Browsed by
Category: Uncategorized

Dr. Ken Stoller’s Medical Board hearing is over (almost), so what’s next?

Dr. Ken Stoller’s Medical Board hearing is over (almost), so what’s next?

Ken Stoller’s hearing took place Monday, September 21st until midday Thursday, September 24th. I made an opening on the first day. The Board’s attorney elected not to. The record in the case is still open because, as is not uncommon in these cases, there will be written closing arguments. The board has the burden of proof, so it will file an initial closing statement. I will then do our closing statement in response to the Board’s. The Board gets to reply to my closing, again because the Board has the burden of proof.

Timing-wise, the judge will receive the Board’s reply on November 9th and on that date, the record in the case will be officially closed, the case is deemed submitted to the judge for her to write a proposal for decision (“PFD”).

Under the applicable rules, the judge has 30 days to issue her PFD, which will include findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a recommended sanction, if a violation of the standard of care is found.

The Board has adopted and published disciplinary guidelines which it expects the ALJ’s to follow unless there are stated reasons for departing from them.  Based on the charges in the Accusation (the complaint initiating the Board’s case), the minimum sanction is stayed license revocation with probation for 5 years. The maximum penalty is license revocation. There are other terms which are usually imposed on physicians who have engaged in “extreme” departures from the standard of care, including practice monitoring, additional CME (standard) and even a requirement that the physician’s knowledge and skills be evaluated by the UC San Diego physician evaluation program which is used by medical boards to evaluate the skills of physicians whose conduct has been found to be sufficiently negligent to warrant such.

So what can the Board do with the ALJ’s PFD?

Under the law there Board has five options:

It’s best to state the options as set forth in the statute:

CA Govt Code § 11517 (2017)


“(c) (1) If a contested case is originally heard by an administrative law judge alone, he or she shall prepare within 30 days after the case is submitted to him or her a proposed decision in a form that may be adopted by the agency as the final decision in the case. Failure of the administrative law judge to deliver a proposed decision within the time required does not prejudice the rights of the agency in the case. Thirty days after the receipt by the agency of the proposed decision, a copy of the proposed decision shall be filed by the agency as a public record and a copy shall be served by the agency on each party and his or her attorney. The filing and service is not an adoption of a proposed decision by the agency.

(2) Within 100 days of receipt by the agency of the administrative law judge’s proposed decision, the agency may act as prescribed in subparagraphs (A) to (E), inclusive. If the agency fails to act as prescribed in subparagraphs (A) to (E), inclusive, within 100 days of receipt of the proposed decision, the proposed decision shall be deemed adopted by the agency. The agency may do any of the following:

(A) Adopt the proposed decision in its entirety.

(B) Reduce or otherwise mitigate the proposed penalty and adopt the balance of the proposed decision.

(C) Make technical or other minor changes in the proposed decision and adopt it as the decision. Action by the agency under this paragraph is limited to a clarifying change or a change of a similar nature that does not affect the factual or legal basis of the proposed decision.

(D) Reject the proposed decision and refer the case to the same administrative law judge if reasonably available, otherwise to another administrative law judge, to take additional evidence. If the case is referred to an administrative law judge pursuant to this subparagraph, he or she shall prepare a revised proposed decision, as provided in paragraph (1), based upon the additional evidence and the transcript and other papers that are part of the record of the prior hearing. A copy of the revised proposed decision shall be furnished to each party and his or her attorney as prescribed in this subdivision.

(E) Reject the proposed decision, and decide the case upon the record, including the transcript, or upon an agreed statement of the parties, with or without taking additional evidence. By stipulation of the parties, the agency may decide the case upon the record without including the transcript. If the agency acts pursuant to this subparagraph, all of the following provisions apply:

(i) A copy of the record shall be made available to the parties. The agency may require payment of fees covering direct costs of making the copy.

(ii) The agency itself shall not decide any case provided for in this subdivision without affording the parties the opportunity to present either oral or written argument before the agency itself. If additional oral evidence is introduced before the agency itself, no agency member may vote unless the member heard the additional oral evidence.

(iii) The authority of the agency itself to decide the case under this subdivision includes authority to decide some but not all issues in the case.

(iv) If the agency elects to proceed under this subparagraph, the agency shall issue its final decision not later than 100 days after rejection of the proposed decision. If the agency elects to proceed under this subparagraph and has ordered a transcript of the proceedings before the administrative law judge, the agency shall issue its final decision not later than 100 days after receipt of the transcript. If the agency finds that a further delay is required by special circumstance, it shall issue an order delaying the decision for no more than 30 days and specifying the reasons therefor. The order shall be subject to judicial review pursuant to Section 11523.

(d) The decision of the agency shall be filed immediately by the agency as a public record and a copy shall be served by the agency on each party and his or her attorney.” (emphasis added)

(Repealed and added by Stats. 1999, Ch. 339, Sec. 2. Effective January 1, 2000.)

What does the Board want to do in this case?

For many reasons, including pressure from the CDPH, I believe that the Board wants to issue some sanction against Dr. Stoller and the other doctors who wrote these broad SB 277 exemptions. That means if the ALJ’s proposed decision exonerates Dr. Stoller, the Board can just reject the PFD and make its own decision, but it will have to comply with the process set forth in E (i) through (iv).  That will take some time, and I would not think that process could not be completed until early next year.

How does this all affect the ME’s that Dr. Stoller has written?

That depends on what the ALJ does. If she finds a violation of the standard of care and issues a sanction within the guideline range, you can expect the Board to quickly adopt the ALJ’s PFD in its entirely. I suspect that will be the case even if the PFD suggests a more lenient sanction than the guideline range, like a public reprimand.

If the Board adopts any PDF mandated sanction, (even a public reprimand which is a disciplinary order), under SB 276/714, Dr. Stoller’s ME’s are voided or voidable once the school districts find out about the order. That could happen as early as mid-December, but will most certainly happen by sometime in January 2021, because of the intense pressure to get rid of all these ME’s. I am guessing it will happen in December.

If the ALJ completely exonerates Dr. Stoller, look for the Board to chose door number (E), non-adopt the ALJ’s PFD, and issue its own decision in the case, presumably following the (E) 1-4 procedure.

Regardless of what the ALJ does, if the Board sanctions Dr. Stoller (or any physician) the physician has the right to appeal to court, (via writ of administrative mandate under the arcane California writ practices) first to a superior court judge then to the Court of Appeals. There is no automatic review by the California Supreme Court for these kinds of cases.

If the ALJ exonerates Dr. Stoller and the Board non adopts, given how strong the record is in the case (we won big time on points, and we actually do have the law on our side), I think there is an excellent chance that the court of appeals would reverse the Board, and perhaps even the superior court. I would even give odds on that happening if the ALJ exonerates. This ALJ is smart and precise (and she has a masters in Genetics). That means the Board is going to have to do some very fancy footwork (including adopting the highly dubious Blumberg interpretation of Senator’s Pan’s infamous remarks to the Assembly in June 2015, which I will explain in another post) to non-adopt the ALJ’s exonerating PFD.

On the other hand, it is very, very hard to reverse the Board’s adoption of am ALJ’s sanction based on a finding of an extreme violation of the standard of care. Not impossible, but you wouldn’t want to bet the farm (or house) on it. And for the reasons stated above, even harder with this ALJ because of her acumen and background. (Caveat, since the fulcrum issue in this case is the interpretation of SB 277 and the application of Bus. and Prof. Code Section 2234.1, and these are legal matters, even if the ALJ rules against us, these matters of law could receive more and more independent judicial attention that weighing the details of a standard of care violation).

So that’s what’s next in the case.

Next for me is 1. to give you my thoughts on the evidence that was adduced in the case, so stay tuned for that, and 2. ROUND TWO. About a week ago, the Board filed an Accusation against Sacramento physician (and our expert at this hearing) Kelly Sutton, MD for …. you guessed it, writing broader than ACIP ME’s for students.

Here we go again.

Rick Jaffe, Esq.



Public Hearing Information of Ken Stoller’s Medical Board Hearing Starting Monday September 21st

Public Hearing Information of Ken Stoller’s Medical Board Hearing Starting Monday September 21st


The hearing in the matter of the accusation against Kenneth Paul Stoller, M.D. (MBOC No. 800-2017-034218, OAH No. 2019110039), will begin on September 21, 2020, before Administrative Law Judge Juliet E. Cox. The hearing will occur remotely. Each hearing day will begin at approximately 9:00 a.m. and will end at or before 5:00 p.m.

Members of the public who wish to listen to the hearing may do so over the Internet, by following the links below. By order of the Administrative Law Judge, no person may record any portion of this hearing.


Monday, September 21, 2020

Tuesday, September 22, 2020

Wednesday, September 23, 2020

Thursday, September 24, 2020

Friday, September 25, 2020 ”

The day’s links should take you directly to the Microsoft teams software.

You can still donate to the cause if you haven’t already.

Be talking to you all on Monday!

Rick Jaffe, Esq.






Today, September 17th, we filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to stop the enforcement of the UC mandatory flu vaccine executive order which requires all students, faculty, and staff to get the flu shot (with certain accommodations to faculty and staff, but not students).

The “hearing” will be held at 1:30 PM on October 14th at the Hayward branch of the Alameda Superior Court. However, hearings in these kinds of motions are usually not evidentiary, meaning we are not expecting that there will be live witness testimony. Usually, these things are decided on the papers. And so far, it looks like the hearing will be virtual, but people can watch via the court’s videoconferencing software called “blue jeans.”

We have submitted declarations from all five plaintiffs. In the newly filed First Amended Complaint we are adding highly regarded UCLA law Professor, Frances Olsen as a Plaintiff. Those of you of more advanced years might recall her name as she was the attorney in the Wounded Knee case. She has been a law professor at UCLA for 36 years and does not want to be forced to take the flu shot.

We have also submitted declarations from five experts, including a professor of medicine at UCLA, and a UCI epidemiology professor.

It turns out that, contrary to the claim in the executive order that the flu shot can reduce flu hospitalizations, the best available evidence from 52 randomized controlled clinical trials shows that the claim is false and that the flu shot doesn’t reduce flu hospitalizations at all.  One of the experts, Peter Gotzsche, who co-founded the Cochrane Collaboration, called the use of the case-controlled studies used to justify the mandatory shot are “notoriously unreliable” and their use as a justification is “scientific misconduct.” His declaration makes powerful reading, as does his CV. In all my years doing this, I’ve never before submitted a CV with its own table of contents, which I did with his, and it’s needed. My first thought was that there must be three guys with the same name, and he’s taking credit for all of them.

We also have a statement from the lead author of the 2018 report which analyzed all these studies,(Tom Jefferson MD (from a little English community colllege in a place called Oxford a/k/a University of Oxford), as well as one from from Peter Doshi who is at the University of Maryland Pharmacy School and an associate editor of the BMJ. Among the other points he makes is that the CDC is overselling the flu vaccine and it isn’t nearly as effective or safe as the CDC and other government agencies proclaim. But I’m guessing that’s not big news to most reading this post.

We have a UCI professor, Andrew Noymer who questions the flu vaccine’s efficacy and why it is likely to be less efficacious than usual because of the pandemic, and he not coincidently, he is an expert on pandemics.

And finally, we have UCLA medical school professor Laszlo Boros who looks at some of the big picture clinical trials issues but digs deep into the cellular level and show the biology of why there is likely to be positive viral interference, meaning that the flu shot will actually cause more novel coronavirus cases.

One thing all of our experts agree is that madating the flu vaccine is a poor public health policy might cause much more harm than good,  and most importantly, it is not justified by the best and overwhelming scientific evidence.

Each plaintiff explained in their declaration why they do not want to be forced to take the flu shot. It turns out that Lead Plaintiff Cindy Kiel’s job overseeing research at UC Davis involves ethical issues in research projects. Since we claim that the flu mandate turns all 510,000 UC community members into human guinea pigs, you shouldn’t be surprised to learn that she has quite a lot to get off her chest about the ethics (or lack thereof) of the flu mandate, and she presents a powerful case about how wrong it is.

The UC has until the end of the month to file its answer, and we can submit a reply. In smaller motions, the judges routinely issue a written “tentative decision”
a day or two before the “hearing.” Usually, it’s somewhere between difficult and impossible to have a judge change her mind after issuing a tentative decision. Sometimes in big and important cases like this, the judge will want to hear in effect oral argument before issuing a decision. The defendants may try to delay the case, but we expect that the case will be heard long enough before the November 1st deadline for planning purposes.

So if you are part of the UC community and are supposed to take the flu shot by November 1st, what should you do?

If you don’t want to take it, then for sure, wait until the judge decides this motion. If the gods are smiling on all of us and the judge grants the preliminary injunction, then you won’t have to get it (unless an appellate court quickly stays the superior court’s ruling). If we get it, the case is over in effect because the trial won’t be until next year and who knows what the future will bring. Similarly, if we don’t get the injunction the case is basically over too.  I can’t predict what the judge will do, but what I can tell you (and I think you will agree after you read the papers) is that we are right and that the mandate is a very bad idea during a pandemic and people are going to get hurt if it goes into effect. Times may be changing, courts are starting to push back against the government for some of its actions. We have the law on our side and the facts. They have mass hysteria and ill-thought-out by government-inspired false hope based on bad science.

This was a very very big job as anyone who reads all the papers will see, and far beyond the capabilities of even a pretty fair lawyer like myself. As before, thx to the team, Greg Glaser, Ray Flores, Jr. Mary Holland of the Children’s Health Defense, and of course, Bobby Kennedy who spread his pixie dust which magically opened doors to experts who a guerrilla warrior like me never usually never gets to.  I think you will agree that the team produced an impressive, cogent, scientifically compelling argument why this flu mandate thing is a really bad idea, and I have every reason to hope and expect that the judge will agree.

If you have a few hours to kill, look over the papers. You’ll be cheering by the end, I promise.

Rick Jaffe, Esq.

PS Today is Constitution Day. Maybe that’s a good omen.

papers filed below:

NOMandMEMO  Gøtzsche Cindy Doshi Jefferson Noymer Boros Olsen deGracia Mckenna Vanderpoel

UC Flu Vaccine Lawsuit Update

UC Flu Vaccine Lawsuit Update

For UC students faculty and staff, and others following this case, here is what’s going on. Yesterday we got the paperwork back from the court. Because of the pandemic, the clerk’s offices of the courts are backed up. The lawsuit should be served on the UC defendants by Monday.

I will have another announcement by the end of the next week. Suffice it to say, I am hoping to have a thumbs up (or thumbs down) from the judge around the week of Columbus Day.

In the meantime, my advice to any and all in the UC community who do not want to take the flu shot, but will or might if the mandate stays in place, is to wait until we hear from the judge. I suspect things are going on in the administration. I am hoping that between this lawsuit and the fact that 57% of Californians do not agree to take the flu shot, sooner, rather than later, the administration is going to realize its mistake and rescind the executive order and replace it with a strong recommendation, which I think would be fine and constitutional.

More by late next week.

Rick Jaffe, Esq.




Stoller Medical Board Hearing Update: It’s a go!

Stoller Medical Board Hearing Update: It’s a go!

Here is the latest update on the Stoller Medical Board hearing which is going forward on September 21st. 


here is the specific link to donate.

Rick Jaffe, Esq.



Today, a lawsuit was filed by four staff and students of the University of California challenging the recent executive order mandating the flu vaccine for the entire 510,000 members of the UC community.

Rather than describe it, you can read it for yourselves. I think many of you will like it. Thanks to the brave plaintiffs who agreed to stand up for the rights of the entire UC community and all Californians, because if they can get away with this, you just know there is more coming. (and the more is already coming as described below).

Here it is:


The complaint will be going out to the media as well, but anything on this side of the vaccine issue is usually a tough sell.

Many of you probably know that the Legislature is being asked to come back and deal with the flu and COVID-19 vaccine mandates. This complaint makes the case against the flu mandate, so if you have any contacts with legislators, maybe email them a copy and have them start talking about your rights!

I think the more people talk about this and the more the media covers it, the dumber it’s going to look.

One more thing. As you’ll see in the complaint, being against the flu shot is a majority view in California and other places in the US.

Shout out to Bobby K, Mary Holland, Greg Glaser, and ace SOCAL litigator Ray Flores II. This was a group effort, and I think you’ll all agree, a very, very good one.

This may end up being a moment in history as other states are starting to do the same thing. It’s time to try to stop this right here and right now.

Rick Jaffe, Esq.

Breaking News: Bobby Kennedy Sues Facebook and its “Independent” “Fact Checkers”

Breaking News: Bobby Kennedy Sues Facebook and its “Independent” “Fact Checkers”

This morning, August 18, 2020, Bobby Kennedy/CHD filed a federal lawsuit against Facebook and its outside fact-checkers on a variety of grounds, including First and Fifth Amendment violations, RICO and a claim under the Lanham Act. The heart of the case seems to be that Facebook is restricting his organization’s right and ability to present published scientific studies which show that picture of vaccine safety put out by the CDC and the WHO is false and that Facebook has deep and basically undisclosed ties to Pharma and is acting as Pharma’s shill to sell known unsafe and dangerous products. The main financial conduit is through advertising revenues which Pharma pays to Facebook. Of course, the same could be said about most TV media, and it not widely appreciated that the US is only one of two developed nations that permit direct-to-consumer advertising.

Here is a link to the CHD website page about the lawsuit.
There is a link to a downloadable pdf of the complaint.

My one-word description of it I guess would be “WOW.” It is 95 pages and has a table of contents (well deserved) and a table of authorities, which is something you don’t see every day, and says to me that they are going straight at these guys, hard and are not hiding the ball and that they are letting world know that they think they have legal authority on their side.

The core issue in the case is complicated, nuanced, multidimensional, and involves important issues involving the balancing of differing and sometimes opposing constitutional rights, as well as some novel issues involving statutes and in particular the federal communication act’s protection of internet service providers. Basically, republishers are immune from lawsuits, but entities that post content are not. The main fact/legal issue will be whether by posting advisories and referring readers of CHD content to the CDC for accurate information about vaccines, does Facebook transform itself into a content provider which is not immune from suit under the communications act?

This may sound familiar to some because the argument has one big proponent: President Donald Trump. That is the argument he was making against Twitter when it put an advisory about a few of his tweets or even removed one (or a few, I don’t recall which). But since he runs the government, he can do other things than sue, like trying to remove federal immunity from providers who think they can censor him and get away with it.But if you’re anyone other than the President, you have to do things the old fashion way and sue, and that is what RFK, Jr. has done.

The countervailing point is that many feel that social media has been derelict in its duty to stem the flow of misinformation, hate speech, false information, and crazy conspiracy theories. It is the reaction to that knock on social media that has ensnared Bobby’s group (and many other groups who are against vaccine mandates) in this boondoggle.

It is also known that foreign powers, notably Russia, China, and Iran are using social media as “useful idiots” to spread false facts and conspiracy theories to sow dissension and weaken the country. And regrettably, it is working all too well.

Congress held hearings about this warned Facebook and the other big social media players that if they didn’t get this false information under control, including what was claimed to be the false information spread by the “anti-vaxxers,” Congress would do it by regulation. The lawsuit ties those Congressional threats into the story the Complaint tells.

On a technical level, the complaint is a very impressive piece of legal work. And it certainly raises some timely and very important questions. I also think that this suit will be widely applauded by many different communities, mostly good (in my view anyway) but some not so good. The right-wing wingnuts who spew crazy racist hate and conspiracy theories who have been banned from social media will love the complaint, but I guess that’s sometimes the cost of doing business. The ACLU defended the American Nazi’s right to march in Skokie because there were important First Amendment issues. This lawsuit, if successful, might benefit some very unsavory characters and groups, (like the Alex Jones types), but there is no question that the lawsuit raises very important questions which need to be aired publicly and not just in the halls of Congress.

Beyond that, there is one thing I am very certain of.

I don’t want Mark Zuckenberg and a few of his billionaire Silicon Valley confreres deciding what I can see or post on their platforms, mostly because there are so few of them and they are in effect a monopoly. That may mean breaking them up like they did with AT&T, (and I am in favor of that big-time), or it may mean something else.

But to the extent that this lawsuit furthers the conversation about taking away the power of a very, very few rich white guys to decide what Americans see on social media, I’m for it, and it is happening none too soon.

Rick Jaffe, Esq.

To Clarify: there are no religious exemptions to vaccines in California

To Clarify: there are no religious exemptions to vaccines in California

There is some confusion spreading around FB, and I might be partially responsible for it, so let me try to clean it up.

First, there are no religious exemptions to the mandatory vaccination schedule for public k-12 students, and there are no religious exemptions for any vaccine for UC university students. As you all know, until SB 277, there had been a personal belief exemption for k-12. In all grade levels, including UC students, there is a very restrictive medical exemption to specific vaccines.

Janet Napolitano’s recent Executive Order mandating the flu vaccine (effective November 1, 2020) applies to all students, faculty, staff and all other UC employees.

All of these categories EXCEPT STUDENTS are accorded a “disability and religious accommodation.” This is not an exemption but maybe a work-around perhaps a mask, But again it does not apply to UC students.

I think I know why they gave this accommodation to everyone except students, and I expect to try to do something about it. I am reasonably hopeful that this executive order will not go into effect on its stated date, but that’s about all I can say for now. Stay tuned.

Rick Jaffe, Esq.

The University of California Flu Mandate: What ‘s Coming and a Call To Action

The University of California Flu Mandate: What ‘s Coming and a Call To Action

As you all know, on July 31st the UC Office of the President issued an executive order mandating that all students, faculty and employees get a flu vaccine in order to lessen the chances of being infected with COVID-19 or lessening the symptoms if you get it, or reducing the chance of death, or maybe if you die, increasing your chances you’ll go up and not down.

If you haven’t seen the Executive Order, here it is:

My view is that right now, there is about the same level of evidence for all four possibilities, though admittedly, many public health officials are advocating for the flu vaccine because of a hoped-for but as yet unproven benefit, which no doubt is driving the vaccine concerned and many others crazy.

But you know what? I actually think it’s a good thing. For years I’ve been saying that it is easy for the majority of the adult public to be in favor of mandatory vaccines because they are not the ones being forced to take them. But this is different and I think there is a different public reaction brewing because, for the first time in over a hundred years, there is a statewide mandate for beyond public school (meaning k-12) students, AND TEACHERS AND STAFF.

I think that there are probably hundreds if not thousands of UC staff who don’t like the mandate and will not comply. And FYI: in California, it is very difficult to terminate an employee, and even harder to terminate tenured staff. I suspect there is going to a spate of non-compliance if the mandate is allowed to go into effect on November 1, 2020. There will be chaos and widespread non-complianace, as there should be.

But will it go into effect?

Anyone who follows these posts knows that I am very conservative when it comes to lawsuits in the vaccine area. I generally don’t believe in them, or at least the broad constitutional or religious challenges to vaccine mandates. I was against all the SB 277 lawsuits and predicted they would all fail miserably and they did. I also said SB 276 wouldn’t be challenged because there was nothing to challenge, and so far it hasn’t been challenged (so far as I know). But this is different for many reasons, and I think the reaction from the public will be different too.

Here are my two predictions:

1. There will be lawsuits challenging it, and I will be filing one of them on behalf of students, faculty, and/or staff.

2. The Executive Order in its current form will not go into effect on November 1, 2020. It will be rescinded, modified or rejected by the courts. Why? There are just too many affected university students, professors and staff who will rise up against this order for the UC administration and the courts to ignore their concerns about the danger to them from this order. As suggested, I and other attorneys around the state (and around the country) are gearing up for this fight, but there will also be other non-lawsuit public actions/protests against the order, I predict.

If you are part of the UC community and have a medical reason why you don’t want to take the flu vaccine and want to be involved in the case, shoot me an email.

You can expect me to have more to say about this issue and the lawsuits. Stay Tuned!

Rick Jaffe, Esq.

Another Piece to the Other Side of the Judy Mikovits Story

Another Piece to the Other Side of the Judy Mikovits Story

My recent piece on Judy Mikovits was based on a commentary written by two University-based scientists who presented a detailed history of her rise and fall. here is that post.

The commentary had two big and very specific scientific points, 1. that her result was that ME/CFS patients had an XMRV (mouse retrovirus) was false and that her findings of XMRV in the samples was just lab contamination. 2. she spiked her samples with a material (plasmid) that a researcher had sent her and that the material could not have come from the patients, as she claimed. I made no conclusion about either being true but said if either is true, the vaccine concerned shouldn’t listen to anything she says.

I missed something important in the commentary. It was pointed out that in 2012, she participated in a “replication” study, to see if she could duplicate her prior results. There had been several other prior studies that failed to replicate her results, but she tried to explain away all of them. But this time she participated in the study. And guess what. The replication study failed to replicate her prior findings. Here is the actual study, in which she is listed as a co-author.

It is discussed on page 548 of the Neil and Campbell commentary. (here is the commentary again) aid.2020.0095(1)

Arguably, the new study is a direct admission that she was wrong about her earlier paper and that her earlier results were just lab contamination. If so, then I suppose she gets some credit for agreeing to participate in the new study and allowing her name to be listed as an author in a study that refuted (again) her prior work.

But I still have no conclusion about her alleged spiking the samples which I think would be scientific fraud. It’s going to take someone with some lab/technical and scientific expertise to evaluate that claim. Between trying to listen to her book, reading the commentary, and the replication study, I’ve made up my mind. I have more important and pressing things to think about (hint, the UC flu mandate, and stay tuned for the next post), so I do not plan on addressing this subject in the future, that’s the hope and plan anyway.

Rick Jaffe, Esq.