg provided zero examples of any such pathophysiology. Nor did he provide any evidence that he ever wrote medical exemptions. Dr. Blumberg instead attempted to remove discretion from medicine and enforce one-size-fits-all vaccination. Not only was Dr. Blumberg wrong for the mainstream standard of care, he was exponentially wrong with regard to the separate standard of care governing integrative medicine physicians like Dr. Stoller. Fortunately, the judge is smart, and she will surely have detected the extreme bias of Dr. Blumberg, or as I would say, the “extreme departure” of objectivity of the State’s “expert”.
The State did not even attempt to introduce an integrative medicine expert, because the State knows that Dr. Stoller performed competently as an integrative medicine physician. The State’s only hope is to convince the court that integrative medicine does not (or cannot) exist in the vaccine world.
Dr. Stoller’s lawyer Rick Jaffe was excellent in his presentation of the evidence and the law. Indeed, even the judge would appear to be leaning toward, in her own words, ”standards of care” (plural).
There was one particularly shocking moment in the Trial on Day 1 when the State’s expert witness Dr. Blumberg attempted to backtrack over Senator Richard Pan’s words in 2015 to the California Assembly, where Dr. Pan stated that a “genetic association in a cousin” justifies a medical exemption. Dr. Blumberg claimed that Dr. Pan was really only saying those words (‘genetic association in a cousin’) referred to part of the process for obtaining an exemption (i.e., looking at genetic association in a cousin could be part of the process of obtaining an exemption) but that if a doctor actually did what Dr. Pan recommended then it would violate the standard of care. The heads of everyone listening flew back and Rick Jaffe naturally laughed out loud when Dr. Blumberg tried to draw that shockingly illogical distinction. It was a pivotal moment in the case, and one that Mr. Jaffe calls “the Blumberg interpretation”. In other words, the Blumberg interpretation is that if a doctor wrote a medical exemption based on the very criteria (‘genetic association’) that Dr. Pan recommended in order to get his bill passed, then it violates the standard of care. This would actually be comical if the stakes were not so high.
During Days 2-3 of the Trial, Dr. Stoller testified regarding many topics, such as: his experience as a Board certified pediatrician, his resignation from the AAP, the meaning and virtue of informed consent, the way SB277 eliminated informed consent, Dr. Pan’s testimony on SB277 that effectively misled the legislature and baited doctors to write medical exemptions.
Dr. Stoller’s case is centered upon the CAM defense, and indeed this was the first exhibit presented in his defense: https://physiciansforinformedconsent.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Best-Practices-Complementary-Care-Glaser.pdf
Another key exhibit for Dr. Stoller was the “Best Practices for Physicians Recommending a Medical Exemption to Vaccination” presented at the PIC workshop last year: https://physiciansforinformedconsent.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Bark-and-Glaser-Best-Practices-for-Physicians-Writing-a-Medical-Exemption-to-Vaccination.pdf
However, the judge was not inclined to accept many defense exhibits in the case, and preferred to focus on the testimony and the medical records. Fortunately, the testimony was often quite detailed in reference to medical literature regarding vaccine risk.
And yet the State prosecutor (attorney Mercer) showed a fundamental lack of even basic vaccine knowledge throughout the proceedings, as he implied that aluminum must be safe to inject into children because it is abundant in the earth’s crust. Mr. Mercer also implied that Polysorbate-80 must be safe to inject because Sorbitol (a sweeter) is in common usage. I wish I was making this up (that we don’t live in such a world of ignorance), but that really happened during the trial. It’s another example of the woeful ignorance of mainstream vaccine science that permeates even medical board proceedings.
The trial concluded with Dr. Stoller’s expert witness, PIC Physician Kelly Sutton MD. Dr. Sutton testified eloquently regarding the stark distinction between conventional medicine (intervention-focused, vaccine focused) compared to integrative medicine (whole patient focused, immune health focused). Dr. Sutton emphasized key points regarding the importance of patient-centered risk assessment for immune health. Her testimony was a remarkably refreshing departure from the State expert Dr. Blumberg. Indeed, Dr. Blumberg’s words were like an amorphous cloud of numerically devoid conclusions. He appeared robotic and ignorant. Whereas Dr. Sutton provided crisp breaths of fresh air as she skillfully navigated from one scientific fact to the next. She is a physician with heart.
To intimidate Dr. Sutton, the State served an accusation against Dr. Sutton’s license only 1-week ago (just before the Stoller trial began). Dr. Sutton was not intimidated though. She testified confidently, and Mr. Jaffe highlighted for the court the State’s shameful intimidation tactic.
I expect Dr. Stoller will win this trial, upholding integrative medicine in vaccine science. But if he somehow loses this trial, then it will serve as another sad example in modern history where justice is not allowed to shine in the vaccine world because ‘vaccines get another special pass’ (a phenomenon that vaccine injured families have known all too well since at least 1986).
We won’t receive a final answer in the case (i.e., who won) for about ten weeks (around December 2020). This is because there is an administrative process that concludes the case involving a series of final document exchanges between the parties and the court with legal argument.
I will plan to provide a newsletter update as soon as we have an answer. But in the meantime, please join me in expressing gratitude to Drs. Stoller and Sutton for their bravery, expertise, and professionalism.
More to come…
By the way, Ken Stoller MD wrote for the BolenReport for a long while. It was decided that he should adopt a low-profile for the trial so he had to stop…
To see Ken’s earlier excellent BolenReport articles click here..
Opinion by “Deplorable” Consumer Advocate Tim Bolen