Big Update on the Stoller Lawsuit: Subpoena Withdrawn; San Francisco Defendants Dismissed from the Case!

Big Update on the Stoller Lawsuit: Subpoena Withdrawn; San Francisco Defendants Dismissed from the Case!

here is the update:

Rick Jaffe, Esq.

5 thoughts on “Big Update on the Stoller Lawsuit: Subpoena Withdrawn; San Francisco Defendants Dismissed from the Case!

  1. Thanks for keeping us informed about this very important issue. I’m watching this closely because so far Texans are covered for exemptions but I can see changes may be attempted in the future with this national conversation about mandatory vaccinations.

  2. Thank you for this.

    Here’s my question. You say:

    “…the Medical Board has filed charges against Dr. Stoller (in California it is called an “Accusation”) based on an investigation of 11 patients whom the Board claims received a vaccine medical exemption not within the CDC guidelines/standard of care.”

    And then:

    “It all stems from the confusion created by Senator Pan and his allies with their SB 277 supporting statements and the bill itself which seemingly justified the broad-based vaccine medical exemptions which Dr. Stoller and other like-minded physicians have written.”

    Where is the confusion? SB277 DOES justify medical exemptions based on physician judgement beyond the CDC guidelines – as was explicitly stated by Pan et al. So, when you say “seemingly justified”, what do you mean? Is there something we have misunderstood about SB277?

    As far as I can see, the Medical Board has absolutely no justification for going after Dr. Stoller for writing exemptions outside of CDC guidelines, as there was zero legal requirement that he do so. Or am I missing something?


    “The other part of the double good is that Dr. Stoller’s case continues against the Medical Board. The case continues to press for the recognition of an alternative standard of care for medical exemptions beyond CDC contraindications, based on Bus. And Prof. Code Section 2234.1, SB 277 (Now Health and Safety Code, Section 120370) and/or patients’ constitutional privacy rights.”

    This, and the dismissal, are fantastic news. Thank you for all you do!

  3. So the Medical Board has filed an accusation against Dr. Stoller because he wrote medical exemptions that were not within the CDC guidelines/standard of care? There are so many things wrong with this…

    1. SB 277 doesn’t reference the CDC-ACIP “General Best Practice Guidelines for Immunization”, or the fourth section of this document, which deals with contraindications and precautions. The legislative intent was clearly to leave physicians free to act on their own judgment about medical exemptions.

    2. The CDC-ACIP guidelines don’t deal with mandatory vaccination at all, and don’t provide criteria for medical exemptions from mandatory vaccines.

    3. The CDC-ACIP guidelines section on contraindications and precautions, Table 4-2 conflicts with precautions required by the FDA on the package inserts for DTaP vaccines. AAP endorses the NVAC standards for child and adolescent vaccination practices, and the NVAC standards say that physicians should support their decisions re: vaccination by consulting various sources including vaccine package inserts. So a physician who complies with the CDC re: DTaP vaccines is in conflict with AAP and NVAC.

    4. A physician following the guidance of CDC-ACIP Table 4-1 and Table 4-2 will ignore symptoms of encephalitis due to pertussis vaccines and continue giving the patient pertussis vaccines until the patient (within 7 days of previous pertussis vaccination) is diagnose-able with encephalopathy.

    5. A CDC official recently stated that the CDC’s contraindication and precautions were not meant to restrict a physician from exempting patients from vaccination whenever exemption was appropriate in the physician’s professional judgment.

Leave a Reply