Under the influence of Big Pharma and ALEC, Dr. Richard Pan, a physician-legislator, bamboozled California’s legislature into getting rid of the Personal Belief Exemptions as a vaccine opt-out; but the only way he could get it passed was to expand the parameters of how medical exemptions are written. This new law went into effect in 2016.
Beyond the CDC’s narrow guidelines on contra-indications, now, under the new law, things like family history and genetic association, even in relatives, could potentially warrant a medical exemption. It’s up to physicians to decide, based solely on their professional judgment. There was to be no list of specific requirements for exemption.
But Pan’s law was poorly written—and the kicker is that it got rid of informed consent, because, if your child has not been given all the required vaccines, s/he cannot go to school in California; and where there’s coercion there can be NO informed consent. The two are mutually exclusive.
Hundreds of integrative physicians started writing medical exemptions under the new, expanded standard, but many of them asked the medical board for guidance, and their requests were all rebuffed.
Once physicians started writing medical exemptions, Rep. Pan took it upon himself to tour the state, attacking them as fraudsters for doing exactly what his law now permitted them to do—write medical exemptions outside the narrow CDC contraindications.
Thus Pan weaponized the medical board in California to go after physicians like Dr. Stoller, for violating Standard of Care. This persecution was compounded by another law, passed in 2019, which essentially ended medical exemptions in California. While technically they are still possible if CDC contraindications are the parameters, there’s no longer a physician in the entire state who would dare write an exemption, because the medical board has hunted hundreds down for writing them.
Dr. Stoller was targeted because he was the only physician in San Francisco writing exemptions. A vaccine-absolutist got the City Attorney so worked up about it that he sent out a libelous press release, announcing they were going after Dr. Stoller as a public nuisance. Dr. Stoller sued, and the City Attorney instantly backed down, without even filing a response to the complaint. This happened in May of 2019, five months after Dr. Stoller published his seminal article, “Denial of Adverse Events Following Immunization and the Loss of Informed Consent.”
The medical board then accused Dr. Stoller of incompetence and negligence, which culminated in a hearing on Sept. 21.
Here is attorney Greg Glaser’s detailed account of the hearing—Dr. Stoller’s cogent testimony, his brilliant representation by his lawyer, Rick Jaffe, and the confirmation of his stance by his expert witness, Kelly Sutton:
“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..