Browsed by
Category: Vaccination Issues

Happy New Year! Last year review, and what’s coming this year/ ACCME/Cali. Vaccine /Homeopathy/Supplements/Antitrust/Obamacare

Happy New Year! Last year review, and what’s coming this year/ ACCME/Cali. Vaccine /Homeopathy/Supplements/Antitrust/Obamacare

As we start the New Year, let’s look back and forward:

CAM’s ACCME problem

The biggest challenge facing the CAM community in the coming years is that CAM organizations are under direct attack by ACCME, the main CME accrediting agency. In the last year or two, the ACCME have initiated a process to revoke several CAM organization’s CME credit provider status.

See my post:

http://rickjaffeesq.com/2017/04/04/bad-day-cam-patients-first-cam-group-caves-accmes-extortionre-education/

If ACCME succeeds, the result would be devastating to these groups because they are financially dependent on their annual conferences. CAM physicians travel to these conferences in no small part to satisfy their annual CME requirements. Removing CME accreditations would likely dramatically reduce attendance, which would put these organizations in deep financial jeopardy. The conferences are where the CAM docs learn about the latest CAM therapies, so it’s all bad, if the CAM groups lose their course accreditation status.

There are now a handful of CAM organization that are in the process of having their CME accreditation status “reviewed.” I think revocation of ACCME CME status is the intended and likely result of ACCME’s review process of these organizations. Most of these groups are keeping this problem quiet, because they understandably fear that disclosure might jeopardize membership and future conference attendance.

What there hasn’t been yet or even seriously discussed is an all-CAM response and mobilization to deal with the problem. And I think that’s a shame and short-sighted.

Reminds me of a joke: A guy jumps off a hundred story building. As he passes the 50th floor, someone asks him “How you doing.” He responds “So far, so good.”

I have to believe there is a smoking gun out there. The ACCME has seven members, one of which is CAM’s biggest institutional adversary/detractor, the Federation of State Medical Boards.

Because there are so many CAM groups that have come under review/attack in such a short period of time, I have to believe that it’s not chance; its a concerted effort, or a conspiracy if you will, to eliminate CAM organizations which will make the dissemination of CAM information much more difficult.

Hey Santa Claus, I know I’m alittle late (or early), but what I want for Christmas is that smoking gun from the Federation to the other ACCME members laying out the illegal conspiracy to revoke the ACCME certification of all CAM groups. That would be a gift that would keep on giving and I think could result in the end of the attack.

Are you listening Santa?

The California vaccine concerned folks

For better and worse, not a lot happened in California vaccine concerned world.
You didn’t need a crystal ball to predict that every lawsuits challenging SB 277 would be dismissed, and that’s exactly what happened. And the same result awaits any new lawsuits which are direct attacks on the law (which removed the personal belief exemption).

The law’s primary legislative sponsor, Dr. Richard Pan, tried some other legislative tricks to eventually force all parents to vaccinate their kids, but nothing has gotten close so far. The vaccine concerned have to remain vigilant because there’s surely more coming from this guy and his vaccine happy posse.

There’s some talk about a SB 277 repeal bill. Obviously that won’t happen next year, but there are benefits to keeping the issue alive in the California legislature. So go for it, I say.

The Biggest surprise

I had thought that 2017 would bring a spate of new board actions against Cali docs who have written medical exemptions, since according to conventional medical authorities, there’s no such thing as a valid exemption from all vaccines throughout childhood. But apart from the Bob Sears case, (and maybe one other), I haven’t seen the California Medical Board go after the many docs who are writing these exemptions. It might because the board requires a complaint from someone to initiate an investigation, and there just aren’t any complaints yet.

What’s going to happen in 2018 for the vaccine concerned?

This year we should get a ruling in Bob Sears’s case and that ruling will tell the community and its docs who are writing the exemptions whether it’s safe to continue to do so. So keep your fingers crossed and stay tuned!

The Green Pharmaceutical homeopathy case

Homeopathy is under attack in California.

See my most recent post on it:

http://rickjaffeesq.com/2017/12/12/update-green-pharmaceuticals-homeopathy-caseyou-can/

The plaintiffs did file a response to Green’s request to the California Supreme Court to review the appellate court’s decision which overturned the bench trial judge’s defense verdict. Green’s lawyers have submitted a reply, and several groups and at least one private attorney (me) filed amicus letters. We should know this month whether the Cali. Supremes will take the case. I hope they do.

Can physicians sell supplements?

Last year, I handled a case in New Mexico involving a physician’s sale of supplements. The AMA considers it unethical for physicians to sell supplements.

Who Cares? The eight or so states that incorporate the AMA ethical precepts into their standard of care laws.

New Mexico went after a physician for selling a therapeutic herbal remedy (Byron White formulas) to a patient, a practice violation based on the AMA precepts. We said it wasn’t.

I didn’t change or clarify the law, but I did get the case against the doc dismissed, (which was my job), and I had some help from star and energy powerhouse Shirley MacLaine.

See my post:

http://rickjaffeesq.com/2017/07/05/new-mexico-integ…danger-work-done/

Thanks again Shirley!

Can a CAM physician sue a medical board for antitrust violation for bringing a board case?

My view is that it’s almost impossible to win such a case.
See my post at:
http://rickjaffeesq.com/2017/04/14/want-sue-medical-board-antitrust-violations-restraining-trade-prosecuting-practicing-kind-medicine/

Nothing has happened since the post to change my mind. Every doc who has tried has had his/her case dismissed. I don’t see anything changing in the next year on that score. Are there possible benefits to bringing this kind of case and getting thrown out of court? It depends on who you ask.

Obamacare

I end with Obamacare because its demise continues to be predicted, but from the CAM business perspective, Obamacare is basically irrelevant. Let’s face it, CAM by definition is unaccepted by the mainstream which in insurance-speak means it is experimental and makes it not insurance reimbursable (at least if the therapies and procedures are properly coded). CAM practice is a cash-based business model. So I don’t see the recent or future efforts to cripple Obamacare as having a direct adverse impact on CAM practitioners. In addition, the large majority of Americans receive their health insurance through their employers or various associations, and those folks will not be directly impacted by whatever the Republicans do to further cripple Obamacare.

Indirectly however, as more people are forced out of insurance, they will either not get the care, or get the care and not pay for it. This will raise the cost of healthcare and health insurance for others. Higher costs for healthcare and healthcare insurance which will result in people having less income for discretionary, non-insurance reimbursable CAM healthcare. So as Obamacare becomes increasingly crippled, in the mid-term, there could be some financial downside experienced by CAM businesses. (I’m not going to go into the morality or efficiency of what’s going on as I’ve already addressed those issues in prior posts dealing with what’s wrong with the American healthcare system.
See my post at:
http://rickjaffeesq.com/2016/09/24/whats-wrong-u-s-healthcare-system-take-fix/

That’s about all for now. Looking forward to the New Year’s challenges.
To paraphrase George C. Scott in Patton as he overlooks the aftermath of a brutal battle: God help me, I love this stuff.

Happy New Year!

Rick Jaffe, Esq.
rickjaffeesquire@gmail.com
www.rickjaffe.com

Dr. Bob Sears Medical Board Case Update: LA Times tries to squeeze, shame and goad the California Medical Board to go after Bob Sears and other vaccine exemption writing Docs harder and faster

Dr. Bob Sears Medical Board Case Update: LA Times tries to squeeze, shame and goad the California Medical Board to go after Bob Sears and other vaccine exemption writing Docs harder and faster

We recently received hearing dates in late May, 2018 for Dr. Bob’s hearing before an administrative law judge. The case is primarily about his writing a note excusing the child from vaccination due to two prior severe vaccine reactions.

But May, 2018 apparently is not soon or severe enough for the LA Times which today published a story complaining that Dr. Bob and many other doctors are still writing medical exemptions that don’t meet the standards of medical exemptions by conventional pediatrics and the CDC (under which standards there are no medical conditions which justify a blanket exemption from all vaccines throughout childhood). The Times seems to want all these docs rounded out or put out of business today.

The title of the article says it all:

“Why hasn’t California cracked down on anti-vaccination doctors? A loophole in state law”

Here is the article:

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-vaccine-doctors-20171106-htmlstory.html

The article has some interesting quotes from Senator Ben Allen, one of SB 277’s authors about the intent of the bill and how he doesn’t support the medical board trying to intimidate doctors who write exemptions. The article also quotes Jay Gordon, another prominent vaccine concerned doc opining that it’s up to the doctor to decide whether to give an exemption or not.

Maybe the board is moving slowly because it’s starting to realize that the issue is more complicated and nuanced than the rabid pro-vaxxers make it out to be.

In working on Bob’s case for the past year, a couple things have come out that surprised me, and having been in the cutting-edge medicine field for more than 30 years, not much surprises me these days.

First, in looking for academic experts for the case, I keep hearing the same thing over and over again. The academic expert is concerned about vaccine safety but can’t go public because of fear of reprisals from the vaccine Mafioso. I find this understandable but disheartening.

Second, I keep hearing about doctors, beyond those in the vaccine concerned movement, who aren’t fully vaccinating their kids, but they are doing it quietly.

Third, there is a black hole out there when it comes to any information other than full-on negative against the vaccine concerned. Scientists not being able to get their work published. Hell, I wrote a simple update on Bob’s case and raised some issues about aluminum, and got banned from Huffington Post for doing so.

This is one of the few areas in medical science and policy where a point of view is considered too dangerous to have openly expressed in the general media apparently. I suppose I understand the reasoning behind it: fear of creating fear which could/would reduce vaccination rates. Seems wrong to me.

If there are any brave academic pediatricians willing to take a stand, get in touch.

Rick Jaffe, Esq.
Rickjaffeesquire.com
www.rickjaffe.com

Finally, Some Intelligent Action by the Cali Anti SB 277 Community!

Finally, Some Intelligent Action by the Cali Anti SB 277 Community!

I’ve been a vocal opponent of all of the anti-SB 277 constitutional lawsuits. The most recent one was a federal lawsuit filed in mid-November, 2016, in Los Angeles, and dismissed by the federal district court in January 2017. I think all of these lawsuit were (and will be if more are filed) a terrific waste of time and money. As I have repeatedly said, as long as the medical consensus is that 1. Vaccines are safe and 2. Herd immunity (from vaccines) is a thing, no court will ever overturn a mandatory vaccination law or a law eliminating a PBE (personal belief exemption) or a religious exemption.

(For my reasoning, see my posts in the SB 277 section of my web site. Here is the link.
http://rickjaffeesq.com/category/sb-277/ )

Whatever satisfactory resolution the VC (vaccine concerned) community is going to achieve, I am certain it won’t come from the judiciary, at least so long as 1. and 2 above are the “accepted” scientific facts. The constitution isn’t a suicide pact, and the few do not have the right to infect the many, and that’s what judges are thinking when you file these lawsuits because of the “accepted” science. The vaccine concerned have to figure out a more productive use of their limited time and resources.

(Hint: change the accepted science or change-out the folks who decide what’s accepted, and that’s not as far-fetched as it would have seemed prior to November 8, 2016.)

While I doubt my message got through to anyone of authority in the movement, I am happy to report that I’ve seen some signs of intelligence in the VC community, post SB 277. No answers yet, but at least there is a promising gathering of some of the folks who could possibly come-up with solutions, both on the medical/research level and on the political action level.

I’m talking about the upcoming vaccine safety conference organized by a new group called Physicians for Informed Consent (PIC). As suggested by the name, this is a group of physicians who at the very least are skeptical of the current vaccine schedule and have some safety concerns. Many of the group’s members are pediatricians who have to deal with vaccine issues every day. The conference is this Sunday, May 12, 2017 at the Costa Mesa Hilton.

Here is the Facebook link to the event. Registration technically closes Friday.
https://www.facebook.com/events/1834537363451194/

The conference has two parts. The morning session is only open to physicians and will consist of a panel discussion with some of the leading vaccine concerned physicians explaining their views on when medical exemptions are appropriately given. That will be followed by a legal panel discussing the legal issues in giving medical exemptions in California. I will be speaking at that panel, and I can tell you that some discussions might be controversial, because at least one of the speakers is blunt and has been highly critical of past VC actions, (but he shall remain nameless).

If you are a California physician and write exemptions or thinking about doing so, you should be at the meeting, period.

Starting at 11:00, the meeting is open to the public. There will be various topics about vaccine safety from some well-known vaccine researchers. A couple of the docs from the morning panel will give their insights to the public about the general requirements California physicians will or should employ in evaluating when a school vaccine exemption should be given. The group’s general counsel will also give his insights about the legal challenges facing the docs and the VC community.

My guess is that this information will help the vaccine concerned public understand what’s required of them to obtain an exemption.

One of the most interesting presentations is likely to be from the founder of MADD (mothers against Drunk Drivers). That’s a pretty impressive grass-roots movement which has had a tremendous positive influence in the country and legislation. My view is that it’s going to take a MADD-like movement to effectuate any real change in the medical, public policy and legislative landscape regarding the safety of vaccines, and to take on Pharma and the medical/public health establishment. So I hope the thought and movement leaders listen carefully to what she has to say. It was a pretty nifty, out-of-the-box idea to invite her. Kudos to Shira Miller and her crew for bringing her to the VC community.

On the merits, I have a strong feeling that there’s going to be presented some new information, at least to the docs, about a powerful new explanation of the connection between vaccines and neurological related conditions, including autism, based on some doctors’ (Diane Powell) and thought leaders (JD Handley) connecting the international research dots. Think microglia/pruning and the brain’s immune system. Who knows, maybe even an attorney might talk about the implication of these concepts as a game changer which cuts across the scientific/policy/legislative and even the medical administrative landscape.

Stay tuned and more after the conference!

Rick Jaffe, Esq.
www.rickjaffe.com

Hey Robert Kennedy Jr: Congrats and here’s a suggested first topic for the vaccine commission: Are aluminum adjuvants in childhood vaccines harming kids?

Hey Robert Kennedy Jr: Congrats and here’s a suggested first topic for the vaccine commission: Are aluminum adjuvants in childhood vaccines harming kids?

Robert: congrats on your appointment as head of Trump’s vaccine study commission. I think the commission is a terrific idea, and there couldn’t be a better choice than you. I’m sure you’re getting a good laugh about how concerned and “alarmed” the pro-vaxxers are at your appointment. They’re trying to calm the true believers by pointing out all that Trump can’t do in terms of changing vaccine policy.

But Robert, there’s one thing you can do, and it will scare the bejesus out of them: shine a light on the growing body of scientific evidence on the dangers of vaccination which is being ignored, suppressed or altered. The thing they fear most is an open and public debate on these issues.And with your new gig, you can definitely shine a lot of light.

Assuming you commission has subpoena power, you’re sure going to enjoy subpoenaing the CDC whistleblower, William Thompson to testify. And for grins, maybe subpoena his boss who decided not to honor your prior subpoena to have Thompson testify in that civil case you filed. Let him put on the record how that decision was made and why.

After the Thompson related scientific fraud and cover-up mess is cleared up, may I respectfully recommend for your consideration a first scientific topic for the Commission: You know that alot of childhood vaccines contain aluminum as an adjuvant, to make the vaccine more potent or reactive. But are they really as safe as the vaccine manufacturers and the FDA say they are? I’m pretty sure you already know the answer to the question, and that your answer is much different from the U.S. Government’s current answer.

To recap the FDA’s public reassurances: “the risk to infants posed by the total aluminum exposure received from the entire recommended series of childhood vaccines over the first year of life is extremely low, according to a study by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).” http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/ScienceResearch/ucm284520.htm.

If that were true, it would be very reassuring.

I think you guys should verify the government’s position, because as you know, there is a growing body of evidence that aluminum is very dangerous to children and adults. Many forward thinking researchers suspect it’s most likely (but certainly not proven) to be a result of defects in the genes and pathways which process heavy metals like aluminum. (Actually, in a criminal case a few years back, I commissioned a white paper which summarized data from two thousand autistic kids and their parents. Lo and behold, the conclusion was just that; some kind of genetic SNP defect/pathway which processes heavy metals was evident in the autistic kids and their tested parent).

Aluminum toxicity is also an issue I’m looking deeply at in the Bob Sears medical board case. I suspect it’s a significant reason why vaccine savvy docs are so concerned about giving so many vaccines to infants and small children over such a short period of time.

You know what’s funny, (or not) or strange, (or not): most of the research on the toxicity of aluminum in vaccines is done outside of the U.S. That’s probably because of the pro-vaxxer’s stranglehold on research, and what some actually think is the manipulation of U.S. research data to hide negative vaccine data. But then you’re about to give the public answers to these questions, big time, especially if you can get the aforedescribed subpoena power.

Just to remind you, the world’s leading authority on the biochemistry of aluminum is Chris Exley in England. He has just co-authored a soon-to-be published article on the Alzheimer’s and aluminum. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0946672X16303777.

He’s also pretty familiar with the aluminum toxicity issue in childhood vaccines and has published his work in another recent article in some journal called Nature, which I think the pro-vaxxers have heard of. http://www.nature.com/articles/srep31578.

Despite the suspicion that there are genetic defects which impair heavy metal processing and excretion in some people, according to Exley, “we have not yet identified and confirmed any specific genetic predisposition which definitely alters the metabolism of aluminum. Perhaps the closest to this that we have is a condition called MMF (macrophagic myofasciitis) which is a condition linked to both aluminum adjuvants and a known genetic mutation.” According to Exley, the guy you have to talk to about MMF is Professor Romain Gherardi, who was the first to recognize the condition. He’s also not in the U.S., but in France.

And for an overview of the research on Vaccines and Autoimmunity of course consult with and bring in Professor Yehuda Shoenfeld from Israel, who as you know recently co-edited the definitive book on the subject called, not surprisingly, Vaccines and Autoimmunity. https://www.amazon.com/Vaccines-Autoimmunity-Yehuda-Shoenfeld/dp/1118663438. But you’ve probably got Yehuda’s number on speed-dial. He’s connected to everyone in the vaccine and autoimmune research field.

Since it’s a government commission, it should be fair and give all sides an opportunity to express their viewpoint. Especially those who believe that every child should receive every single vaccine on the current schedule unless the child meets the specific labeled contraindication, which is basically the pro-vaxxer’s view.

I for one would love to hear Paul Offit testify before your commission and explain his view that all kids could theoretically get 10,000 vaccines without any problems.

I’d also like to hear more about the vaccine makers’ brilliant new marketing idea to create a full vaccination schedule for pregnant women, because sometimes you just can’t get enough of a good thing.

So good luck and Godspeed with this Robert. Time to stir things up in this field, and you be the man to do it.

Rick Jaffe, Esq.
rickjaffeesquire@gmail.com

There is no Cali. mandatory childhood vaccination YET, but it may be coming

There is no Cali. mandatory childhood vaccination YET, but it may be coming

Vaccine concerned (VC) folks decry the recent loss of the personal belief exemption via SB 277, and feel like they’ve been abducted to some kind of communist state. (But hey, ever been to Berkeley!) The present legal reality is that we don’t have mandatory or forced vaccinations here. Rather, vaccines are required for people to engage in certain institutional activities; e.g., kids who want to go to school, or adults who want to work with kids or in health care.

Neither California, nor any other state (that I am aware of) forces a person to be vaccinated. Texas tried to force the HPV/Gardisal vaccination on young girls, but that was shot down.

But alas, we just might get forced childhood vaccination here in California, if I’m reading the tea leaves right. But that would be unconstitutional right? Not necessarily. In fact, the oft-cited original constitutional case on mandatory vaccination, Jacobson v Commonwealth of Mass. http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/197/11.html held that the state can force people to get vaccinated. True, the opinion said so in the context of a public epidemic, but that’s just a detail, and wouldn’t necessarily stop the state from compelling a vaccine program not tied to an actual outbreak, especially given all of the decisions in the last one hundred years which have limited a person’s ability to challenge a state’s pro-vaccination policies.

So let’s say some self-proclaimed well-meaning folks and some big business interests wanted to force every child in a state, say California for example,to get every conceivable vaccine the vaccine manufacturers now or in the future push? How should they do it, hypothetically?

HOW TO FORCE ALL KIDS TO BE VACCINATED IN A FEW (RELATIVELY) EASY STEPS
Step 1
First, if the state has a personal belief exemption, get rid of it.
SB 277: CHECK

Step 2
Even the most rabid pro-vaxxers acknowledge that there have to be some temporary medical exemptions for kids with very serious diseases who are undergoing immunocompromising treatment.

The second step is to limit medical exemptions to the very few contraindications listed on each vaccine’s label and for only the short duration of the labeled contraindication.

Limiting exemptions to labeled contraindications essentially eliminates all blanket medical exemptions from vaccination, because most pro-vaxxers believe there are no medical conditions which justify an exemption from all vaccinations throughout childhood (maybe one, death, but Phama is probably thinking about a workaround for that too).

But the ugly reality for the hypothetical folks who want every child vaccinated is that there are a fair number of VC docs who will probably continue to write medical exemptions. Why? Because under SB 277, a medical exemption which complies with the law is not reversible or reviewable by a school.

So it’s absolutely vital to dissuade the VC docs from writing exemptions.

How? Simple: scare them. How? Two obvious tactics:

First, file charges against a highly visible VC doc CHECK

See my press release on Bob Sears’ cases:

Press Release re Dr. Bob Sears case with Ca. Medical Board

here is my original post on Bob’s case: http://rickjaffeesq.com/2016/09/09/begins-first-accusation-filed-vaccine-exemption-writing-doc/


Second, make a public announcement that docs who issue medical exemptions which don’t meet the “standard of care” (i.e., are not forever contraindicated by the package label of each and every vaccine for which the exemption is sought, will be prosecuted by the board. (And by the way there are no such recognized complete exemptions according to the CDC and AAP).

The Medical Board’s recent announcement. CHECK
(See my last post)

How to force vaccination on the rest?

What about the home schoolers and parents who manage to get a non-standard of care full and indefinite medical exemption from the few and brave VC docs who still write exemptions? So what should the pro-vaxers who want to mandate vaccination for all children do?

Before I tell you, let me give you some legal background on parental rights. I’ve had extensive involvement with one very discrete aspect of parental rights, based on my work with CAM cancer clinics and in particular, a well know Texas clinic that has treated thousands of children with advanced cancer. (See chapters two and three in Galileo’s Lawyer. http://rickjaffeesq.com/

Not to digress, but there are no Christian Scientist children with serious medical conditions

Here’s the short of it: a person can refuse necessary medical treatment for him or herself, but a parent cannot decide to withhold needed medical treatment for a child. Not only is there no parental constitutional right to withhold necessary medical treatment from your own child, if a parent does not allow a child to receive necessary medical treatment for a serious medical condition, the parent’s legal custody will be temporarily terminated, and a guardian will be appointed to make medical decisions on the child’s behalf.

This has happened dozens of times across the country in cancer cases. Most are familiar with the common scenario. A child is diagnosed with advanced cancer, for which there is a supposedly curative or beneficial treatment. The parents refuse because of religious/philosophical reasons or because the parents don’t like the side effects of the recommended treatment and want to go the “natural way.”

After failing to convince the parents, the doctor (most often a chemotherapist) contacts the state child protective services. Eventually the case lands in family court. After a hearing, the parents are ordered to produce their child for treatment, or the parents lose legal custody of their child and a guardian is appointed who makes the decision for the child to undergo the treatment. For young children, under 10 or 12, the courts always order the conventional treatment. My rule of thumb is that if the kid can drive to the hearing, he/she may get to decide. But still, for young children, judges always force the child to receive necessary or potentially life-saving treatment, regardless of the philosophical beliefs or wishes of the parents.

It gets more complicated when the parents want to go with an alternative to conventional treatment and the alternative treatment has some rational basis and/or where there is a semi reputable doctor who can vouch for the alternative treatment. But the point is that not giving treatment to a child who has a serious medical condition where there are treatment options, is not an option a judge will consider.

In short, parental rights, and their opinions and beliefs are largely irrelevant in these kind of family court cases. In other words, parents do not have the right to withhold medical treatment/interventions deemed medically necessary for the health of the child. And there will never be such a right.

Yes, there are cases which talk about constitutionally protected parental rights, especially in the context of visitation rights, meaning a parent’s right to limit a grandparent’s visitation rights. But no case has ever applied a parental right to allow a parent to deny necessary medical care to his/her child.

Notwithstanding all of the above, obviously parents make medical decisions for their children all the time, and obviously their judgment is usually never questioned, except in the rare case of a principled basis refusal to allow conventional or any other needed treatment.

So let’s now go back to a hypothetical plan to mandate vaccinations for all children.

I suppose, you could try a frontal assault, by simply proposing a law requiring all children to be vaccinated according to the AAP and CDC guidelines. But that’s an emotional, hot button issue as the SB 277 battle showed, and it would be very messy. And remember, parents do have some rights and do initially make all medical decisions for their children.

Parental rights, hmmm. But there are a lot of stupid and ignorant people out there, (more than you would think based on recent events) and sometimes parents don’t act in their child’s best interest. Hmmm. What about the rights of the child? And can the rights of the child be in conflict with the decision and rights of the parents? Clearly so, as the cancer chemotherapy cases show.

Step 3: Children have rights too!

So the next step is to obtain legislative acknowledgement that children have rights independent of the rights and responsibilities of their parents. The beauty of this is how do you argue against the rights of children? The key is to create a bunch of general, obvious and innocuous sounding rights that won’t raise a heated fight like SB 277. The bill should create the obvious sounding right that kids are entitled to parents who make decisions in their child’s best interest. Go argue with that.

Equally obvious and seemingly innocuous is a child’s right to have “appropriate” health care. (who decides what is appropriate is the question of course). These are the two sleeper rights needed to effectuate the plan. The play would be to hide these sleeper rights in other even more obvious rights using unassailable buzz words like a “safe environment”, “emotional well-being” “social development.” What kind of jerk would oppose a bill ensuring that children have the tools to optimally develop?

How many rights? More than a few and less than ten. I’m spit-balling here, but seven sounds about right.

A tactical decision: Who should carry the bill? You don’t want to raise unnecessary concerns. It could be anyone, but it shouldn’t be the guy who spearhearded SB 277, Peter Pan or whatever his name was. Anyone but him, if what you want to hide what you’re really doing. But then, maybe a guy like that sees himself as the medical savior of all these poor unvaccinated kids. Anyway, Peter wouldn’t be my pick to lead the fight, if the goal is to pass this bill quietly.

So where are we hypothetically? SB 18 has been recently introduced by none other than Peter Pan aka Dr. Richard Pan, and the bill does it all. http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB18

SB 18: CHECK

Step 4
But how to put some meat on the bare bones of these general, highly laudatory rights, including the right to have parents make correct medical decisions and a child’s rights to have “appropriate medical care”?

The best way would be to have the bill call for research based policy recommendations on these rights to ensure that all children are benefited equally by these rights. Also, say further legislation effectuating these policy recommendations will be forthcoming. These things take time, so give it a relatively long target date, maybe five or half dozen years.

After the bill is passed, create some special blue ribbon committee of recognized experts of the relevant medical specialties and overseeing organizations. Hey, how about the American Association of Pediatrics, the federal Center for Disease Control and the State Department of Health. Completely beyond reproach right?

The panel will have a bunch of meetings, commission reports to make it look as if it is actually investigating the issue. But it’s just windowdressing. The actual results of the panel are already known by the supporters of the bill and the panel members.

I’m going to pull out my crystal ball, go out on a limb and tell you the results of this hypothetical blue ribbon panel, years before the panel is formed or releases its findings: Here they are:
1. Childhood vaccines are thoroughly tested before they are released to the public.
2. Serious side effects from vaccines are extremely rare.
3. Despite the all the hysterical allegations, there is no proven causal connection between any childhood vaccine and any physical or mental disease, or any abnormal childhood developmental condition.
4. The vaccines administered to children per the most recent fully proven vaccine schedule dramatically reduce a child’s likelihood of contracting the disease which is the target of the vaccine.
5. The greater the percentage of children vaccinated, the greater the “herd immulogical” response which protects all vaccinated and unvaccinated children.
6. Based on the foregoing, there is no rational basis for any parent to withhold any childhood vaccine, except for a medically justifiable reason.
7. Medical exemptions from vaccinations should be based solely on a specific vaccine’s contraindications stated on the vaccine’s label or package insert and only for the duration of the medical condition justifying the temporary exemption.
8. Because of the uncontroverted scientific evidence in support of childhood vaccination, all children have the state constitutional right to obtain all vaccines recommended by the AAP and CDC.
9. To effectuate that right and promote the well-being of children, all parents have an obligation to fully vaccinate their children, unless there is a specifically recognized temporary contraindication.
10. The state should use all means at its disposal to enforced the child’s constitutional rights.

The panel members will receive the thanks of a grateful state (and whatever other hypothetical benefits they and their friends may obtain).

So what would happen next?

Here’s what I would do if I was charged with implementing these newly flushed-out rights:

Have local schools pick the heathiest looking vaccine medically exempt students. (An easy task since it’s rumored that unvaccinated kids are actually much healthier than their vaccinated co-students.)

File complaints against the vaccine exemption issuing docs, because there’s never enough pressure than can be put on docs who put their patients at risk of preventable disease and endanger “herd immunity.”

Contact California Child Protective Services and complain about the parents’ medical abuse based on their failure to protect the child’s constitutionally protected health rights. CPS will do a visit, and if that doesn’t work, a proceeding against the parents for violating their child’s state constitution rights to “appropriate medical care,” and forcing them to act in the best interests of their child would be initiated.

Eventually the case will land in the California Supreme Court, but if the issue is framed as a child’s right to necessary medical treatment vs. the parents’ right to withhold such treatment, the VC community won’t like the result.

But that decision won’t be for years, In the interim, there will be some high-profile CPS cases filed, and that surely will have a chilling effect and impact the decisionmaking of parents.

This is all hypothetical, except it isn’t. It’s obviously happening right now. Opposing SB 18 is a good place to begin. Better still, use this bill as a vehicle to reopen the public debate about vaccine safety, efficacy and herd immunity.

My view is that the VC community will never achieve anything by asserting what is viewed as a constitutional right of the few to infect or put at risk the many. Instead, focus on the science, or lack thereof.

Rick Jaffe, Esq.
rickjaffeesquire@gmail.com

Cali. Medical Board makes it official: Docs who write non- standard-of-care medical exemptions will be prosecuted, (but maybe not)

Cali. Medical Board makes it official: Docs who write non- standard-of-care medical exemptions will be prosecuted, (but maybe not)

vaccineimage
The elimination of the PBE (personal belief exemption) via SB 277 has put a lot of pressure on vaccine concerned California pediatricians to write medical exemptions for the children of vaccine concerned parents. The recently dismissed San Diego federal anti-SB 277 lawsuit showed that at least one school board is collecting information about the docs who write these medical exemptions and will forward the information to the medical board for prosecution.

Based on some non-binding legislative history, and some personal discussions with legislators, the vaccine concerned community was hoping that the medical board could not or would not assert jurisdiction over docs who write these exemptions. That seemed completely unrealistic to me based on my experience dealing with medical boards. These guys just don’t give up jurisdiction on their licensees’ conduct.

In case you had any doubts, the board has made it official in its recent executive summary. Here is its position which couldn’t be clearer:
“The passage of two legislative bills increased the Board’s authority to investigate allegations of misconduct. * * *
In addition, SB 277 (Pan and Allen, Chapter 35) effective January 1, 2016, deleted the personal belief exemption from the existing immunization requirements. The Board will investigate any complaints in which a physician may not be following the standard of care in these two new areas.”
(From page 6: http://www.mbc.ca.gov/Publications/Annual_Reports/annual_report_2015-2016.pdf)

So there you have it. It’s basically open season on docs who write full vaccine exemptions, because according the pediatrician groups and the CDC, there are almost no medically justifiable reasons to excuse a child from all childhood vaccinations.

So what can be done about it? In the very short term, nothing really. Many pediatricians will probably be wary of writing medical exemptions.

Still, here are a couple hints. If your child had some prior vaccinations and had a serious adverse event associated with (not necessarily provably caused by) a prior vaccine, you may be able to obtain an exemption from the right doc, which decision would be literature supported. Make sure you bring documentary proof of the prior adverse event(s). The doc will need it for his records. Prior auto immune problems in the child or family members? That might help as well. Again, bring documentation. Help your pediatrician make the case and help him document the exemption. That’s the best protection for you and your doc. Admittedly, right now there is no medical board authority indicating that this would justify or exculpate a doc who writes an exemption on this basis, but I hope to change that within the next six months, in connection with my work on the current medical board case I’m working on, so stay tuned.

Next, an obvious mid-term solution is to amend SB 277 by making medical exemption decisions unreviewable by the medical board. As stated, there is some legislative history indicating that SB 277 was not intended to have the medical board second-guess the decisions of docs who write these medical exemptions. Realistically, passing such an amendment is a long-shot, but it’s time, energy and money better spent that filing another frivolous SB 277 constitutional challenge. (By the way, whatever happened to the dismissed San Diego federal lawsuit which was supposed to be refiled October 1st?) My suggestion: start working your legislators to get some feedback on whether it’s a possibility. If it is, that’s where the community should put its efforts and money.

Finally, there’s a soon-to-be publicly announced group of vaccine concerned docs, which is open to the public. It’s called Physicians for Informed Consent.

Check out their Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/search/top/?q=physicians%20for%20informed%20consent.

Here is their web site. www.physiciansforinformedconsent.org

These folks have done more good for the vaccine concerned community even before they’ve officially started than all the lawsuits combined, but I can’t talk about that now. Go to their Facebook page, sign up and support them. They have and will continue to make a difference.

Rick Jaffe, Esq.
Rickjaffeesquire@gmail.com

Unwanted advice for the anti-vaxxer Cali. SB 277 lawsuit reboot

Unwanted advice for the anti-vaxxer Cali. SB 277 lawsuit reboot

Here’s what I’m getting from the Bolen Report’s prediction/foreshadowing of the new SB277 challenge, and so here is some more probably unwanted advice:

500 Plaintiffs:

Really? HELLO: you’re fighting an asymmetrical battle. The government has a lot more financial and personnel power than you guys. Moreover, if what you say is true, namely that big pharma is behind the worldwide vaccine conspiracy, pharma has unlimited resources. You’re going to try to manage 500, or even dozens of plaintiffs? That doesn’t make any sense. What’s the upside? You don’t think the judge will know that there are a lot of you vaccine concerned out there? Get real and keep it manageable. Use just a couple plaintiffs to cover your bases, standing wise (a few affected individuals and a couple groups for associational standing), and that’s it.

Multiple Lawsuits:

Really? Filed by the same lawyers? Same or similar legal theories? You’re just making more unnecessary work for yourselves. The same or overlapping defendants will just file consolidation motions in each of the cases, or xerox the dismissal papers and submit them to all the courts. Filing a bunch of similar lawsuits will do a couple things which you shouldn’t want. It will burn a few months and waste money. Plus, you’ll really ingratiate yourselves with the judiciary, because there’s nothing judges like better than wasteful duplicate litigation which clogs their dockets.

Don’t overstate your case by bad-mouthing all vaccines that were ever given since the beginning of time

I get that the hard core anti-vaxxers think that no vaccine has ever helped a single human being or prevented anyone from getting any disease ever, and that everyone involved in the horrific vaccine genocide should be prosecuted, but for God’s sake don’t put that or any other crazy stuff in the complaint. Those Luddite arguments might play well to the hard core anti-vaxxer element, but you guys who are preparing the papers are professionals. There’s no sense writing stuff which will make the judge and the media think the clients and their lawyers are complete wackos.

Don’t make it personal

There is a tendency in cases like this to identify the boogeyman. The prior lawsuit and the two current pending lawsuits did that, focusing on the pediatrician/legislator and some Santa Barbara government official. It’s already been done and it won’t help your case to personally attack people who advocated or worked for a law passed by the legislature. That is how public health policy is set. Nor will it help your case by attacking government officials who want to make sure that the intent of the law is effectuated. That is the job of such officials. Calling them names and vilifying them will surely make the hard-core anti-vaxxers feel good, but it won’t help you case. If anything, it will hurt it.

Acknowledge the deep legal hole you’re in and move forward from there

All of the extreme anti-vaxxers, and a good percentage of the vaccine-concerned are living in an alternative legal universe. In the universe I and all reasonable and informed people live in, for over one hundred years, starting with the Supreme Court’s decision in Jacobson, every single legal decision has upheld the government’s right to mandate vaccination and has rejected a purported individual’s personal belief based asserted right to avoid vaccination based on an proposed extension of a constitutional right. All of these legal challenges fail because as is is oft-stated, the Constitution isn’t a suicide pact.The personal beliefs of the few will never outweigh the public health of the many.

That means that the only conceivable chance to have a judge think about letting the case proceed –rather than grant the state’s motion to dismiss – is to focus on public safety. Specifically, the public safety of kids, particularly young children, and specifically the vaccine schedule and maybe the dangers of the most popular adjuvants. You guys need to drill down, think small and get into the weeds; pick the most unassailable scientific concerns out there and go with that, rather than big picture things like cover-ups, conspiracies and boogeymen.

Your immediate goal

I would respectfully suggest that the purported goal of having some authoritative judge make some grand declaration about an individual’s rights superceding the right of the public to public health is completely unrealistic and will never ever, ever happen. Even a public health argument is a long shot, because such decisions are usually left to the legislative and executive branches. However, if you present a rational and interesting argument, you might just get a judge to let the case go forward, which should be the primary immediate goal of the new lawsuit, as opposed to filing a facially defective complaint –like the prior dismissed lawsuit, or the wacko papers filed in the two pending lawsuits.

In short, try something different this time; be smart; don’t file papers that the extreme anti-vaxxers will love, but the judges and press will think are crazy. That’s been done and done.

Rick Jaffe, Esq.

www.rickjaffe.com
rickjaffeesquire@gmail.com

Press Release re Dr. Bob Sears case with Ca. Medical Board

Press Release re Dr. Bob Sears case with Ca. Medical Board

“I represent Dr. Bob Sears in the California Medical Board’s case against him for writing a medical exemption from vaccination.

We take the board’s accusation seriously. But this case is very clear: this child had two unusual and severe vaccine reactions and his situation warranted a medical exemption. To continue vaccination could have put the child at risk of further harm.

All physicians have an ethical duty to do no harm to a patient. This is no less true when a child suffers serious side effects from any medical intervention.

We anticipate this case will do much to further public education on the importance of recognizing severe vaccine reactions and providing informed consent for medical care. ”

Rick Jaffe

 

And So it Begins: First Accusation filed against a Vaccine Exemption Writing Doc

And So it Begins: First Accusation filed against a Vaccine Exemption Writing Doc

 

As I’ve told the mostly unwilling-to-listen Vaccine Concerned Community, the real battle, and the one which will have the most direct positive or negative impact on this community is the future actions by the California Medical and Osteopathic Boards against the docs who write unlimited medical exemptions for the kids of the vaccine concerned. Well the future is now.

A few days ago, the Medical Board filed an accusation accusing a well known and highly regarded CAM doctor of gross negligence and inadequate record keeping for writing blanket exemptions. The only good news is that the exemption was written a couple years ago, so it’s not a result of any “conspiracy” between public health officials and the boards stemming from SB 277, but not to worry (or to worry), those accusation are coming too, though probably not for several months at least, and following the administration investigative process.

here is a link to the accusation. It’s a template as to what will likely follow in other cases.

searsaccusation

 

More as things develop.

 

Rick Jaffe, Esq.

 

 

 

Self-Dismissal of SB 277 Lawsuit: Smartest thing they’ve done so far: Is it a one-of or are they on a roll?

Self-Dismissal of SB 277 Lawsuit: Smartest thing they’ve done so far: Is it a one-of or are they on a roll?

 

I’ve been very skeptical of the federal SB 277 lawsuit and preliminary injunction motion, for technical legal and substantive reasons. (See my prior posts:

http://rickjaffeesq.com/2016/06/10/cali-anti-vaxer-friends-heres-probably-unwanted-possibly-useful-advice/

http://rickjaffeesq.com/2016/06/14/190/

http://rickjaffeesq.com/2016/08/21/time-get-real-sb-277-real-battle-will/

http://rickjaffeesq.com/2016/08/26/shocker-sb-277-preliminary-injunction-motion-denied/)

Well the powers-that-be finally did something smart; they voluntarily dismissed the case before the state had a chance to file a dismissal motion and before the judge terminated the case for good, or in legal parlance, “with prejudice.”

So what’s next? Based on Tim Bolen’s recent post, http://bolenreport.com/sb-277-lawsuit-case-dismissed/#more-4880, it looks like the case will be refiled with factual allegations on the two points which I (and any other experienced federal civil litigator) would deem necessary to try to allege a valid claim, namely, challenging herd immunity, and the alleged severe harm and danger of vaccines to significant numbers of recipients. (Which is not to say there is any realistic chance of success, but whatever chance there is has to involve these two factual contentions.)

Looking into my crystal ball, here is what’s going to happen, (or what’s not going to happen.)

  1. Think you’re getting rid of Judge Sabraw by refiling, think again.

Now that the federal lawsuit has been dismissed, it’s over, meaning, someone has to file a new lawsuit, pay another filing fee, serve the defendants again, and the rest. Normally, judges are assigned on a random basis, and there are a number of federal judges in the southern district, so one might think the odds favor getting another judge on the new case.

However, if the new case is filed on behalf of some of the same plaintiffs, and the defendants will be the same, and the same lawyers, then it’s a related case, and probably should be so designated in the initial filing, but even if not, the state will probably point that out right quick. Related cases go to the judge hearing or who heard the other case. Call it judicial efficiency or not allowing judge shopping.

So, prediction number 1 is that if the case is filed again in the southern district, it will end up with the same judge, and we already know what he thinks about whether there is any set of circumstances in which the beliefs or rights of the few can supersede the rights and health of the many.

Hint: The only way to make sure the same judge won’t hear the new case is to file in another California district court. There are three others, and Santa Barbara isn’t in the Southern District. Sure, you might be accused of forum shopping, and all the judges read the same law books, so it probably won’t matter, but if the goal is to get a different judge, a different district is the way to go.

  1. Preliminary Injunction? fugetaboutit! That ship has sailed.

The dismissed lawsuit was filed before the school year started in the first year SB 277 effected kids. So there was at least an arguable urgency, which is a prerequisite for the extraordinary remedy of a preliminary injunction. However, by the time the new case is filed (supposedly by October 1st) vaccination decisions for this school year have already been made, thereby eliminating the urgency of an expedited decision.  Any other arguable urgency would just be a pretext and won’t fly.  And even the impending school year didn’t work because the urgency was self-inflicted or a tactical decision (which is what the judge said).

Further, the whole “preserve the status quo ante” crap in the prior injunction is a joke and a non-starter in a public health case. Why? Justified or not, SB 277 was a legislative response to one very well publicized disease outbreak (and there were supposedly others).  No judge in his right mind is going to “preserve the status quo ante” by stopping a law specifically designed to prevent future disease outbreaks, not even if Jesus Christ shows up and argues for it.

Anyone who doesn’t understand this is either too close to the vaccine issue or has spent too much time doing field research on the medical marijuana issue.

And let’s not forget that a judge has already denied a preliminary injunction motion involving all or some of the same plaintiffs, defendants and lawyers. The idea that the same or even a different judge is going to reach a different outcome because of some new alleged facts in a complaint is, let’s just say, naïve.

  1. How about a Jury Trial? Not a Chance

Bypassing all the abstruse jurisprudence, there is no 7th Amendment jury trial right when you’re trying to overturn a statute. Those decisions are made by a federal district judge.

  1. So what’s Going to Happen in the New Lawsuit(s)

I get that the vaccine concerned community has a strongly held belief against vaccines, that they are toxic, hurt thousands of people and that vaccines haven’t been proven effective by scientific standards of controlled clinical trials. I also get that they think that the herd immunity concept is unproven superstition.  I am neither an anti vaxer nor pro all vaccines. Also,  I’m not a vaccine lawyer,  and there is no point for a guy like me wading into the scientific dispute or pseudo dispute since I’m just an outsider looking into this controversy. But I have spent my entire professional career litigating cutting-edge and novel legal/medical issues. In that (depressingly long) time, I’ve been thrown out of some of the finest federal courts, and have even prevailed once in a while. So on the litigation part, I’ve very confident about my ability to understand and predict litigation outcomes.

My crystal ball tells me that no federal (or state) judge is going to stop SB 277 because of any complaint or declaration (sworn statement)  supporting the complaint that may be filed. To think otherwise, in my opinion, is based on a non-objective/uncritical view of the case law, and/or a misunderstanding of the limited role of judges in matters of public health, even in the face of an alleged scientific controversy and a minority view of the overall danger of vaccination, even if that minority view eventually turns out to be true and accepted.

Further, none of these cases will ever see a bench trial and all will be dismissed under Federal Rule 12 b.

Bottom line, I do not believe that there is any viable direct legal challenge to SB 277. Indirect, maybe, where the two concepts are successfully challenged in a court case, but relief in such a suit won’t be the judicial overturning of the law. That will only come when there is some recognition/validation of the vaccine concerned’s position on the two key issues of herd immunity and vaccine harm/schedule.

In law, there are just some alleged wrongs or government actions which don’t have a judicial remedy. For the last hundred years, unfettered freedom from vaccination has not been recognized by the judiciary and will not be so recognized given the current view of vaccine science/safety, however wrong the VC community thinks the mainstream consensus view is.

So guys, file away. It’s sometimes important to empower a community even if the boost/feeling is short-lived. The vaccine concerned will certainly feel good about the new filings, and will feel that their heartfelt beliefs are being considered, and that could be a good thing and the lawyers filing these cases will be viewed as heros, (for awhile anyway).

But at the end of the day, the result will be the same as in all of the other cases. And there will be more of the same kind of explanations/excuses or different explanations/excuses, or fulminations about how we live in a police state and there will be more fragmentation of the VC community as they point fingers at eachother assessing blame for failed strategy. But none of those explanations or heartfelt beliefs or fingerpointing is going to change the “established” scientific facts or the law, until there is a change in the worldview, but I’ve said that before.

Rick Jaffe