Browsed by
Category: Vaccination Issues

What Happened in Kelly Sutton’s Medical Board Hearing Last Week

What Happened in Kelly Sutton’s Medical Board Hearing Last Week

My friend, colleague, and vaccine law guru/whisperer (and co-counsel on the case) just published in Bobby Kennedy’s Defender a detailed account of the evidence in Kelly Sutton’s hearing. I think we got in our licks and made the case for caution and medical exemptions in the eight cases before the judge. When you try cases, you can’t always remember what you ask and how the witnesses respond, so thanks for this Greg. Much appreciated.


“California Medical Board Hears Testimony in Trial of Physician Who Risks Losing License for Writing Vaccine Medical Exemptions
Dr. Kelly Sutton risks losing her medical license for not strictly following CDC guidelines for writing vaccine medical exemptions. Attorney Greg Glaser, who represents Sutton, provided this eyewitness account.

Greg Glaser, Esq.

Link copied

Dr. Kelly Sutton argued that her clinical observations confirm her unvaccinated patients are healthier than those who are vaccinated.
The Defender is experiencing censorship on many social channels. Be sure to stay in touch with the news that matters by subscribing to our top news of the day. It’s free.

A California physician could lose her medical license for not strictly following the guidelines for writing vaccine medical exemptions as outlined by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP).

Earlier this month, the Medical Board of California conducted a trial during which they heard testimony from witnesses in support of and those opposed to Dr. Kelly Sutton’s approach to writing vaccine medical exemptions for her patients.

The three-day trial, which ended June 16, took place in an administrative court with a single judge and no right to a jury. The judge is expected to issue a decision sometime in the fall of 2021 on whether or not to rescind Sutton’s medical license.

Sutton, an integrative physician, argued that her clinical observations confirm her unvaccinated patients are healthier than those who are vaccinated.

CHD Calls on FDA to Take COVID Vaccines Off the Market – Submit a Comment
During her trial, Sutton was represented by health freedom attorney Rick Jaffe, who marshaled evidence from three top experts in defense of Sutton’s methods to protect patients from vaccine injury.

The state produced one expert, who lacked basic knowledge of vaccine risk, and who stated that all doctors should follow whatever the CDC’s one-size-fits-all vaccine schedule recommends at any given time.

Below are highlights from testimony provided during Sutton’s trial.

Sutton’s testimony on her behalf:

Sutton provided thoughtful discussion of how she helps and heals patients. She is a doctor member of Physicians for Informed Consent (PIC), which puts patients first. She was humble throughout the trial, going out of her way to be kind to everyone involved in the proceeding — including the state expert testifying against her. Her kindness and credibility were so strong that even the prosecuting attorney was forced to change his tone of voice to lessen the blameful nature of his scripted words.
Sutton did not need a script. She showcased her detailed scientific knowledge by explaining the biological mechanisms of disease and vaccine risk. At times the court reporter could not keep up with Sutton’s fluent use of scientific terminology.
Sutton described how California’s Senate Bill 277 removed parental rights to medical decision-making and made the doctor’s discretion the standard for medical exemptions.
Sutton discussed the process of meeting with integrative colleagues at PIC to arrive at best practices for medical exemptions.
Sutton discussed the benefit of a physical exam for patient intake, and when it is needed (i.e., diagnosing an ear infection) versus when it is not needed (i.e., taking a family history). She also discussed the reality that certain patients cannot afford the time and/or money to conduct unnecessary physical exams.

Sutton reviewed each of the relevant patient records cited by the medical board as evidence of Sutton’s non-compliance with CDC recommendations, focusing on vaccine risk based on the individual patients’ complex medical histories.
Sutton emphasized her proactive approach to protect patient privacy when writing medical exemptions.
Sutton discussed the extensive scientific citations she provided to the medical board to support her medical decisions, including Dr. Chris Exley’s findings on aluminum. The board tried to use a technical objection to prevent Sutton from introducing the science behind her decisions. However, during Jaffe’s questioning of Sutton, she was able to explain the science of vaccine risk.
Sutton testified that doctors make a lot of money by giving vaccinations, but not a lot from writing medical exemptions. Indeed, there is no profit in writing medical exemptions, only prosecution — so the doctors who write them truly care for the patient’s best interest rather than pharma’s.

Sutton testified that it is neither intelligent nor humane to force a family to continue to vaccinate after one of their children has already died or been injured by a vaccine.
Sutton said the government’s failure to compare vaccinated persons to fully unvaccinated persons is a systematic and intentional blind spot in science designed to wrongfully promote vaccines.

State’s expert witness, Dr. Deborah Lehman, infectious disease physician at the University of California, Los Angeles:

Lehman repeatedly claimed that, as a physician, her one-size-fits-all vaccine opinion was medical fact and should not be challenged.
During cross examination, Lehman was asked to quantify the risk of all vaccine injuries. Lehman responded, “I don’t think I need a number … I can’t give you a number.” She stated, “I don’t need to cite articles in my report, because the science has been decided … If you want answers to these questions, I would refer you to the CDC.” Lehman ignored that the only way to obtain the vaccine injury rate is to compare vaccinated people to fully unvaccinated people. She did not appear to know that the government refuses to study the fully unvaccinated, but instead only compares vaccinated patients to other vaccinated patients.
Lehman testified she had never heard of Dr. Peter Aaby, one of the world’s foremost vaccine experts who has published more than 400 articles on PubMed. Lehman, who has published about 15 articles on PubMed, tried to dismiss Aaby’s publications on vaccine danger by falsely claiming Aaby published in a low-impact journal. Lehman stated she would never read this type of research by Aaby, and that it is the same kind of “anti-vax” information found through a Google search.
Lehman testified she is not aware of any pertussis vaccine deaths. She claimed if there were any deaths caused by the pertussis vaccine she would have heard about them. Her callous admission proves her ignorance of even basic information from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System or any other source.
Lehman admitted she has never personally written a medical exemption. At most she communicated with other doctors that all medical exemptions should adhere to the one-size-fits-all per the ACIP’s contraindications.
Lehman testified she didn’t know about the mandatory vaccine law at issue in the case, namely the California Health and Safety Code section 120370, authorizing medical exemptions.
Lehman at one point angrily blurted out, “We’re being saved by COVID vaccines.”
Lehman repeatedly used nebulous phrases such “greater risk” and “lower risk,” yet never cited any risk value numbers with the exception of a handful of false numbers. For example, in one instance she falsely cited a 1/1,000 death rate for measles cases. This is a false number because it is based only on reported cases and ignores the fact that only about 1/10 cases are reported.
Lehman criticized Sutton’s already vaccinated patients for having some infections. Lehman did not see the self-contradicting nature of her own testimony. In other words, Lehman overlooked that vaccines are causing increased risk of infection in already vaccinated patients. She ignored published studies and Sutton’s observation that patients experience less infection over time as they stop vaccinating, and fully unvaccinated patients are the healthiest of all.
Lehman testified the standard of care is whether another physician would treat the medical issue the same or similarly. But she intentionally omitted the phrase “in the same community,” meaning that the standard of care is not simply “another physician” but “another physician in the same community.” Sutton is in the integrative medicine community, of which Lehman is not a member. It is common for conventional physicians to use one-size-fits-all thinking.
Lehman testified that before the meningococcal vaccine, she performed several lumbar punctures to treat meningitis. However, Lehman never stated how many of the meningitis patients were already vaccinated with meningococcal and other vaccines (i.e., polio vaccine).
Lehman testified that children with asthma have a higher rate of morbidity and mortality. But Lehman failed to provide any numerical risk value for her testimony. For example, she cited no studies showing health outcomes of children with asthma when vaccines are stopped versus when vaccines are continued. In fact, no such studies exist to support Lehman’s position. Moreover, Lehman didn’t cite any of the studies linking asthma to increased risk from vaccination. It is common for conventional doctors to lack knowledge that common chronic illnesses are proven to be immune-mediated and caused by vaccination.
Lehman testified “febrile seizures have no long-lasting effect.” Her testimony directly contradicts even government-accepted scientific evidence that approximately 5% of febrile seizures develop into full-blown epilepsy.

Defense expert Dr. Andrew Zimmerman, pediatric neurologist:

Zimmerman is a highly published pediatric neurology expert, with expertise in diagnosing and treating autism, mitochondrial dysfunction and many other conditions.
Zimmerman testified that Sutton followed the community standard of care to protect her patients outside the narrow CDC/ACIP guidelines. With expert attention to detail about neurodevelopmental disorders, Zimmerman agreed with Sutton’s risk assessments to protect her patients. He discussed the interaction between the immune system and the brain.

Defense expert Dr. James Neuenschwander, family physician with vaccine expertise:

Neuenschwander treats chronic illness, including autism. He attends ACIP meetings and has offered public comment. He does not administer vaccines.
Neuenschwander cited a bell curve phenomenon, which represents an inverse relationship: 10% of people who fail to respond to a vaccine compared to 10% of people who overreact to a vaccine. His example illustrates a point often overlooked by mainstream scientists.
Neuenschwander explained that vaccines cause the immune system to remain in hyperactivation, creating vaccine injuries like brain inflammation.
Neuenschwander said autoimmune conditions result when the vaccine creates antibodies against the human body itself through the mechanism of chronic immune activation. Neuenschwander cited scientific evidence to support the fact that it is logical for Sutton to ask patients about their personal and family history risk factors, such as recurring infections, asthma and autism.
Neuenschwander discussed vaccines one by one to show how conventional physicians exaggerate infection risk. Neuenschwander confirmed conventional physicians are vaccinating for rare diseases on the CDC schedule while failing to ask about vaccine injury. Neuenschwander emphasized that even common diseases have questionably effective vaccines, such as flu which has a high vaccine failure rate.
Neuenschwander said the CDC/ACIP system categorically fails to properly study vaccine injury, by comparing vaccinated individuals to unvaccinated individuals, despite the CDC’s admission in a 2016 white paper showing such a study could be done.
Neuenschwander cited numbers throughout his testimony. For example, he exposed Lehman’s above-referenced lie about 1/1000 measles deaths (where Lehman falsely only included reported measles cases rather than all measles cases). Neuenschwander cited the correct numbers.
Neuenschwander highlighted the three recent published peer-reviewed studies, Mawson 2017, Hooker 2020 and Thomas 2020, showing the unvaccinated are exponentially healthier than the vaccinated. He also explained Aaby’s findings showing a five-fold increased death rate from diphtheria vaccines in Africa.
Neuenschwander cited government admissions, for example Institute of Medicine (IOM) publications, revealing a lack of data on vaccine safety and absence of government studies on vaccinated v. fully unvaccinated patients.

Defense expert Dr. LeTrinh Hoang, pediatrician:

Hoang is an experienced integrative pediatrician in California with a busy and successful clinic.
Hoang emphasized integrative medicine’s role to protect patients in ways conventional medicine systemically fails. Hoang criticized one-size-fits-all vaccination, and the specific ways ACIP/CDC creates a ridiculously limited vaccine contraindication list that ignores entire areas of independent research and clinical findings.
Hoang criticized Lehman’s casual approach to vaccine injury.
Hoang emphasized her clinical experience that unvaccinated patients are exceptionally healthy, by contrast to vaccine-injured patients whom she must heal regularly and on an ongoing basis because of their chronic illnesses.
Society is learning valuable lessons from this trial about vaccine injury, including about the consequences of allowing biotechnology to disrupt natural human immune systems.

To help support Sutton’s defense fund, visit this website.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Children’s Health Defense.”

Thanks again Greg, and thx to you Bobby for posting it.

Rick Jaffe, Esq.

Update on Kelly Sutton’s Hearing Next week

Update on Kelly Sutton’s Hearing Next week

See my update about the case at

Here is Jack Weiler’s expert report which now unfortunately the judge won’t hear formally.


Here is the expert report from Mahin Khatami.


Both are teriffic.

Here is the judge’s order which very tersely explains why she won’t let them testify.


Welcome to my world.

Rick Jaffe, Esq.

Supplemental Memo filed in Ken Stoller’s Appeal (Writ of Adminitrative Mandate)

Supplemental Memo filed in Ken Stoller’s Appeal (Writ of Adminitrative Mandate)

here is the link to the update.

Here is the Supplemental Memo.


Rick Jaffe, Esq.

Kelly Sutton in her own words where we are and why she is doing this

Kelly Sutton in her own words where we are and why she is doing this

Here she is:

here is the link to her gogetfunding campaign

Rick Jaffe, Esq.

Memorial Day Update in Kelly Sutton’s Medical Board case which Starts June 14th; Vaccine Safety is Irrelevant According to the Medical Board of California!

Memorial Day Update in Kelly Sutton’s Medical Board case which Starts June 14th; Vaccine Safety is Irrelevant According to the Medical Board of California!

Here is the link to the funding page update.

Here is the board’s motion in limine explaining why vaccine safety is irrelevant to her case, as is the current health and well being of the 8 kids whose medical exemptions are the basis of the board’s case.

Complaints Motions in Limine

Here is our response:


Our papers were filed on Friday. I would expect to here from the judge’s office setting up a hearing on the motion for later in the week.

The judge’s decision will give us an indication of how rough the ride is going to be.
Stay tuned.

Rick Jaffe, Esq.

What Employers Can and Cannot Force Their Employees to Do In COVID Pandemic World

What Employers Can and Cannot Force Their Employees to Do In COVID Pandemic World

I am getting many emails, VM’s comments from employees telling me they are being forced to get the Covid shot or tell their bosses things which the employee thinks violates their privacy rights, they feel they are being discriminated against for not having received the shot. That is a lot of ground, some of it is still unsettled because the shots are still not full FDA Licensed, and as you all know, the feds take the position that federal law can’t mandate taking a EUA product. I know some of you think, believe, or hope that those federal pronouncements bind state and local governments, but I am not so sure, and operatively, from what I am seeing, I don’t think some state and local governments agree with the federal position, probably resulting from a pesky thing called states rights (but those in the know would come back with filed preemption, but that’s more technical than I want to get into here).

Another point I make often but is worth repeating because it is relevant to understanding your rights as an employee is that your constitutional personal freedom rights, whatever they may be (and I do have a more narrow view of those rights under current law than many of you), apply to limit the federal government’s actions against you, and the state and local governments’ action (since the civil war era when the 14th amendment was passed which applied the first 10 amendments to the state and local government). Employees who work for government agencies have those constitutional protects, however they may apply in the employment context. However, your constitutional rights protecting you against your private (i.e. non-governmental) employer are basically zero. Whatever protection employers have, originates from federal or state statutes, most notably employment laws, but also include OSHA and maybe some other agencies.

The Feds have the EEOC which enforces federal employment law, and it publishes an explanation of your rights against employers on all issues dealing with COVID. Most of your questions can be found at its URL dealing with these issues. Here it is.

If you have a question about whether your private employer can and cannot do, chances are it and the answer is here.

As to the big issue, can your employer force you to take the shot under federal employment law, if you read my posts, you all know about the reasonable accommodation requirement. As a reminder here is what the EEOC says about it.

“K.7. What happens if an employer cannot exempt or provide a reasonable accommodation to an employee who cannot comply with a mandatory vaccine policy because of a disability or sincerely held religious practice or belief? (12/16/20)

If an employee cannot get vaccinated for COVID-19 because of a disability or sincerely held religious belief, practice, or observance, and there is no reasonable accommodation possible, then it would be lawful for the employer to exclude the employee from the workplace. This does not mean the employer may automatically terminate the worker. Employers will need to determine if any other rights apply under the EEO laws or other federal, state, and local authorities.”

Implicit in this is that a private employer’s mandatory COVID vaccine policy is legal under the laws which the EEOC enforces which are federal employment and employment disability laws. As indicated theoretically at least, other state or local laws or authorities might have something else to say. So this is the state of the law unless and until it is successfully challenged. (and I think such challenges will continue to be filed, but it is an uphill battle).

Everyone vaccine and privacy concerned person should read this information very carefully. There has only been one lawsuit result that I am aware of which challenged a governmental mandate for a EUA product on government employees (teachers in New York City public schools) and that case did not result in a finding that the mandate was illegal, but that was largely for technical, nonsubstantive reasons. In terms of a lawsuit against a private employer for mandating a EUA vaccine, whatever basis there might be to such a suit, for reasons stated in this post, it is not going to be a federal constitutional basis.

That’s what I have for you. Sorry, I can’t take calls and don’t expect email responses from me due to the press of business, but I do try to answer comments to posts.

Rick Jaffe, Esq.

Kelly Sutton’s Medical Board Case Goes to Hearing On June 14th

Kelly Sutton’s Medical Board Case Goes to Hearing On June 14th

We are getting close to the hearing date of Kelly Sutton’s hearing on her writing 8 medical exemptions which were not in compliance with the ACIP guidelines. Given all my recent posts about the revocation of ME’s written by disciplined doctors, I don’t have to remind any of you what is at stake for the families who are holding and counting on ME’s written by Dr. Sutton.

I started a GoGetFunding campaign a short time ago and I just posted an update. It discusses the case and the basic issues. Here is the link to that update.

It also discusses an expert report we got from Dr. Jack Weiler which is terrific and no doubt the board will try to suppress (i.e. move in limine to prevent the judge from hearing or considering his testimony). It is such a good report on the state of vaccine science and the problems therein, it was just too good not to share. So here it is.


You’re my hero, Dr. Jack, as are the other experts who bravely decided to come forward and speak their truth to power.

In another post, I will give you all a deep dive into some of the immunological problems which can occur in these kids via another excellent expert report we received from a world class former government immunologist. You’ll love that one too, so stay tuned.

Rick Jaffe, Esq.

Some further thoughts on the Upcoming Revocation of Medical Exemptions

Some further thoughts on the Upcoming Revocation of Medical Exemptions

I have received some very astute comments in response to my recent post which discussed appealing the revocation of your child’s medical exemption due to the disciplinary action against the ME writing physicians. The information has caused me to rethink what I presented (and didn’t present, for reasons I don’t want to make public) and I want to share some concerns, and give some more details than I had not originally planned on discussing in public.

The law seems to have boxed you folks in with no clear legal recourse and a Hobson choice of doing the catchup vaccine schedule, or home or online school.

First, the new law does allow for appeals of denied ME’s and there is some limited process, but it seems like the statute focuses on appeals of 2021 and later ME’s filed online. However, since the revocation of disciplined doctors subsection appears in the same section which says that all ME’s in this section are subject to appeal, intended or not, it seems like the statute grants a right to appeal.

But the question is, appeal what?

A school letter rejecting an ME because the ME writing doctor had been disciplined seems to limit the appeal to showing that the doctor had not been disciplined. Well, that’s not much help to you who have or will receive the school revocation letter.

Beyond that problem, even on the merits, it is abundantly clear that the CDPH does not and will not allow exemptions based on family history alone. And even prior AE’s are not going to be accepted (my view) unless they have been worked up by a health care professional. I don’t think a statement by a family member is going to support serious consideration of an ME, on the merits, even assuming you get that far. The reason is that we already know how the CDPH looks at these things; i.e., it’s the ACIP guidelines period. Technically the appeal is to the overagency of the CDPH, and I wouldn’t expect those folks to take a position different than the CDPH’s views.

While I did previously suggest requesting an appeal, there are downsides.

The downside of a straight appeal

1. First, as indicated, you can expect the CDPH to take the position that the only grounds for appealing the revocation of a ME based on physician discipline is that the physician was in fact not disciplined. I guess we will find out the answer to that if some of you file an appeal and hear back.

2. Second, once the California authorities has your child’s ME and the name of the physician who issued it, there is nothing stopping the agency from filing a complaint with the medical board based on the ME. Of course, the physician has already been disciplined (which is the reason your grandfathered ME has been revoked), but the board can keep on going after doctors and the doctor should expect that the matter will be investigated. I am aware of doctors on probation for ME writing who are still under investigation as the board receives more complaints. That is a bad thing for the doctor(s) obviously. The fact that your ME writing physician has been put on probation for writing ME’s doesn’t mean the board can’t and won’t pursue more investigations for the same conduct, even if it occurred prior to the physician’s discipline. There is no double jeopardy like principle for new cases of the same conduct.

3. I suppose the biggest downside of a straight appeal is that as suggested you already know what the CDPH is going to say, ME’s have to be based on contraindications and precautions, and there is no institutional recognition (by the CDPH or the medical board) of family history based ME’s or most of the AE’s your child might have had.

And of course, the really big thing is that the infectious disease institutions do not even recognize the concept of a permanent ME which applies to all vaccines. The only proper analysis for considering a permanent ME is vaccine by vaccine because the institutional view is that there since there is no one common element in every scheduled vaccine, it makes no sense to give a permanent ME for all vaccines. (It’s different with temporary ME’s which can be for all vaccines for things like cancer treatment which compromises the immune system.)

No doubt some of you might be feeling that the whole process is rigged and that you can’t get a fair hearing, and in fact technically you can’t get any hearing. It’s all done on submission of paperwork, and then some secret panel makes a decision.

What About My God-Given Constitutional Rights to Send My Unvaccinated kids to School?

I get this a lot, in emails and voicemails to my office (Sorry, I don’t return any of these calls. I am not set up to answer individual questions about your child’s ME’s and it gets tiresome frankly to keep on explaining the same basic law to parents over the phone. Instead, I answer these questions through my posts.)

Sorry, these issues were decided by the California courts in the SB 277 lawsuits. There is no federal or state constitutional or statutory right or education right to send your unvaccinated child to school because of your personal beliefs on vaccines or your opinions about your freedom to decide medical treatments for your children, or based on your rights to informed consent. That does not exist. In California, like I said all these issues were litigated between 2016 and 2018 with the challenges to SB 277.

There may be some kind of general right to a medical exemption, but so far, it looks like the state gets to say who gets them and the criteria to be used. There are open legal issues about whether physicians had the discretion to write ME’s beyond ACIP. So far, two administrative judges and two superior court judges have said they don’t (or close to it in a couple of different contexts). I am working on that very issue now with the Ken Stoller appeal, and an upcoming hearing for another physician which I will discuss in a post in the next day or two.

The point being, if you are pinning your hopes on the fact that some judge is going to tell your school that it has to accept your unvaccinated child back into school, I think that is unrealistic. In general, and certainly during a pandemic, judges are not the friends of the vaccine concerned, especially when they are making arguments that have already been rejected by the California courts (and basically all courts throughout the country, most notably and recently in New York).

Two thoughts

I do have two thoughts: Circling back to the unfair process which does not appear to allow for a hearing.

If you are going to submit an appeal, Ask if there is a written description of the process, including any policy statements or written guidelines for evaluating appeals, and if there are none, ask that they (the Health and Human Services) state in writing that there are no guidelines (other than ACIP), written statements or internal guidelines by which the validity of ME’s are judged.

Also maybe ask whether the CDPH will be following SB 277 which allows for family-based ME’s under the terms of the statute and if not and why not. Ask for a detailed explanation.

Ask for the names of the officials who will be making the determination and ask for a copy of their CV’s. Maybe if they refuse to provide that information, say in the absence of CDPH compliance, you are requesting that your case be sent over to the Office Of Administrative Hearings (There are four locations, San Diego, LA, Oakland, and Sacramento). I suppose that, notwithstanding the above, mentioning failure to do so might result in a lawsuit based on a denial of your procedural due process rights to have a fair and transparent process might not be inappropriate. (and please, resist your urge to talk about your rights to do what you want with your kids and send them to school unvaccinated, or your informed consent rights or that they are violating your Nuremberg Code rights. Save all that stuff for your FB posts). This is just about a fair process by which this important medical decision should be adjudicated.

Second thought: It’s convenient isn’t it how the schools via their notification letters are ducking the issue and declining to get involved by telling you to contact the CDPH. Don’t let them get away with that. Your child’s school is the institution that is barring your child from going back to school. The school is involved, bring them back into it.

Respond to the letter. Maybe tell them you want to appeal the school’s decision and what process does the school have to do so. If they do not, tell them that you want that in writing, that they are refusing to provide you with a direct appeal of the school’s decision to bar your child from their institution. Request a meeting with the school principal to discuss the denial of your appeal right and because your child has special circumstances beyond what the CDPH may not recognize. (I’ve gotten enough emails and VMs to know that all the ME’s are unique.) Make yourself and your child’s issues known to the school administration. Be polite and respectful of course, but this is obviously extremely important to you, so don’t be shy in conveying that. You looking for face-to-face time, or Zoom time (which will be recorded).

If anything is going to change the revocation decision, I think it is going to have to come from you and the community via push back against the CDPH and against the schools. Based on the above, it is surely a long shot, and all responsible parents should have a plan B (or actually probably a plan A, because this is really the hail mary of all hail mary’s). Might there be some possible action depending on how the CDPH reacts? I suppose, but the grounds would be very very narrow and process-based, and I can’t stress enough how much I think that judges just don’t see the issues the way you all do, so it would be a big parental mistake to hope that some judge is going to come to your rescue. As stated, if there is to be a rescue/reprive, it’s going to come from your own actions and push back.

Rick Jaffe, Esq.

Someone posted a comment to this post which you should read. It is someone familiar with the inner workings of state and local government and the background of the Governor’s involvement in SB 714.

Here is part of it: (compliment ommited, but it’s appreciated).

Just prior to this vaccination law being implemented, Newsome was against it. As a “compromise” Pan offered that Medical Exemptions would only revoked in areas where schools had less than 90% vaccinated students, but I believe Newsome thought that was still too restrictive and pushed for children with ME’s be able to finish their school (i.e. elementary grades, etc.) EXCEPT where the ME was written by a doctor who had been officially disciplined for “matters relating to vaccination exemptions”, and at least one newspaper at the time said that this was aimed at the only doctor with a disciplinary action on vaccinations, Sears. Unfortunately that was NOT how it was written, and I called my state assemblyman, my state senator, and Governor Newsom’s office, but never received a response. I was told at the time from all my friends it was the “intent” to only target Sears, but yet hear we are with as many as 10,000 children affected!

So at this point in time, when the majority of Americans (and Californians) supporting Covid Vaccinations, it is my opinion that somehow there needs to be a representation of 10,000 children who are summarily removed from public schools and use COVID findings to our benefit:

1. Studies on COVID are stating that we would achieve “herd immunity” if 70-80% of Americans are vaccinated. Coordinate that with why would we remove a child from public school what has in excess of 90% vaccination?

2. Studies of children now being “homeschooled” during the crisis show the damage to children is very great and our children are suffering until they get back into school. SO WHY THE HELL WOULD WE THROW 10,000 KIDS INTO SUBSTANDARD SCHOOLING WHEN THEIR SCHOOLS HAVE HERD IMMUNITY FROM THE DISEASES FOR WHICH THEY HAVE BEEN GIVEN HERD IMMUNITY.

So Mr. Jaffe, thanks for honestly saying the solution is not legal, but is in fact political. I don’t believe the Governor knows this what was adopted, but even if he does, he won’t want the parents and relatives of 10,000 harmed children angry during a recall election.”

Thx Gary! good info.

If any of you know the Governor or someone in his inner circle, now would be an excellent time to make him/them aware of the plight facing many thousands of families this coming school year.


Is Anything Happening With California Schools Revoking Medical Exemptions from Disciplined Physicians? Yes, and it’s Hail Mary Time! (Updated with New Information

Is Anything Happening With California Schools Revoking Medical Exemptions from Disciplined Physicians? Yes, and it’s Hail Mary Time! (Updated with New Information

I have been asked about that. For what it’s worth, I have been receiving reports from parents that they are receiving letters from schools indicating that their child’s medical exemption is being revoked as of the coming school year based on the fact that the ME was written by a physician who has been disciplined by the Medical Board. I guess that the overwhelming majority of ME’s issued under SB 277 were issued by physicians who have already been disciplined or are under investigation.

I think it’s a school or district by district decision about when to notify families, and it a process that may take some time. But I think the safe and rational thing would be to assume is that if your physician has been disciplined, you will receive the notification letter so indicating and that your child will have to start the catch-up schedule which I have outlined in a prior post, and that your two choices are home school (difficult for high school I would think) or get your child vaccinated. Odds are that is the way it is going to play out.

Some of you out there are irate about this. Some of you feel that it violates your religious or constitutional rights. I have discussed these issues many many times and so have the courts. However, the courts have not been sympathetic to these big constitutional issues about personal freedom rights not to get mandated vaccines. You may not like it or agree with it, but I think any fair knowledgeable lawyer would tell you that I am right in terms of the state of the law, as it currently exists. Sure maybe the new Supreme Court religious conservative majority might change things in a year or three, but that is not going to help you for the beginning of the 2021-2022 school year, and the lower courts apply the law that exists currently.

That all being said, I do have one off-the-wall idea. No guarantees that it will work, and it probably won’t, but you have nothing to lose, because right now, your child is either going to have to comply with catch-up or he/she won’t be in school next school year (or you can move out of state to someplace that still has a PBE or religious exemption). It’s that simple.

Here is my crazy idea (and it really is probably crazy).

If you get one of these revocation letters, send back a response that you want to appeal the decision to the school and/or CDPH and you would like the school to send you the information about the appeals process.

That’s it. There are probably eight thousand families which are going to receive this letter from their children’s schools in the next few months. Everyone should write back and say they want to appeal and ask for information about the process. Five or eight or ten thousand people writing this letter and requesting an appeal is going to have some impact and reaction from the schools and the CDPH.

Logically, there are three basic possible responses to your letter. 1. There is no appeals process. 2. There is an appeals process and here is the info, or 3. There is an appeals process (or we don’t know if there is) but contact CDPH.

If it’s 3, then request an appeal from the CDPH.

If 2. fill out the paperwork (and the first few who receive it should forward a copy to me).

If 1. I’d like to see a copy of a few of these letters because I think that could and probably will be a basis of a lawsuit, based on the denial of a statutory and/or constitutional right.

For those of you who have asked me about it and about my oblique reference in my post about the CDPH dropping the hammer, this is my answer and what I was referring to, funding permitting.

No promises about the outcome, but there is much hell to be raised, and you all are the ones to raise it.

That’s it. Get to work!

Rick Jaffe, Esq.


Someone sent me a copy of the letter. It does talk about an appeal process and even mentions appealing because the doctor had not been disciplined. That’s not the appeal I am talking about, since if you got the letter, chances are your ME writing doc has been disciplined. I am talking about an appeal of the decision to revoke the ME on the grounds that it is still medically valid, and it shouldn’t matter the status of the doctor. You want to appeal on the merits, just like there is a right to appeal on the merits for 2021-2022 ME’s.
Here is the letter one family received. Thanks family for the quick response.

Good afternoon,

Yesterday a letter was mailed home with information specific to your child. If you do not receive the written letter by May 5, 2021, please contact for another copy.

The California Department of Public Health, Immunization Branch notified schools on April 14, 2021 that medical immunization exemptions are revoked if they were issued prior to January 1, 2020 by any physician who has had disciplinary action taken by the Medical Board of California or Osteopathic Medical Board of California. (Health & Safety Code, 120372(d)(4)).

The medical exemption we have on file for your child will not be valid for use at school starting the beginning of the 2021-2022 school year.

• Next step: Contact your child’s physician.

If your child does not need a medical exemption, your child’s physician can help your child catch up on needed vaccines. (For more information, visit
Students in grades TK/K-12 need:
Diphtheria, Tetanus, and Pertussis (DTaP, DTP, Tdap, or Td) — 5 doses (4 doses OK if one was given on or after 4th birthday. 3 doses OK if one was given on or after 7th birthday.)
Polio — 4 doses (3 doses OK if one was given on or after 4th birthday)
Hepatitis B — 3 doses (Not required for 7th grade entry)
Measles, Mumps, and Rubella (MMR) — 2 doses (Both given on or after 1st birthday)
Varicella (Chickenpox) — 2 doses. History of disease does not meet this requirement.
Students in grades 7-12 also need Tetanus, Diphtheria, Pertussis (Tdap) —1 dose given after age 7
If your child still needs a medical exemption, go to the California Immunization Registry – Medical Exemption web site at to request a medical exemption.

•To appeal this decision:

If you believe the physician who issued the exemption prior to 2020 has not had disciplinary action taken by the Medical Board of California or Osteopathic Medical Board of California, you may appeal the decision within 30 days of this notification of the revocation with the California Health and Human Services Agency. (emphasis added).

Children whose medical exemptions are revoked for the reasons above must provide updated documentation to their school prior to the beginning of the 2021-2022 school year. Acceptable documentation includes record of receiving required immunizations or a medical exemption issued through the California Immunization Registry Medical Exemption web site.

If you have any questions, or need information on appealing the decision, please refer to .

Thank you.”

Comment by the family:

However, question 17 says nothing about the appeal process. If you click ‘letter’ where it says ‘Additional details are in the letter to child care facilities and schools’ it opens up the letter sent to all the schools and only there, 3/4 of the way down the page, does it say ‘instructions and appeal form’. Here is the appeal form:

So the information is out there, but it sure is buried! I do intend to start the appeal process and I wanted to share with you the letter above that I received.”

The principle and tactic is the same. Contact your school and tell them you want to appeal to the school. Let them write you back that it doesn’t have an appeals process. Do the appeal too.

My Crossover Moment Between Stem Cells and the Vaccine Issue, some basic facts about VAERS and maybe an interesting strategic suggestion (so please read this to the end)

My Crossover Moment Between Stem Cells and the Vaccine Issue, some basic facts about VAERS and maybe an interesting strategic suggestion (so please read this to the end)

Although many, many of my posts lately have been about the vaccine issue, I view myself as a health care attorney who focuses on novel and unconventional treatments and technologies. The legal contexts may be different, i.e., medical board work, civil litigation, or federal criminal cases (FDA and health care insurance issues) but the overarching commonality is constant, unconventional health care and ensuring the broadest possible access to it.

In my FDA-related work, that basically pits me against the government and I advocate and litigate for greater access to unapproved treatments. (And that puts me at odds with many in vaccine concerned community on an issue like access to EUA vaccines, which I support one hundred percent, so long as it is not compulsory.) I think people should be allowed to get any treatment or medical intervention they can get their hands on regardless of the status, as long as there is proper informed consent (which raises issues as well, but I’ll leave that for another time).

One of the areas I work in is the stem cell field. I am following a bench trial on the FDA’s attempt to obtain an injunction against a clinic’s use of autologous (the person’s own) stem cells. I am listening to it on my iPad kind of like background music, and as I was writing this post on VAER’s I heard in the distance an FDA MD regulator being cross-examined on the fact that there were very few reported side effects from stem cell treatments.

Guess what the FDA regulator said in response? She said that everyone knows side effects of drugs are vastly underreported and thus side effects rates can’t be relied upon. It caused a momentary confusion in me and I thought I was having an auditory hallucination since I had spent so much time thinking about the underreporting of vaccine side effects. It reminded me of a cross-over episode in TV world (where the characters in one show appear in character in another show). Nothing more than life’s little strange ironies.

But on to the main topic. There is a great deal of media and social media attention about VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System), and my prior post on the Harvard Pilgrim study has engendered some interesting comments. I think it might be helpful to actually relate the basics about VAERS which might help avoid some confusion, for those who have not actually looked at the issue directly.

VAERS has its own website and it contains more than just the numbers of deaths and injuries from the COVID vaccines. It explains what it is and does, and at least by implication, what it does not do.

You can look it over yourself. Here is the link.

VAERS was created in 1990 to monitor adverse events from vaccines. (I am pretty sure as part of the vaccine compensation act).

You all know that it created a reporting system for vaccine adverse events/effects

So what’s an adverse event?

Here is as good a definition as any (not taken from the VAERS web site).

Any untoward medical occurrence that may present during treatment with a pharmaceutical product but which does not necessarily have a causal relationship with this treatment.” [International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use.]

As everyone knows, (but few acknowledge when discussing the dangers of vaccines) an adverse event report filed with VAERS is a just report of an adverse event occurring after a vaccine injection. No single or group of VAERS report about a vaccine establishes a causal connection. It is not the purpose of VAERS to make, investigate or establish the scientific connection/causation or lack thereof between the administration of the vaccine and an adverse event. The VAERS database is just the database of all adverse events which meet the VAERS criteria, where each filing was by some person or entity, presumably with knowledge about something bad that happened to a person within some specified time period after receiving a vaccine.

More specific on the purpose of VAERS (from the website):

“(VAERS) is a national early warning system to detect possible safety problems in U.S.-licensed vaccines. VAERS is co-managed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). VAERS accepts and analyzes reports of adverse events (possible side effects) after a person has received a vaccination. Anyone can report an adverse event to VAERS. Healthcare professionals are required to report certain adverse events and vaccine manufacturers are required to report all adverse events that come to their attention.

VAERS is a passive reporting system, meaning it relies on individuals to send in reports of their experiences to CDC and FDA. VAERS is not designed to determine if a vaccine caused a health problem, but is especially useful for detecting unusual or unexpected patterns of adverse event reporting that might indicate a possible safety problem with a vaccine. This way, VAERS can provide CDC and FDA with valuable information that additional work and evaluation is necessary to further assess a possible safety concern.”

What are the objectives of VAERS?

Here they are from the website:

“The primary objectives of VAERS are to:

Detect new, unusual, or rare vaccine adverse events;
Monitor increases in known adverse events;
Identify potential patient risk factors for particular types of adverse events;
Assess the safety of newly licensed vaccines;
Determine and address possible reporting clusters (e.g., suspected localized [temporally or geographically] or product-/batch-/lot-specific adverse event reporting);
Recognize persistent safe-use problems and administration errors;
Provide a national safety monitoring system that extends to the entire general population for response to public health emergencies, such as a large-scale pandemic influenza vaccination program.”

And of course, it is a self-reporting and uncurated system, meaning anyone can report an AE temporally associated with the vaccine, but presumably, only people with direct knowledge of the untoward event should do the reporting (unless it is the person’s job to make that report, I presume).

So what is considered the temporal relationship and what kind of things can be reported?

Well, that’s easy, the website has a downloadable pdf of the reportable events and how long after the vaccine shot, an AE should be reported (i.e. the maximum time limit after the shot and the time limit is shorter than you would think).
Here is the PDF: VAERS_Table_of_Reportable_Events_Following_Vaccination(2)

As you can see, the event has to have occurred anywhere between 7 and 42 days after the shot, depending on the vaccine and the event. e.g., 7 days max for the DTaP and others, up to 42 days after the shot for arthritis associated with the rubella shot.
In reviewing the chart, it seems to me that the only localized event reportable is shoulder injury from the shots.

For grins, I looked over the screen for reporting an AE because I wanted to see if anyone could file an AE about anyone. I wanted to see if I could file one for say Hank Aaron. FYI: here is the screen. I suppose you could, but you’d have to make up a lot of his information. And at the bottom, there is a notice that providing false information is a crime.
But basically, you have to give the date and type of vaccine and when the event started and other such information, and presumably, there is some kind of internal edit that wouldn’t process an entry if it is outside of the temporal association limits.

So the bottom line is that a VAERS report is just a description of some bad thing (including death) that happened to a person after receiving a vaccine within a certain period of time after receiving the shot, and that time or window depends on which shot and the kind of every, but the outside window or temporal connection is anywhere between 7 and 42 days.

That much you can glean from the VAERS website. What happens with the information once it gets posted?

And there we have the limits of my knowledge and investigations. Presumably, the CDC and perhaps the FDA look at all these reports. There were only six reported blood clotting problems with the J&J vaccine but that was enough for the FDA to put the vaccine on clinical hold for a week or so. Some criticized the action as being unnecessarily cautious. I assume they quickly picked up on the blood clot issue because of a similar issue with the Asta Zenaca vaccine in Europe and the common ingredient/method used both.

Are the several thousand reported deaths reported to VAERS being investigated? I don’t know, but I hope so.

Another Key Term: Background rate

Another important term in all this is background rate, meaning the rate that a percentage of the population will experience that particular event, say a blood clotting problem. There is a known number for that, and from what I read, the authorities determined that the 6 cases were within the background rate. A background rate above the reported adverse event rate doesn’t necessarily disprove that the AE was caused by the vaccine, but I think it is fair to say that public health authorities are looking for AE’s significantly greater than the background rate, in part because resources are limited. It seems to me that death in terms of the background rate is particularly tricky, obviously because it is an event that everyone eventually experiences and you would expect the background rate of death to have a straight relationship to age.

That brings up another point; early on, a disproportionate number of older people were dying of COVID than younger people. There was a lot of speculation as to why, and many in the vaccine community rejected these statistics basically claiming that the old were dying of co-morbidities (or had co-morbidities) so they don’t count as COVID deaths. (I think that is an erroneous argument). In terms of background rate, I guess the argument is that old people die a lot more than younger people; ie the background rate is higher because of age and more of them have co-morbidities. But I also hear that the old are dying at a much lower rate now, and the big difference is that the older got the vaccine first, and the purpose of the vaccine/the only benefit found/ was to stop people from dying of COVID, (and not necessarily prevent infection or transmission). I guess my saying that again puts me at odds with most of the vaccine concerned.

Now some hard truths and maybe a practical strategic suggestion that could help

The core mantra of the public health establishment is that vaccines are safe and effective and side effects are rare and of course, this is being repeated in the COVID vaccination world. But it is now a lot harder to sell that message during a pandemic where the world’s attention is on the disease and the focus has shifted to vaccines. AE’s and deaths are being reported in social media which is impacting decision-making both in individuals and in the public health policy context. The hard truth is that even if all or a significant percentage of the 3-5k VAERS reported deaths were caused by the vaccines, that would be one hundred times less than the reported number of deaths and orders of magnitude less than the death rate from the disease. I know that many of you don’t accept the COVID death numbers or the death rate, but that really doesn’t matter because those are the numbers upon which public health decisions will be made, and specifically, the decision about full approval/biological licensure of the COVID vaccine.

All medical interventions have risk, and some have a risk of death (I recall when bone marrow and stem cell transplants were done for advanced cancer, it carried something like a 2-4 percent fatality rate from the procedure). The COVID vaccines are going to be approved/biologically licensed despite the relatively small percentage of serious adverse events and even deaths, and I have no problem with that, given my background and many many years of fighting for access to treatment and allowing people to make up their own minds about their health care options. Of course, that makes the key issue mandates upon full biological licensure. And as you all know or fear, mandates are coming. Institutions have already told you all that. And of course, there will be many challenges to these mandates, but odds are they will fail under the expected process. The solution may be to change the expected process.

While drugs and vaccines are approved even if there is a measurable risk of mortality, the FDA has special conditions and warnings, the most severe of which is a black box warning on the labeling. If a very small but measurable adverse event is the possibility of death, that might warrant a black box or other lesser warning. I would propose as a strategic goal a nationwide effort to raise the issue of a black box warning on all COVID vaccines, after a public and thorough review of the VAERS report of deaths.

In order to convince the public of the safety of vaccines, each step of this process would have to be transparent and subject to public comment. You know what they say about light being the best disinfectant, and let the chips fall where they may.

This is something that many groups could adopt. It could become a national thing. It is likely to be something that could enlarge the base. It involves tactics that are relatively known and simple, i.e., contacting your federal legislators and maybe some direct campaigning of the FDA. If you think this has any merit, share this post or at least this last part, and let’s see if it gets any traction.

Having a black box or another type of labeled warning of death from the COVID vaccines could do all kinds of interesting things to the COVID mandatory vaccine debate, and even the public discussion of this technical regulatory issue would be enlightening and worthwhile (and hint, that would be an understatement).


Rick Jaffe, Esq.