Browsed by
Author: Richard Jaffe

SB 276 gets Amended, but still knocks-out current medical exemptions, and fragile children won’t qualify for future exemption

SB 276 gets Amended, but still knocks-out current medical exemptions, and fragile children won’t qualify for future exemption

On April 30, 2019, SB 276 was slightly amended.

Here is the link to the amended bill.

Here is the short of it:

1. Precautions are added to contraindications: The amended bill adds the following language after contraindications: “or that a specific precaution regarding a particular immunization exists. . . . “

What practical effect will that have on those with current medical exemptions or parent of medical fragile children?

I’d say none. Neither the CDC, AAP, AAFP or vaccine package inserts (from which precautions are taken) recognize the concept of medical fragility. And more importantly, it’s just a vaccine-by-vaccine determination. Basically, the conventional standard of care doesn’t recognize the concept of an exemption from all vaccines for all of childhood for healthy children. That’s something that only exists in the world of the vaccine concerned and the physicians who subscribe that this minority medical view.

2. Delay of filing of current medical exemptions:

The time for current exemptions to be filed has moved from July 1, 2020, to either December 31, 2020, (based on the change to the text of the statute) or December 31, 2021 (based on the legislative counsel’s digest) 1. So basically, if you currently have a vaccine exemption, it will be good for the first part of the 2020-2021 school year (or 2021-2022 school year based on the legislative counsel’s digest), and for many, much or all of it, because it may take some time for the public health authorities to reject them. (They’ll catch the inconsistency at some point and correct it.)

3. Parent filed medical exemption requests?

Here is the new language in the bill:

“The bill would require the department, in consultation with local educational agencies and local public health officers, to develop a process for a parent or guardian to request a medical exemption and the department to approve or deny the request and communicate its decision to the school district and the parent or guardian, as specified.”

Looks to me like the bill gives parents the ability to cut-out the physician from the exemption applying process.
I’m fine with that, but the only real practical benefit to the families is that they won’t have to pay a physician to have their exemption request denied.

4. Administrative review process:

The revised bill contains the following additions:

“(3) The denial of a request for a medical exemption may be appealed to the State Public Health Officer.
(4) For purposes of filing an appeal, the physician and surgeon may submit additional information to the department within 30 days from the notification for further review by the State Public Health Officer or designee.”

So there will be some sort of review process. I take from this addition that the plan is to have local public health officials make the initial determination (read rejection of the exemption request) and then someone from the state health department will handle the appeal (read rubber-stamp the exemption rejection, but even rubber-stamping is expensive, when done by governments).

And my friends, that’s the most interesting part of the bill. I’ll explain why very soon. You’ll want to pay attention.

Rick Jaffe, Esq.

The Niche Weighs in on the Manhattan Stem Cell Clinic’s Answer to the AG’s Lawsuit, and Some Breaking News!

The Niche Weighs in on the Manhattan Stem Cell Clinic’s Answer to the AG’s Lawsuit, and Some Breaking News!

I represent the Manhattan stem cell doctor whom the NY AG has recently sued for false advertising and fraud.

Her is the NY Times story about the lawsuit:

I decided not to comment as part of the mass media’s coverage of the AG’s filing the lawsuit, because I needed to take a hard look at the complaint and think carefully about any response.

I did, and put together an Answer and Counterclaims. Here is my prior post which has the Answer and Counterclaims/

I’ve been in the law biz a long time, and hint, I helped make some of the law in the field of cutting-edge medicine, and even some of the law which could be directly applicable to this case. I don’t do predications on my own cases, but I do think my defense raises some important and interesting issues about, among other things, the suitability of a fraud and deceptive trade practice lawsuit when the alleged victims are patients who are required to receive informed consent. Are patients who received adequate informed consent victims? How about patients who have benefitted from the treatment and are happy with the results?

I also pointed out that many people take FDA-proven safe and effective treatments and die of their disease. Do they get a refund? Do patients have the right to use their own body parts for treatment of chronic conditions and incurable diseases? Who should control what kind of information patients and prospective patients receive from these medical practices for cutting-edge surgical based procedures?

Basic stem cell scientist and mega-stem cell blogger Paul Knoepfler, has just weighed-in on my Answer and Counterclaims. Here is his analysis:

I take this guy very, very seriously.

I’m curious to hear what people who read my posts think about his analysis. In particluar, I’m interested about how different what the unproven private clinics are offering compared what I believe to what the equally unproven therapies the major hospitals are doing as discussed in my Answer. How much sense does it make medically speaking, to differentiate what the big places are doing from the smaller clinics? Do these distinctions only exist in the fantasy word of the FDA, versus the real medical world?

As is my wont, I’m going to mull over his analysis very carefully, and then I’m going to mull it over some more, and then probably make a substantive response to the Big Dawg, taking into account feedback from the professionals who follow both of us.

One piece of breaking news

Today, May 1st, the case was assigned to the highly regarded Commercial Division of the New York Supreme Court. The Commerical Division handles large dollar and especially significant lawsuits. It was the AG’s call to have the case assigned there, and I saw no reason to object.

The judge assigned is Judge Jennifer Schecter. She received some recent acclaim for telling Donald Trump that he’s not above the law, and allowed the defamation lawsuit filed against him by Sumer Zervos to proceed. Win, lose or draw, any state court judge who’s willing to put the head of the federal government in his place is ok by me. Should be really interesting. (If I were doing the screenplay, the twist would be that they actually met, not on the Apprentice, but in my client’s stem cell clinic waiting area; they both received complete informed consent and would testify at the trial for us, in a cross-over type episode/trial before the same judge. That won’t happen, but who knows what twists and turns there may be in this case.)

Stay Tuned!

Rick Jaffe

My Letter to the Cali Senate Appropriations Committee Members

My Letter to the Cali Senate Appropriations Committee Members

I heard Senator Pan testify last week for the Health Committee. I think he was wrong in telling the Committee that the Medical Board is having difficuty pursuing physicians who are writing “fake” medical exemptions. so I decided to tell the Appropriation Committee members why.

Here’s my letter:


Rick Jaffe, Esq.

Rally Day for Cali SB 276: Keep your eye on the ball!

Rally Day for Cali SB 276: Keep your eye on the ball!

Today, April 24th is hearing day on SB 276, which bill seeks to remove the medical exemption decision making from the physician, and places it in the hands of public health officials, and there’s no requirement in the bill that it be a physician. That seems like a bad idea to me.

On the other hand, I wouldn’t mind seeing some guidelines issued by the Medical Board, similar to the medical marijuana guidelines the board issued after California allowed physicians to recommend medical marijuana. A number of docs got into trouble prior to the issuance of those guidelines, because they had no guidance as to what was permissible until the guidelines or at least until the board issued what it called a “precedential decision.”

The same thing is happening with the doctors who are currently writing vaccine exemptions. I was involved in what is so far the only filed case on a vaccine exlusion, and had a chance to get a look at what the board via its experts think about these cases. They take a very strict view of exemptions under the statutes, basically, there are none, at least there are no complete medical exemptions from all childhood vaccination throughout the duration of childhood for otherwise healthy kids.

I’m also working on some active board investigations involving exemption writing physicians. My sense is that some physicians and their supporters have a completely different view of what is permissible exemption-wise, than all conventional medical authorities. The result of these differences is the reason you’ll be in Sacramento today. But keep in mind a couple things:

First: keep your eye on the ball and focus on the actual issue:

Here’s what today is NOT about, at least from the legislators’ point of view:

It’s not about your personal freedom, your right to refuse vaccines for your children because you think vaccines don’t work or are dangerous, or because of any other personal beliefs you or your vaccine concerned friends might have.
Folks, you lost that battle with the enactment of SB 277, and all the failed lawsuits challenging the law.

It might feel good to try to beat a dead horse, but it won’t revive it.

Today is about convincing the legislators that only physicians who have a doctor/patient relationship should be permitted to make a decision as important as which if any vaccines from which a specific child should be exempted.

If the board has concerns about doctors not following what it might call the standard of care, it has two obvious options; Investigate the physicians, and they are doing that now, and promulgate some guidelines, hopefully with the input of the vaccine concerned community (admittedly perhaps naïve),

However, California law does recognize the right of physicians to adhere to a minority view in medicine, because the California legislature wisely understood that it could take a long time for new thinking to change the medical paradigm. I think that’s a lesson which the legislators should remember.

Here’s what could set you free:

“Universal Citation: CA Bus & Prof Code § 2234.1 (through 2012 Leg Sess)

(a) A physician and surgeon shall not be subject to discipline pursuant to subdivision (b), (c), or (d) of Section 2234 solely on the basis that the treatment or advice he or she rendered to a patient is alternative or complementary medicine, including the treatment of persistent Lyme Disease, if that treatment or advice meets all of the following requirements:
(1) It is provided after informed consent and a good-faith prior examination of the patient, and medical indication exists for the treatment or advice, or it is provided for health or well-being.
(2) It is provided after the physician and surgeon has given the patient information concerning conventional treatment and describing the education, experience, and credentials of the physician and surgeon related to the alternative or complementary medicine that he or she practices.
(3) In the case of alternative or complementary medicine, it does not cause a delay in, or discourage traditional diagnosis of, a condition of the patient.
(4) It does not cause death or serious bodily injury to the patient.
(b) For purposes of this section, alternative or complementary medicine, means those health care methods of diagnosis, treatment, or healing that are not generally used but that provide a reasonable potential for therapeutic gain in a patient s medical condition that is not outweighed by the risk of the health care method.
(c) Since the National Institute of Medicine has reported that it can take up to 17 years for a new best practice to reach the average physician and surgeon, it is prudent to give attention to new developments not only in general medical care but in the actual treatment of specific diseases, particularly those that are not yet broadly recognized in California.
(Amended by Stats. 2005, Ch. 621, Sec. 28.5. Effective January 1, 2006.)”
(emphasis added).

It’s worth a shot!

Good Luck!

Rick Jaffe, Esq.

Breaking News: Manhattan Doc in NY AG Case Files Answer Targeting the FDA and Says New Yorkers have a Privacy Right to the Treatment and a First Amendment Right to Info About it

Breaking News: Manhattan Doc in NY AG Case Files Answer Targeting the FDA and Says New Yorkers have a Privacy Right to the Treatment and a First Amendment Right to Info About it

Earlier this month, the New York Attorney General’s Office filed a false advertising case against a Manhattan Stem Cell clinic owned by Joel Singer, M.D. The clinic offers autologous stem cell transplant procedures for a wide variety of medical conditions. The clinic used to be affilated with the California Cell Surgical Network run by Mark Berman and Elliot Lander, who as you know, are defendants in one of the two FDA’s civil injunction lawsuits.

Here is the Washington Post article about the case.

It was also reported in the New York Times

and the New York Post.

The articles reported that they couldn’t reach the clinic or its attorneys for comment.

The clinic’s attorney just filed the answer to the complaint. It’s not half bad, but you can judge for yourself.

Here it is.


Rick Jaffe, Esq.

Can I sue Senator Richard Pan for doing his job as a California Legislator? THAT WOULD BE A HARD NO!

Can I sue Senator Richard Pan for doing his job as a California Legislator? THAT WOULD BE A HARD NO!

I’ve been asked this question a couple times recently as the frustration of the Vaccine Concerned grow as SB 276 winds its way through the California Legislature, so a public answer might be in order.

The job of legislators is to propose and pass legislation. It doesn’t matter if a small minority or even a large majority of citizens don’t like a particular bill or law, or think its unfair, horrible or even murderous. The process is the process, regardless of how corrupt you might think it is. The remedy is to stop a bill you don’t like and/or vote the people proposing the bills you don’t like out of office.

Legislators have absolute immunity from suit with respect to their legislative activities, which is in essence proposing bills and passing them so they become law.

You can’t sue Richard Pan for proposing SB 276. It’s just a bill and it won’t become law unless a majority of both houses of the California legislature passes it. So, you would have to sue every legislator who voted for the bill, and there is no such thing in law, based on the aforementioned absolute immunity.

So, sorry, there’s no possible judicial action against Dr. Pan or any other legislator for doing his/her job, regardless of how much you don’t like what he or they are doing.

Also, and this has been asked, neither he nor any other legislator can be sued if a parent vaccinates a child and the child suffers a serious adverse event even if the parents were forced to vaccinate if SB 276 becomes law. And for same reason; absolute immunity.

Respectfully, move on and focus on stopping the bill.

Rick Jaffe, Esq.

The Mother of All Anti-SB 276 Letters

The Mother of All Anti-SB 276 Letters

If you want to read the mother of all anti-276 letters, here it is from my friend and colleague Greg Glaser, Esq. When I have a question about vaccines, he’s the guy I call.

Glaser Letter Opposing SB 276

It’s long but really worth it. nuf said.

Rick Jaffe, Esq.

The Other Part of How to Win the Cali SB 276 battle (and what’s not going to work)

The Other Part of How to Win the Cali SB 276 battle (and what’s not going to work)

My last post “Go Big and Go Smart or Move Out of State”
generated some sharp disagreements (at least on my Facebook page), but that’s not a bad thing. These issues need to be discussed, but quickly, so that action isn’t delayed.
here is that post:

One criticism I got is don’t piss-off the legislators; they won’t like you. My guess is that most of the legislators already think you’re a bunch of anti vax wackos, so I wouldn’t worry too much about trying to win any popularity contests. And there’s a difference between trying to pass and kill a bill.

One comment I received raised something I haven’t mentioned in public, but which I have talked about with movement leaders, and it is another part of how to increase the chances of defeating SB 276, and that of course is:

Go small, quiet and personal

The California Legislature has 80 Assembly members and 40 Senators. Per the previous post, they matter, big time. But there are other people who matter. Each legislator has a chief of staff, at least one policy person, they all have a secretary/personal assistant, and there’s someone in charge of the legislators’ home office. That’s another roughly 500 people who also matter. If any legislator is going to agree to vote down 276, he/she will need some internal support/cajoling from the staff. So, think about reaching out to these folks also.

Let’s think numbers and connections

Let’s define the VC universe as roughly the three to four hundred thousand people who signed the SB 277 recall petition.

Let’s analogize from the 6 degrees of separation between any two random people. I have to believe that there have to be at least a couple hundred people in the vaccine concerned universe who know personally, or know someone who knows personally, one of the 120 legislators, or their 500 closest aides. Obviously, if your one of those people who knows one of these folks, for sure make the call and do what you can, and see if you can arrange a meeting with someone from the VC groups. Maybe you don’t know one of them, but maybe someone you know (outside of the vaccine concerned world) does. Personal contact with close staff surely matters.

And it’s a two-way street.
Information in, and information/intelligence back about what’s happening in the inside. You never know, there might be a smoking gun/game changer fact or memo/letter somewhere. I can’t tell you what it is, but like they say, you’ll know it when you see it.

What’s not going to work

You can forget about having doctors coming out in mass against SB 276. The CMA and the AAP are in favor of the bill, probably because most of their members who are involved in vaccination are afflicted with PCDS.

You all know what that is, but are probably not familiar with this soon-to-be proposed technical name for this disorder: Practitioner Cognitive Dissonance Syndrome. It affects pediatricians because their lifestyle income (as opposed to their professional wage) comes from vaccines, either directly or through insurance incentives. Take vaccines out of a pediatricians’ practice, and they’d be leasing Subaru’s rather than Mercedes and BMW’s, and they’d be saying good-bye to the other accoutrements of wealthy professionals. Besides, most of them are probably tired of explaining to you that they’re not going to write exemptions for your kids because they are convinced that vaccines are safe and that there is no credible evidence that it causes autism or even heartburn.

Circling back: reach out and find people who know these 500 and get to work, but do it quickly!

Rick Jaffe, Esq.

To the Cali SB 276 Opponents: Go Big and Go Smart, or Move out of State

To the Cali SB 276 Opponents: Go Big and Go Smart, or Move out of State

I saw some Facebook video clips from the Sacramento anti-SB 276 rally which took place yesterday, April 10, 2019. The hundreds of participants seemed highly motivated. The speakers which included Rock Star Del Big Tree and RFKJr, (who I consider the brightest and most cogent star in the Vaccine Concerned firmament) was also there I’ve heard.

Del is broadcasting today, and has some other heavyweight movement leaders. It is certainly democracy at work.

I have a question for the anti-276 leaders, and some observations.

How different is what you’re doing now from what you did against SB 277? The obvious reason I ask is that if it’s not that different, and you lost on 277, maybe you need to think about what more it would take to have a different outcome.

Some Observations

I have some observations based on things I’ve seen in political heath freedom activism from the 1980’s. IMO, the most effective health political movement I’ve ever seen were the AIDS activist group Act-Up. (Actually, now Goldwater Institute which has brought you right-to-try might be as or more effective, but I have a feeling these folks have some serious cha-ching behind them, unlike ACT-Up which was grass roots.)

I’ll get back to ACT-UP in a minute, but first a couple things you won’t like to hear.

Liking, emojiing and sharing things on Facebook and other social platforms with your circle of friends is not political activism. It might feel good and it might feel like you’re doing something meaningful, but unless all this social media chatter is going to lead to some tangible political action, in my (perhaps, not so) humble opinion, it’s just a bunch of digital hot air shot out into the infinite internet space.

The problem is that you all have closed social circles and you don’t reach anyone who matters. Another way of putting it, you’re just preaching liking/sharing to the converted/committed/choir.

Unless all this hot air is focused on a specific practical plan, directed at who matters, your feel good button clicking, and small-time protests, is no more than small-time collective self-pleasuring.

So, who matters?

That’s easy. If there are Senate health committee members still in play, they matter the most.
Next, the rest of the Senate and the other house matter.
That’s sort of obvious, but, every single thing you folks do should be aimed at influencing those dozens of people who are the only people who matter.

A corollary is that if you’re not trying to repeatedly and directly influence these select group of people, you’re not in the game, as good as you might feel about what you’re doing.

And ultimately that means one of two things: Boots on the ground in Sacramento AND at their local legislative offices, or massive, and I mean stupid massive communications efforts directed at these folks.

Some history

Back in the mid 80’s, when I first started working the health freedom legal beat, I saw up close and was peripherally involved consulting with the ACT-UP folks. They were smart, and very committed. It was easy for them to be so since some were dying of AIDS, some were HIV positive and the rest knew or feared they would get it.

President Reagan wouldn’t even acknowledge the problem and the FDA was stopping people at the border from bringing in potentially life saving medications. So, these dying gays decided to do something about it. They picked a day and they effectively shut down the FDA via a phone barrage, and a lot of protests. They became too big of a problem to avoid. Reagan acknowledged the problem and started throwing money at it. The FDA relented and loosened up its rules on personal importation of unapproved drugs, and in my view, it was all because of the dying and HIV gay activists They didn’t have time to do whatever was the equivalent of Facebook liking and emojing. They acted in a big way.

I’m not suggesting that you close the Sacramento Legislature down by a massive protest. What I am suggesting is that you don’t confuse social media work with actual political work. I would venture a guess that few if any of the people you need to influence are your Facebook friends. So sure, rile yourselves up, but have an actual political plan, and that means boots on the ground and calls and emails and stupid big numbers.

And let’s talk numbers

My view, which you won’t like, is that having hundreds of people protesting yesterday might have felt good for the participants, but from my office two blocks away from the Capital I used to see protests all the time there, busloads full of people. So regrettably and respectfully, I think you folks are deluding yourselves if you think that 500 or 800 people protesting on an issue is going to have a meaning impact in a state like California. Furthermore, I think having legislators receiving dozens or even a hundred calls is equally meaningless in the grand scheme of California politics, especially on a super-hot button polarizing issue like this, where frankly you are a very, very small minority.

I recall hearing that there were three to four hundred thousand signatures on the SB 277 recall referendum. Somewhere between yesterday’s few hundred protestors and the recall number is what I would call the threshold of effectiveness, but it’s not in the order of magnitude of the yesterday’s feel good effort.

Some of you might be thinking, “Ok big talker about the good-old-days, smarty pants, so what should we do?
Fair question (if somewhat harsh).

I do have a small suggestion, but first another critical observation.

Another thing which feels good, but I question the efficacy of are legislative hearings.
It’s really fun and rewarding to assemble like-minded folk and testify, but on a hot button issue like that, I sort of doubt that experts, or even the brightest star have much of an impact on most legislators under normal circumstances. These legislative folks are all about keeping their jobs, and that just means numbers.

I think that clear and cogent arguments, like those made by RFKJr and the Janis Joplin like super VC rock star Toni Bark will be better received with the right attitude adjustment inputs before the hearing.

For example, they might be more focused, if on the afternoon before the hearing, April 23, 2019, say from 2-5 PM, every recall petition signer called and visited their legislators to let them know their views. Email is ok too, but only in addition to calls and visits.

And here’s the thing, why should the calls only come from the California VC? If the California legislators get away with taking away physician medical exemptions here, you think other states won’t try the same thing? Maybe this should be a national effort, April 23, 2019 being the California day kick-off.

I’m not a VC organizer activist, but if I were, I’d give some hard thought to having every vaccine concerned person in the country give the California legislators a piece of their minds on April 23, 2019 in the afternoon, and maybe, just maybe, that might help the VC rock stars do their job.

To adapt a common phrase: Go Big and Go Smart, or Move out of State.

Rick Jaffe, Esq.

Where is the California Medical Board’s Outrage over SB 276?

Where is the California Medical Board’s Outrage over SB 276?

Unless you follow general health care issues, you might have missed the outrage expressed by the head of the California Insurance Commission, when it came out that nurses rather than doctors were making insurance coverage decisions about expensive medical procedures, and for high cost procedures, denial of coverage means denial of care.

Here is an article explaining it.

At least Aetna had nurses reviewing the medical records before they denied coverage (FYI: I hate health insurance companies. See Chapter 2 my book for why)

SB 276 is even worse.

First, the bill doesn’t require that the public health official rejecting or revoking the exemption has to be a doctor, a nurse or even a witch doctor. Second, medical records aren’t reviewed, just an application.

As I’ve previously stated, there is a reason they’re called medical exemptions. See

Could it possibly be because the decision involves making a medical judgement about whether, for example, a close relative’s family history of an autoimmune disease suggests that the risks of continued vaccination might outweigh the benefits?

Isn’t it a shame that we don’t have experts to study these issues on individual cases?

But of course, we do; they’re called medical doctors, and to reiterate, SB 276 doesn’t require these medical decisions to be made by physicians or even nurses.

Based on the Insurance Commissioner’s outrage when it came out that medical doctors were not making coverage decisions, I’m not understanding why the medical board sits silently. How can it accept a law which doesn’t require its licensees to make decisions which could severely injure children.
I exaggerate you think?

A few posts ago, I quoted from a recent appellate court judge’s dissent in the affirmance of the denial of compensation by the vaccine court The case is Oliver v HHS and Judge Newman’s words and his quote from the legislative history should be repeated to the medical board and legislators who consider SB 276.

“The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986
It had long been known that a small percentage of childhood vaccinations have led to grave injury and permanent disability, as discussed in the legislative record:
‘Childhood vaccines are essential to maintain the health of our society. They have been invaluable weapons against the dread diseases that used to kill or injure hundreds of thousands of children every year: polio, measles, pertussis, diphtheria, tetanus, rubella, mumps, and smallpox. But while these vaccines have brought the gift of life and health to millions, there are a very small number of children every year who are injured by unpredictable side effects of the vaccines through no fault of their own or the vaccine manufacturers.
132 Cong. Rec. S17,343–02 (1986) (statement of Sen. Kennedy).’ The House Report reiterated the concern for unforeseeable injury flowing from compulsory vaccinations:
‘While most of the Nation’s children enjoy greater benefit from immunization programs, a small but significant number have been gravely injured. . .
. . ..
But it is not always possible to predict who they will be or what reactions they will have. And since State law requires that all children be immunized before entering school, most parents have no choice but to risk the chance—small as that may be—that their child may be injured from a vaccine.
H.R. Rep. No. 99-908, at 4–6 (1986), as reprinted in 1986 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6344, 6345–46.’

The legislative record states that about one half of one percent of children each year experience vaccine-related injury;1 and with four million births each year in the United States, this is about 20,000 vaccine injuries per year.2″
(emphasis added; footnotes omitted).
Here is the decision again. If you haven’t read it, you should.

Decision – 2019 – oliver – scn1a – dissent in fed cir – 17-2540.Order.1-9-2019.1

So back in 1983 Congress acknowledged that 20,000 kids would suffer grave injury and permanent disability from vaccines. And that was when kids got seven vaccines in 20 shots, now the number is between 69 and 74 shots.

And this is big: We know a little (or actually a lot) more about predicting who might become vaccine injured than we did in 1983.

And who might these people be who might have that knowledge?

It’s not a trick question.

It’s the physicians. It’s not public health officials.

Let’s go sideways to consider something else:

What about all these fake SB277 medical exemptions?

Unless I’ve been in a catatonic trance these last three years and missed basically everything, as of today, April 9, 2019,
there has not been a single board adjudication that any SB 277 exemption has been unjustified, false or fraudulent and I repeat, not one. (The one board case which did involve vaccines was a consent order for Bob Sears, but that was a custody, litigation-related letter he wrote for a non-school age child prior to the enactment of SB 277.)

So, there is no evidence that there have been even a single fraudulent or incorrect SB 277 medical exemption written by a California physician.

What is the purported evidence that is the basis of SB 276?

The fact that the medical exemption rate has gone up three or four times, from under a thousand prior to SB 277 to around 4,000 in 2018. The assumption is that the difference is parents switching from PBE’s (personal belief exemptions) to medical exemptions.

What’s the evidence for that? Maybe I’m still catatonic, but I haven’t heard any. There’s no data, just the raw numbers.

Let’s assume for the sake of argument that the unsupported assumption is true, namely that every child who had a PBE is now under a medical exemption and that’s why the numbers went up by a few thousand (and that’s not a big number relative to the size of the state. I’ve heard it went from 0.2 to 0.7 percent of school age kids.) That still doesn’t prove anything to anyone who understands what the word proof or evidence means.

How do the SB 276 authors know that all these kids didn’t have family history issues exemptable under SB 277, but the families didn’t need to get the medical exemption before SB 277, and only sought it out as a result of 277? How do the legislators know that’s not the case? There’s no data. It’s just a second level assumption.

So, let’s tie these two threads together:

We know to a congressional certainty that vaccines will seriously harm and permanently injury tens of thousands of children nationally. But we have some information that we didn’t have thirty-five years ago, about which kids might be most likely to be gravely injured and permanently disabled.
The professionals who have that information and make similar medical decisions all day, every day are …. Hey, it’s not a hard question ….

Right, it’s the doctors.

But doctors won’t be able to make that decisions because the number of medical exemptions went up by one half of one percentage point. And that in spite of the fact that there’s not a single confirmed case of a fraudulent 277 medical exemption.
And from all that you get what? Doctors can’t be trusted to decide on medical exemptions?

Maybe it’s just me, but I’m not seeing how that makes any sense. (common or even regulatory sense, the half-witted, “special” brother of common sense) I’m also not understanding why the California Medical Board isn’t jumping up and down, or at least quietly telling the legislators, that they are going too far on this one.

Here’s hoping for some well-deserved outrage from the regulators. But maybe I’m being overly optimistic.

Rick Jaffe, Esq.