Browsed by
Author: Richard Jaffe

Some Perspective on Today’s SB 276 Health Committee Hearing, and the need for a rethink about exemptions (and think humanitarian exemption)

Some Perspective on Today’s SB 276 Health Committee Hearing, and the need for a rethink about exemptions (and think humanitarian exemption)

Today will no doubt be gut-wrenching for you, as you watch the hearing and merely state your name and opposition to the latest iteration of SB 276. Regrettably the nature of the hearing does not afford you the opportunity to relate your stories of prior vaccine injuries to your child There will be opportunities to do so, in different contexts, after the bill passes through the Health Committee and the Appropriations Committee (and let’s be realistic, that’s most likely going to happen).

Because this is essentially a new bill (in form anyway), I am told it has to go back to the Senate for reconsideration. So theoretically, there is another opportunity to make the case in opposition to the Senate. But let’s be realistic. SB 276 passed the Senate under the version which removed the physician’s ability to make medical vaccine exemption decisions. The new version, in form at least purports to give the decision back to them. But as I’ve shown in my last post, it really doesn’t.

It seems obvious that the national context right now is against exemptions of any kind, at least in states which have experienced measles outbreaks. Any state which has some kind of PBE or religious exemption is just one outbreak away from legislation removing the exemption, and that’s assuming there is no national movement (some might call it a conspiracy) to remove these exemptions everywhere.

Because of this, and the extremely limited scope of CDC based medical exemptions, I think the whole exemption issue needs to be rethought. In California, it needs an immediate rethink, because it could positively impact the SB 276 debate.

What I have learned from talking to the families of Ken Stoller’s patients (and the families of other broad exemption writing physicians) is that most of you vaccinated one of your children, and that child was seriously and, in many cases, permanently injured. As I pointed out in many prior posts, Congress recognized that vaccines would cause such severe and permanent injury is a small group of children. You are the families of those children, and something needs to be done to protect these kids and your other children.

One of the reasons why people like you are so vilified by the press and the authorities is because they think you are selfishly endangering other people. There are two asserted bases of this belief. First, herd immunity. Second, the children who cannot be vaccinated under CDC guidelines because of age, or being temporarily immunocompromised, most often from cancer chemotherapy. In other words, the greater good and need to sacrifice argument.

That got me thinking. Isn’t one child sacrificed to the greater good enough? Why shouldn’t that be reason enough to get an exemption, one based on humanitarian considerations.

Think “Saving Private Ryan”

In WWII, because so many families were losing multiple sons, the Army developed a rule protecting a family’s other children.

Maybe there should be a humanitarian exemption added to SB 276, for the vaccine injured families.

The natural question would be how does a family prove that the injury was caused by vaccines?

Well I have an answer for that which is grounded in current vaccine law.
They don’t have to. There should be a presumption that the injury was caused by the vaccine if the symptoms or injury occurred in a close temporal proximity. The state would have the burden of proving to an administrative law judge that there was some other specific cause of the injury, based on published studies. That is the way it works currently in the majority of vaccine court cases. So there shouldn’t be a problem with the burden shifting approach. Congress and the he vaccine court and immunity act recognized, that it’s impossible to show a causal connection in any one case. An injury in some circumstances and some proximity is proof enough for the vaccine court, in some illnesses. There is no reason why it should not be the case in an exemption context.

The humanitarian exemption would not protect all children who might suffer an adverse event from a vaccine. Protecting them is going to require defeating SB 276. But if there was a humanitarian exemption added to SB 276, it would protect the most vulnerable families and from what I can tell, these are most of the families who are receiving medical exemptions from the few physicians still writing them.

So how do we get there?

First, a bill has to be drafted. I’ve reached out a bit and I think that can happen.

Second, potential sponsors have to be approached. It would be nice if sponsors could come from both parties in both houses.
And then comes the stories, and that will be your chance to make yourself heard.

If any of you read this in line to speak today, maybe tell the Members that you support a humanitarian exemption for the vaccine injured, and let them know what’s coming.

Rick Jaffe, Esq.
rickjaffeesquire@gmail.com

Under Revised SB 276, public health staff still make the final medical vaccine exemption decisions, and they still will reject all broader than CDC guideline-based exemptions

Under Revised SB 276, public health staff still make the final medical vaccine exemption decisions, and they still will reject all broader than CDC guideline-based exemptions

Until the June 17th Amendment, the biggest knock against SB 276 was that it put medical vaccine exemptions decisions in the hands of state public health officials. That even bothered the Governor (for one day anyway), and it seems to be concerning to the members of the Medical Board.

The revised bill creates the illusion of fixing that problem, by allowing physicians to submit what is called a “vaccine exemption certification” which on its face purports to be an operational exemption from vaccines. But it really isn’t. None of the exemptions written beyond CDC guidelines will go into effect, because the revised bill allows low level public health staff to review any medical exemption and rescind it if doesn’t comport with CDC guidelines.

Here is how it works under the proposed bill and why none of the medical exemption certifications based on broader than CDC contraindications will survive (and neither will the physicians who are brave enough to write them).

After an exemption certification is filed (under penalties of perjury), it can be reviewed at any time by a health official per:

“(8) Notwithstanding any other provision of this subdivision, a clinically trained immunization program staff member may review any exemption in the CAIR as necessary to protect public health.”

Assuming there are any physicians still writing exemptions when the bill’s proposed mechanism comes into effect on January 1, 2021 (and I don’t think there will be, because the elimination of these physicians is the real purpose of the amended bill), these exemption writing physicians are known and will be red flagged by the “clinically trained immunization program staff member” (notice it doesn’t say a licensed medical doctor).

What are these clinically trained folks looking for? The bill spells it out:

“(3) (A) The department shall identify those medical exemption forms that do not meet applicable CDC, ACIP, or AAP criteria for appropriate medical exemptions. The department may contact the primary care physician and surgeon or issuing physician and surgeon to request additional information to support the medical exemption.”

How will the public health department evaluate the additional information concerning non-compliant CDC et al based exemptions?

“B) Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), the department, based on the medical discretion of the clinically trained immunization staff member, may accept a medical exemption that is based on other contraindications or precautions, including consideration of family medical history, if the issuing physician and surgeon provides written documentation to support the medical exemption that is consistent with the relevant standard of care.”

I do not think these clinically trained staff will conclude that there is sufficient “written documentation” to support these broader than CDC exemptions under the conventional standard of care employed by most physicians, and hence, all these exemptions will be denied.

The good news (tacticly) is that this subsection makes it clear that the ultimately authority on medical exemptions is the public health department, based on the “medical discretion” of these low level staffers.

THAT DOES NOT SOLVE THE PROBLEM WHICH PRECIPITATED THE AMENDMENT, NAMELY THAT STATE EMPLOYEES ARE MAKING THESE DISCRETIONARY VACCINE EXEMPTION DECISIONS, NOT THE PHYSICIAN WHO HAS A DOCTOR/PATIENT RELATIONSHIP.

AND THAT IS WHY THE BILL IS STILL FATALLY FLAWED AND SHOULD BE REJECTED BY THE ASSEMBLY.

And by the way, there are really two standards of care for vaccine medical exemptions

My view is that there are two standards of care for medical vaccine exemption, the conventional one, which I understand this subsection is referring to, and an alternative standard of care, which is used by the exemption writing physicians under attack. This alternative standard of care was endorsed by Senator Pan in his push to pass SB 277 (See my prior post discussing what he said: http://rickjaffeesq.com/2019/05/11/remembering-what-the-politicians-said-about-the-scope-of-medical-exemptions-under-sb-277/.

Moreover (and as discussed in a bit), an alternative standard of care is recognized by California physician regulation law.

In my case against the San Francisco City Attorney, I am asking the court to recognize the right of people like you to receive a vaccine medical exemption based on this alternative standard of care, but it might be a good thing to bring up at the hearing tomorrow.

To avoid you having to wade through my 30-page complaint, here’s what I said:

“FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
DECLARATORY JUDGEMENT THAT PATIENTS HAVE A STATE STATUTORY AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO OBTAIN A MEDICAL EXEMPTION BASED ON AN ALTERNATIVE STANDARD OF CARE

1. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 – 73 above.
2. California citizens have a right to receive unconventional medical care and advice from California licensed physicians Bus. & Prof. Code section 2234.1, and that includes medical advice and services concerning childhood vaccines. The rationale being, per Section 2234.1(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.”
3. Therefore, there are certainly no shortage of physicians critical of using family history and genetic associations to grant medical exemptions because using information beyond CDC guidelines has not gained consensus status, and the science is not settled on identifying children vulnerable to adverse events.
4. Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that the patients of Dr. Stoller, and the patients of other like-minded physicians, have a right to receive a vaccine medical exemption based on an alternative standard of medical exemptions beyond CDC guidelines, under Bus. & Prof. Code 2234.1 and a state constitution right. cf Schloendorff v. NY Hospital, 211 NY 125, 105 NE.102 1914 (J. Cardoza) (overruled on other grounds Bing. V. Thunig 2 NYS 656, 143 NE2d 3, (1957) (New York citizens have a privacy right to control their own bodies); Schneider v Revici 817 F.2d 987 (2nd Cir. 1987). (Acknowledging a patient’s right to receive unconventional medical treatment).
5. Dr. Stoller will demonstrate that the alternative vaccine standard of care which he uses (and again which had been endorsed by Senator Pan in SB 277) is safer and creates less of a risk of serious harm and permanent injury for children than the CDC guideline based standard of care, which further justifies the Court recognizing the patients’ right to obtain medical exemptions under this alternative standard of care, notwithstanding any current or future law to the contrary.
6. Plaintiff also seeks a declaratory judgment that based on the existing scientific research, and evidence of wrongdoing, including the suppression of vaccine injury findings, and the intimidation of physicians and researchers, the alternative standard of care for vaccine exemption is safer for children than the CDC guidelines.”

Maybe some of you should make this point at the hearing tomorrow, and in your communications to the Assembly

IN SHORT

When you look at it closely, the revised bill just doesn’t solve the fundamental problem, which even the Governor and Medical Board recognize, namely that vaccine medical exemptions are ultimately made by state public health officials exercising their medical discretion, and that should not happen. It must be the physician who has a doctor/patient relationship who has the final say. END OF STORY.

Rick Jaffe, Esq.
rickjaffeesquire@gmail.com

My First Take on Senator Pan’s June 17th SB 276 Revision

My First Take on Senator Pan’s June 17th SB 276 Revision

I have to give the guy credit. He’s very good at Legislative tactics, meaning throwing curveballs to the opposition and giving them little time to react.

It’s two days before the hearing and he’s introduced what appears to be a substantially revised bill, which is more complicated and apt to confuse his colleagues in the legislature all the while seeming to address the main points of criticism, thereby taking the wind out the sails of his opposition.

I’ve looked over the new bill carefully and I think I’ve figured out the main points anyway. I’ll go into details and quoting the statute later, but I wanted to get out the big picture quick and dirty:

For current medically exempt: Not much difference from prior versions. Exemptions still have be be submitted and are subject to review and revocation, with some small differences which I’ll discuss later.

The big, at least nominal changes are for new exemptions after the proposed exemption process takes effect on January 1, 2021.

Under prior versions: docs write medical exemptions applications, which are approved or rejected by state public health officials.

Under the new version, docs write “medical exemptions certifications” which seemingly are actual medical exemptions, like under the current law. exemptions.

But here is the rub: The exemptions are reviewable and revocable by a public health official or process, basically anytime a public health official wants to review any exemption. And since the health officials have all the exemptions, I have to believe they will simply target the known few exemption writing physicians which remain.

So practically speaking, the physician writes, let’s call it a conditional exemption, but it seems certain that any exemption which is broader than CDC contraindications, precautions and CDC family history indications (if there is even such a thing) will be rejected. The practical result will be the same as under prior iterations of the bill, no broad based complete, non temporary medical exemptions.

This version really goes after the exemption writing physicians hard, and especially the exemption writing physician’s who are not the child’s PCP.
The bill requires the exemption writing physician to notify the child’s PCP about the exemption.
What do you think a conventional PCP will do after he/she gets that notification? File a complaint with the medical board for fraudulent medical exemption writing.

The new version also provides that once there is an accusation against a physician involving an immunization issue, that physician will no longer be able to right exemptions unless and until he’s cleard of the charges.

There are two other targets painted on the backs of exemption writing physicians.

First, special treatment/negative consideration if the physician writes more than 5 medical exemptions.

Second, each medical exemption certification has to be signed under penalty of perjury. This last requirment will either be meaningless or could end medical exemptions for good, depending on the wording of the certification. I may discuss the differences in a later post.

So to recap: We’ve gone from doctors submitting applications for public health officials’ approval, to physicians writing exemption certifications which are immediately reviewable by public health officals, and will be approved or rejected under basically the same of CDC, APA ACIP guidelines, and heven help the physician who continues to write exemptions, because they will be in a whole world of hurt if they do.

Bottom line: same result, nominally different method to achieve it, and alot nastier for the exemption writing physicians. You really get a sense from this version how much Senator Pan and his allies hate these doctors.

RicK Jaffe, Esq.
rickjaffeesquire@gmail.com

Thanks for the Support at the Stoller San Francisco Rally on Friday! And some updates

Thanks for the Support at the Stoller San Francisco Rally on Friday! And some updates


Last Friday we held a rally to support Dr. Ken Stoller’s attempt to stop the San Francisco City Attorney’s subpoena for his medical vaccine exempt patient medical records. We started at the San Francisco Chronicle’s office and walked to City Hall. NBC covered the walk by helicopter, but not the event. ABC did tape my press conference (which was more of an informal chat to the crowd). I didn’t see the piece, if it aired. The event was also taped by Frontline USA and is available on its website. Scoll down to June 14th on the website. (Sorry for moving in and out of the picture frame, but I’m a pacer unless my hands are glued to a lectern).

Thanks to Heidi Light, Denise and a few others who helped with the event. It literally wouldn’t have happened without you folks.

Update on the Stoller Case and Media
No response from the City Attorney yet on the case. I’m sure it’s coming and it will be good. You’ll hear about it because no doubt there will be another press release, and all the media will cover it, and further vilify Ken Stoller, with a couple lines from his attorney.

Speaking of press vilifying him, expect a negative story from the San Jose Mercury soon, digital maybe tonight and in the paper tomorrow. They apparently got all or a good portion the San Francisco medical exemptions, deidentified, and the reporter had some questions. We’ll see how much of my answers make it into the story, but it’s a safe assumption that it will be highly critical of him, with the aforedescribed few lines from his attorney.

Update on the SB 276 Assembly Health Committee hearing
It’s still on for Thursday, so be there if you can make it. I’ve heard some concern voiced that it’s not getting enough public dissemination in social media circles. I hope that changes. I know some of the groups are diligently working on arranging for speakers and physicians to be present. Go there and make your voice heard!

Rick Jaffe, Esq.
rickjaffeesquire@gmail.com

NEW YORK: A2371, what it means for the religiously exempt, and some thoughts about how to fight it

NEW YORK: A2371, what it means for the religiously exempt, and some thoughts about how to fight it

As you all know, in a one-day legal Blitzkrieg, and without a public hearing, both houses of the New York Legislature passed, and the Governor signed a bill removing the religious exemption to mandatory school vaccination.

A2371 is now law in New York.
Here is the law: https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2019/a2371/amendment/a

The new law has an immediate effect on families who had a religious exemption, until this law passed. The law states that school officials cannot allow unvaccinated children to “attend” school for more than 14 days (extended to 30 days and beyond in some circumstances) without proof of immunization in accordance with the state mandated vaccine schedule (or a medical exemption).

Here are the vaccines per the schedule, as set forth in A 2371:

“POLIOMYELITIS, MUMPS, MEASLES, DIPHTHERIA, RUBELLA, VARICELLA, HEPATITIS B, PERTUSSIS, TETANUS, AND, WHERE APPLICABLE, HAEMOPHILUS INFLUENZAE TYPE B (HIB), MENINGOCOCCAL DISEASE, AND PNEUMOCOCCAL DISEASE.”

What you have to do if you had a religious exemption?

Barring a temporary restraining order enjoining school officials from enforcing the law (and I will discuss that in a bit), basically the religiously exempt need to get the initial shots of the vaccines in the schedule, supposedly in accordance with the vaccine schedule.

Here is the actual language:

“OR WHERE THE PARENT, GUARDIAN, OR ANY OTHER PERSON IN PARENTAL RELATIONSHIP TO SUCH CHILD CAN DEMONSTRATE THAT A CHILD HAS RECEIVED AT LEAST THE FIRST DOSE IN EACH IMMUNIZATION SERIES REQUIRED BY THIS SECTION AND HAS AGE APPROPRIATE APPOINTMENTS SCHEDULED TO COMPLETE THE IMMUNIZATION SERIES ACCORDING TO THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON IMMUNIZATION PRACTICES RECOMMENDED IMMUNIZATION SCHEDULES FOR PERSONS AGED 0 THROUGH 18 YEARS.”

I was not at the hearing, and I haven’t heard about the testimony concerning the scientific evidence demonstrating the safety of administering all these vaccines in a 14- or 30-day period… Oh, I forgot, there was no hearing.

I understand that the scientific community stands behind the CDC AAP, the AAFP and the other acronym endorsers of the regular vaccine schedule. But we’re not talking about that accepted schedule here.

This is a highly abbreviated schedule created by legislative fiat. I am skeptical that there was any hard-scientific evidence presented proving that all the initial doses of all required vaccines can be safely administered to a child over a 14- or 30-day period.

Why am I skeptical?

BECAUSE THE NEW YORK LEGISLATIVE VACCINE SCHEDULE IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE VACCINE SCHEDULE ENDORSED BY ALL OF THE LETTERED PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS WHICH ESTABLISHED OR ENDORSES THE EXISTING VACCINE SCHEDULE. THESE ORGANIZATIONS ATTACK ANY ALTERNATIVE VACCINE SCHEDULE, EXCEPT APPARENTLY THE NEW YORK LEGISLATIVE VACCINE SCHEDULE FOR THE PREVIOUSLY RELIGIOUSLY EXEMPT.

You have to assume that the folks who created the current vaccine schedule thought they had good reasons for not administering all the vaccines (or initial shots of each) within 30 days. Whatever evidence they used to make those decisions (if there was any) is evidence of the danger or potential harm which A 2371 could cause to the heretofore religiously exempt.

Therefore, A2371 is presumptively unsafe for children, pending proof by the State that the New York Legislative Vaccine Schedule requiring 30-day initial compliance is as safe, as the vaccine schedule endorsed by all pediatric medical professional organizations.(The latter being a big assumption admittedly)

Therefore, Your Honor, we seek an immediate TRO and pending a full evidentiary preliminary injunction hearing wherein the State of New York be required to prove that mandating that a child receive all listed vaccines within 30 days is medical safe and does not create an undue risk of harm. Absent such a showing, the Court should strike down the law for the constitutional (equal protection) and other grounds set forth in the accompanying memorandum of law.

Or so I see the best chance you folks have in stopping A 2371.

Rick Jaffe, Esq.
rickjaffeesquire@gmail.com

San Francisco City Attorney Event Starts Soon; Here is the Updated Contact Information

San Francisco City Attorney Event Starts Soon; Here is the Updated Contact Information

The event starts soon:

Call the City Attorney’s main number

415-554-4700

or TTY 415-554-6770

or fax: 415-554-4715

or email him at cityattorney@SFcityatty.org

What’s Next, and Stay On-Message at the Cali. Assembly Health Committee SB 276 Hearing Next Week

What’s Next, and Stay On-Message at the Cali. Assembly Health Committee SB 276 Hearing Next Week

Yesterday, it was announced that the Assembly Health Committee would hold its hearing on SB 276 on June 20th.

I have two pieces of advice, the first of which is in part self-serving.

I once asked a very busy and successful Hollywood personality/author/entrepreneur how she managed to juggle so many different ventures and activities. She told me that she had a simple rule: She just focuses on “what’s next”, and once the current thing is done, she moves on again to what’s next. Easy for her since she has multiple assistants who lined-up the series of what’s next tasks. Still, I think it applies to the movement to defeat SB 276.

What’s next in the battle is Friday’s action against the San Francisco City Attorney’s effort to subpoena Ken Stoller’s medical records of his vaccine exempt patients. Here is the link to the event page. https://www.facebook.com/events/1580569842074414/

The physical event starts at the San Francisco Chronicle’s Office. The message is that the media does not give fair or adequate coverage to the vaccine debate, and particularly the serious and permanent injuries caused by vaccines, a fact which is accepted by the federal judiciary and the Congress that granted the vaccine manufacturers absolute immunity from suit.

The event then moves by-foot to the San Francisco City Attorney’s Office with the message that the City Attorney withdraw the subpoena, and that physicians have (and should continue to have) the discretion to issue medical vaccine exemptions based on factors broader than CDC contraindications, which is exactly what Ken Stoller is doing, and he is following the law (SB 277) exactly.

We are trying to make this an international event, with people from around the world contacting the City Attorney, by fax, email and phone, expressing their opinions, and sharing stories to help the City Attorney understand that he was given bad information.

It’s hard to predict how large this international communications effort will be, but my feeling is that if it’s big enough, the message will be heard all the way to the Assembly in Sacramento next week, sort of like a stone’s throw rippling in the water. After Friday’s event, ride the wave to Sacramento, for what’s next, after Friday.

And, Stay On-Message

The hearing next week concerns a bill which will remove a physician’s ability to make an important medical decision, and place it in the hands of government employees who have never met or spoken to the patient for whom they are making the decision, and whose records these officials have not reviewed. That should be an affront to all physicians, but especially to the state administrative agency that protects the public, in part by making sure that only physicians with a doctor/patient relationship make such decisions. Sadly, it isn’t, not yet anyway.

Your job is to convince the members of the Health Committee that physicians with a doctor/patient relationship not government employees with no contact with the patients should make these decisions. Short, succinct stories showing the limitations and harm caused by an overly narrow focus on contraindications would be an excellent way to show that for non-health care people who testify.

I’ll repeat what I’ve said before the Senate Health Committee hearing: it’s not about your constitutional right to make personal decisions for your children and exercise those rights to decline all vaccines because of your personal, philosophical or religious beliefs. There used to be a statutory right to do so, but then came SB 277, and that statutory right was eliminated. Efforts to establish a constitutional or other statutory right have all failed. It’s over! If you try to relitigate that rescinded and currently non-existent right, you are undercutting your efforts to defeat SB 276.

Specifically, if this is perceived to be just about your attempt to protect the power of physicians to indirectly effectuate parents’ personal belief exemptions, then your efforts will fail, as they should. So, my advice is to focus on what this is actually about rather than relitigate a prior battle.

That’s the way I see it anyway.

Call and fax the City Attorney on Friday! And if you’re in the neighborhood, stop by and show your support.

Rick Jaffe, Esq.
rickjaffeesquire@gmail.com

The Private Stem Cell Field Moves On; Maybe This Time They’re Be Smarter or More Cautious

The Private Stem Cell Field Moves On; Maybe This Time They’re Be Smarter or More Cautious

With the recent Summary Judgment decision in the US Stem Cell case, my prediction is that the fat-based stem cell business will slow down and eventually cease to be a thing.

Here is the judge’s decision
http://rickjaffeesq.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/USRM-lawsuit.pdf

Lawyers will tell potential entrants into the field that a federal judge has held the use of autologous fat-based products to be illegal, at least pending and barring a different result in the FDA’s companion case in California. However, I do not think that is likely.

As to the existing MSC/SVF practices, hard choices have to be made, especially for those not associated with the US Stem Cell network and who currently operate below the state and federal radar screen: Continue with business as usual, or stop and move on to the next thing.

Because of the FDA’s operational practices and limitations, I do not see it as a major deterrent to existing fat-based clinics, at least not until the expiration of the 3-year grace period the FDA granted the industry when the stem cell industry guidance documents were issued in late 2017. Presumably, the small, under-the-radar clinics will have until late 2020 to come into compliance (which they will never be able to do, so read, go out of buisness).

For sure, the FDA will continue its enforcement activities, especially against the US Stem Cell affiliates, and then against the California stem cell affiliates if there is a summary judgment in that case. However, if a clinic is making money and getting good feedback from the patients about results, some may decide to continue with the product and model, at least until the end of the 2020 grace period.

I menitoned state radar screen because some of the state attorney general’s offices are starting to become players via consumer protection laws,following the FTC’s widely reported multi-million dollar consent agreement against a California stem cell operation back in October, 2018.

Here is the FTC’s announcement of the settlement.
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2018/10/ftc-stops-deceptive-health-claims-stem-cell-therapy-clinic

That case, and others that might follow might make some of these clinics rethink their position, or at least clean-up their websites, and that would be a very, very good idea. State (and federal) consumer protection target the clinics where it hurts, their pocketbooks. I would expect these types of actions might be a bigger factor than even the FDA, in the short to medium term. In large part because this is low hanging fruit for the AG’s and results in easy and favorable PR. Many AG’s are looking at what’s next, and the common job path is AG, then Governor or senator, then who knows.

And the states have other tools to deal with the MSC/SVF model, which they are starting to use.

Sooner or later, the entire MSC/SVF field is going to move on (and many in the field already have done so). My work has given me the opportunity to review the MSC/SVF operations, documentation and adverstising practices. I hope the players creating the new business model do not make the same mistakes as were made in the MSC/SVF model. But, I am guessing that the same forces which drove the soon-to-be-old model, will also drive the new one, and the same mistakes and same government reactions will surface. But we’ll see.

Rick Jaffe, Esq.
rickjaffeesquire@gmail.com

CALL TO ACTION: To the Vaccine and Medical Privacy Concerned Communities

CALL TO ACTION: To the Vaccine and Medical Privacy Concerned Communities

On Friday June 14, 2019, at 12:00 PM PDT, there will be a showing of international support:

1. Demanding that the San Francisco City Attorney, Dennis Herrera, withdraw the Subpoena he issued against Dr. Ken Stoller to turn over the medical records and sensitive genetic information of his vaccine medical exemption patients. The City Attorney’s actions are an afront to the rights of all patients and must be stopped, or you can expect other government entities to follow in his steps!

2. To stand UNITED in defeating SB 276, which eliminates physician decision making authority to issue medical vaccine exemptions, and places this critical medical decision in the hands of government bureaucrats who have NEVER met or spoken to the child or family. SB 276 passed the California Senate and will soon be before the California Assembly.

The local event will start at the San Francisco Chronicle building, 901 Mission Street, and then proceed to the City Attorney’s Office at 1390 Market Street, (about a mile walk).

During this critical time, we are asking everyone across the world who is concerned by the City Attorney’s actions and bills like SB 276 to voice your opposition to the City Attorney by contacting the City Attorney’s office on June 14th by phone 415-554-3944, fax 415-437-4644, and email cityattorney@sfcityatty.org.

Please be polite and respectful in your communications.

The message can be as short as “Doctors, Not Bureaucrats”, Withdraw the Subpoena”, “Health, Not Politics”, “Protect my medical privacy rights”, “Do Not Open the Door to Medical Privacy Abuse”, “Don’t Target Fragile Children and Families” or anything else (polite and respectful) which strikes your fancy.

You could try to educate the City Attorney with personal stories, or say, and point out that twenty eight out of thirty-eight cases of measles in the Bay Area were adults (Latest state numbers: 40 out of 51 cases are in adults.)

Or emphasize the fact that 38% of the measles cases in the 2015 Disneyland outbreak were from the vaccine. https://doi.org/10.1128/JCM.01879-16. Or state that Governor Brown made it a point to specifically allow broadly written medical exemptions with SB 277.

Maybe with enough feedback, the San Francisco City Attorney will realize that he was the recipient of bad information about the measles problem in the Bay Area, and other misinformation, which I’ve discussed in the Stoller v. Dennis Herrera, Complaint.

(The Complaint is attached to this post http://rickjaffeesq.com/2019/06/04/dr-kenneth-stoller-files-lawsuit-against-the-san-francisco-city-attorneys-subpoena-for-his-patients-medical-records-and-genetic-information/.)

This event is global! It is being supported by many California state organizations, other states’ organizations, and national and international organizations and groups. Here is the link to the Facebook event page. https://www.facebook.com/events/1580569842074414/

Ladies and Gentleman, it is time to go big or go home! Make your voices heard. GET INVOLVED and spread the word to your communities and leaders to join in!

#myrecordsnopolitics

#myrecordsnosb276

#standforstoller

Rick Jaffe, Esq.
Rickjaffeesquire.com

Kenneth Stoller MD v. SF City Attorney et al, pending in the San Francisco Superior Court: The Short Version

Kenneth Stoller MD v. SF City Attorney et al, pending in the San Francisco Superior Court: The Short Version


Here is a brief summary of Ken Stoller’s lawsuit against the San Francisco City Attorney (SFCA):

The SFCA held a press conference announcing that he had issued an administrative subpoena on Dr. Ken Stoller for his medical records all his patients throughout the state for whom he has written a vaccine medical exemption. The basis of the subpoena is an alleged investigation about whether Dr. Stoller’s exemption writing practices is a public nuisance, presumably in light of the uptick in measles cases in the Bay Area and throughout California.

We think this is a bogus investigation and therefore, we filed a lawsuit to quash the subpoena and asked for other relief.

There are several critical and incontrovertible facts which show the bad faith behind the SFCA’s so-called investigation.

Fact 1:

The primary vector or cause of the Bay Area measles outbreak is not medically exempt unvaccinated school children. Rather, it is adults who traveled abroad. Here is the news article which reports that 28 of the 38 Bay Area measles cases were in adults traveling abroad. https://www.sfchronicle.com/health/article/Measles-cases-jump-to-38-in-California-amid-13795838.php.

There is no published data about the 10 children yet. However, extrapolating from the genetic test results of the 2015 Disneyland outbreak which established that almost forty percent of the 194 measles cases were from the vaccine. https://doi.org/10.1128/JCM.01879-16,

and, adding the most conservative numbers of the MMR primary vaccine failure rate of 10% https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15176719, it is likely that almost half of the 10 measles cases were in children who got it either from the vaccine, or because the vaccine didn’t work on them.

Conclusion: Since the overwhelming majority of the San Franciso Bay Area measles cases are not from the medically vaccine exempt school children, to target them as a potential public nuisance is irrational and suggests that it is just a pretext.

Fact 2:

On April 24, 2019, Senator Pan related to his Senate Health Committee the Medical Board’s concern that it was having difficulty obtaining the patient medical records from exemption writing physicians, and complained about the possibility of fake exemption writing going on.

Fact 3:

14 days later, on May 8th, the SFCA issued a subpoena for all of Dr. Stoller’s records and other information concerning the medical exemptions he has written throughout the state. (There would be nothing stopping the SFCA from sharing these records with other government agencies.) The SFCA’s public nuisance investigation is based on the same false “fake exemption” narrative Senator Pan has been using as his justification for SB 276.

Fact: 4:

The SFCA’s attempt to use the public nuisance laws as a basis of investigating a physician’s medical practice and seeking medical records and genetic test information is unprecedented in California or anywhere else in this country. The fact that the initial request is for deidentified records does not mitigate the intrusion into the patients’ rights to control their personal medical information. The SFCA’s office, unlike the Medical Board, is not obligated to protect and not disseminate the information to other government agencies, which given its resources, it can easily reidentify the patients’ identity, and then target the families, which has been suggested by a possible SFCA ally.

Fact 5:

The original version of SB 277 proposed by Senator Pan limited vaccine medical exemptions to CDC contraindications. Because of push-back, he was forced to broaden exemptions far beyond the few CDC contraindications. The law which was passed allows for considerations, including without limitation, “family history.” According to Senator Pan, even a “genetic association, with a sibling, cousin, [or] some other relative [could justifiy a finding that] it’s not safe for a vaccine . . .” and “even if that child has not yet suffered harm, then they [the physicians] an exercise their professional judgment to provide an exemption” (Senator Pan’s recorded testimony explaining SB 277 to his fellow Senators)

Fact 6:

In SB 276, Senator Pan has changed his mind and now seeks to limit vaccine medical exemptions to the same limited CDC contraindications which he tried and failed to have included in SB 277. His main PR tactic is to promote the false “fake exemption” narrative by relying on the fact that Dr. Stoller and others like him are writing medical exemptions based on these broader factors referenced in SB 277, which Senator Pan himself blessed in order to pass SB 277.

Conclusion:

These facts and circumstances suggest that the SFCA’s unprecedented subpoena and public nuisance investigation of Dr. Stoller’s medical practice is part of a campaign to pass SB 276 by advancing the false narrative that there are a few doctors writing false or fake exemptions. The reality is that these doctors are following the law as interpreted by Senator Pan himself. Unhappy that these physicians have taken his words literally and seriously, Senator Pan is now vilifying these physicians to pass what he could not get passed in SB 277. He is now going even further with SB 276 by having state government employees who have never met or spoken to the patient and family make a critical and potentially life-altering medical decision.

The Legislature should reject SB 276, and we hope that the courts will stop the SFCA’s attempt to misuse the public nuisance laws to violate the privacy and autonomy rights of Dr. Stoller’s patients.

Rick Jaffe, Esq.
rickjaffeesquire@gmail.com