Browsed by
Category: Vaccination Issues

Does Senator Pan Have a Conflict of Interest by Proposing and Advocating for SB 276?

Does Senator Pan Have a Conflict of Interest by Proposing and Advocating for SB 276?

I will tell you up-front that I will not answer the titled question in this post because I do not have personal knowledge about Senator’s Pan’s finances and business affairs. However, I will say that I have NOT seen any evidence of a conflict of interest, as that term is defined by the relevant California law.

The real purpose of this post is 1. to provide the vaccine concerned community with the actual law, and 2. to respectfully suggest that you all conflating the legislators’ statutory and rule-based conflict of interest obligations, with the the completely different issue of whether it is right for politicians, especially influential politicians, to take campaign contributions from industries which have business interests before the legislators, and whether a legislator should sponsor legislation that will benefit an industry which has made campaign contributions to the sponsor.

To put it another way, I am writing this post (to the annoyance of many I assume) because I see a great deal of unsupported allegations and incorrect analysis complaining about the conflict of interest of Senator Pan and others. And like I keep telling you folks, you have to be right about what you say.

We all know that corporations and commerical ventures give money to politicians to influence what laws are written and what the laws say. It might not be right or moral, but it is legal. Deal with it! The fact that Senator Pan received the highest amount of campaign contributions from Pharma is not illegal, nor is it a conflict of interest. It just means that Phama thinks he is the most important player in its areas of interest, and/or he has a fundraiser with good access to Pharma. That is the way the system works in the U.S. If you don’t like it, change it, or move someplace purer.

What if Senator Pan makes alot of money from Pharma for something other than campaign contributions?

As long as he is not taking a bribe, it is not illegal. Roughly, a bribe/public corruption is money (or other things of value) offered and accepted on the specific promise/agreement that the government official will help pass or kill a bill (or executive act for the executive branch) that will directly benefit the entity which gave the money, or basically a quid pro quo.

You might recall the recent case of former Virgina Governor Bob McDonnell whose bribery/public corruption conviction was overturned, even though he accepted all kinds of gifts (including a rolex) from someone who would directly benefit from something the Governor could do. Even that was not enough for a public corruption conviction to stick. There has to be an explicit and provable quid pro quo. Here is an article about the case to show you what public corruption is not (according to the Supreme Court).

Working in the California Legislature is a part-time job. All these folks have other jobs, and I am sure that some of their jobs intersect with legislation, and further the interests of the industries which give campaign money, but that is not make it illegal or a conflict of interest.

So what would be a conflict?

Let’s start with the Legislative Rule:

“A public official shall not participate in any action or decision by the legislature, including votes, if a conflict of interest exists. Cal. Gov’t Code § 87102.5.Legislators may not participate, by voting or any other action, on the floor of either house, or in committee or elsewhere, in the enactment or defeat of legislation in which he or she has a personal interest.” Joint Rule 44.

Here is Government Code, Section 87102.5 (I am giving the whole section so you can work through the issues yourselves.)

“(a) The remedies provided in Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 83100) shall apply to any Member of the Legislature who makes, participates in making, or in any way attempts to use his or her official position to influence any of the following governmental decisions in which he or she knows or has reason to know that he or she has a financial interest:
(1) Any state governmental decision, other than any action or decision before the Legislature, made in the course of his or her duties as a member.
(2) Approval, modification, or cancellation of any contract to which either house or a committee of the Legislature is a party.
(3) Introduction as a lead author of any legislation that the member knows or has reason to know is nongeneral legislation.
(4) Any vote in a legislative committee or subcommittee on what the member knows or has reason to know is nongeneral legislation.
(5) Any rollcall vote on the Senate or Assembly floor on an item which the member knows is nongeneral legislation.
(6) Any action or decision before the Legislature in which all of the following occur:
(A) The member has received any salary, wages, commissions, or similar earned income within the preceding 12 months from a lobbyist employer.
(B) The member knows or has reason to know the action or decision will have a direct and significant financial impact on the lobbyist employer.
(C) The action or decision will not have an impact on the public generally or a significant segment of the public in a similar manner.
(7) Any action or decision before the Legislature on legislation that the member knows or has reason to know will have a direct and significant financial impact on any person, distinguishable from its impact on the public generally or a significant segment of the public, from whom the member has received any compensation within the preceding 12 months for the purpose of appearing, agreeing to appear, or taking any other action on behalf of that person, before any local board or agency.
(b) For purposes of this section, all of the following apply:
(1) Any action or decision before the Legislature means any vote in a committee or subcommittee, or any rollcall vote on the floor of the Senate or Assembly.
(2) Financial interest means an interest as defined in Section 87103.
(3) Legislation means a bill, resolution, or constitutional amendment.
(4) Nongeneral legislation means legislation that is described in Section 87102.6 and is not of a general nature pursuant to Section 16 of Article IV of the Constitution.
(5) A Member of the Legislature has reason to know that an action or decision will have a direct and significant financial impact on a person with respect to which disqualification may be required pursuant to subdivision (a) if either of the following apply:
(A) With the knowledge of the member, the person has attempted to influence the vote of the member with respect to the action or decision.
(B) Facts have been brought to the members personal attention indicating that the action or decision will have a direct and significant impact on the person.
(6) The prohibitions specified in subdivision (a) do not apply to a vote on the Budget Bill as a whole, or to a vote on a consent calendar, a motion for reconsideration, a waiver of any legislative rule, or any purely procedural matter.
(7) A Member of the Legislature has reason to know that legislation is nongeneral legislation if facts have been brought to his or her personal attention indicating that it is nongeneral legislation.
(8) Written advice given to a Member of the Legislature regarding his or her duties under this section by the Legislative Counsel shall have the same effect as advice given by the commission pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 83114 if both of the following apply:
(A) The member has made the same written request based on the same material facts to the commission for advice pursuant to Section 83114 as to his or her duties under this section, as the written request and facts presented to the Legislative Counsel.
(B) The commission has not provided written advice pursuant to the members request prior to the time the member acts in good faith reliance on the advice of the Legislative Counsel.”’t_code_section_87102.5

(There are some other laws, but I think this is the main and most relevant one)

I have heard that Senator Pan makes a very great deal of money.

That is not illegal, and it is not a conflict of interest.

Honestly, the whole notion that he or anyone else can have a conflict of interest because he/they take money from “Pharma” or “Big Oil” or even the Nutritional Supplement industry is ridiculous. That’s not what a conflict of interest or a bribe is; That is legal campaign contributions from an industry source. What big contributions show is who is on the side of that particular industry.

So, if you want to call-out Senator Pan because you don’t like the fact that he and almost all other legislators take large campaign contributions from big powerful industries, or because he, like most Congressfolk, seems to do Pharma’s bidding, ok, but he’s just doing what most of them are doing.

That is not a conflict of interest and it certainly isn’t bribery or public corruption. If it were, you’d have to throw them all out of office and lock’em all up!

Rick Jaffe, Esq.

Update on Dr. Stoller’s Lawsuit against the San Francisco City Attorney

Update on Dr. Stoller’s Lawsuit against the San Francisco City Attorney

The San Francisco City Attorney’s Office has not yet filed an answer to Dr. Stoller’s lawsuit. (It will do so in the next week or two.) And still no separate lawsuit to compel compliance with his administrative subpoena, which is what I was expecting, but I think it may still be coming.

The discovery phase of most civil cases does not start until after the defendant answers the complaint. However, there is a way to start discovery sooner, and that is what I have done. Specifically, I have requested that the City Attorney’s Office provide all communications between his office and Senator’s Pan’s office, the Medical Board, and a certain law professor who seems to think that nuisance lawsuits against the families of unvaccinated children is a good idea. The City Attorney has 30 days to submit a response to our request. Sometimes civil litigation is about as exciting as watching paint dry. Sometimes it’s not.

On the SB 276 Front

Yesterday, a slightly revised version of the bill was dropped. I haven’t had the chance to look it over, but at this point, I wouldn’t expect any major concessions. If there is anything significant, I will follow-up. This is shaping-up to be a party-line issue, which is disappointing.

I keep hearing how much Senator Dr. Pan profits from his vaccine giving, and how he is in the pocket of pharma, but it seems like it is all just unsupported speculation, extrapolation and/or generalization.

Now if there was actual evidence of his personal connection to pharma, and I mean a document which shows that he is doing what he’s doing in order to advance Pharma’s interest, at the expense of his patients or children in general, or a document with his name on it which shows some unsavory action, that would be entirely different.

So, if there is a smoking gun out there, now would be a good time for it to surface. If not, then all the unsupported or generalized chatter about Senator’s Pan’s conflict of interest because he makes money from administering vaccines (as all pediatricians do) is really just feel-good preaching to the choir and will not change the mind of democrats toeing the party line. It also furthers the narrative about vaccine misinformation being spread by opponents of SB 276 and the vaccine concerned community in general. This is fueling social media and commerce sites efforts to limit your access to the internet. Regrettably, that puts you between a rock and a hard place. So it is something to consider.

Rick Jaffe, Esq.

To New York vaccine injured, religiously vaccine exempt families

To New York vaccine injured, religiously vaccine exempt families

As all New Yorkers who have/had a religious exemption to vaccination now know, A2371 which is now the law, eliminated the exemption. If you had the religious exemption, you probably received a letter telling you that you have until June 28, 2019 to come into compliance with the initial doses of all required vaccines.

That is between 4-6 shots of maybe 8 to 10 different vaccines. That seems like alot of vaccines to receive in a couple weeks, in light of the current standard CDC, APA etc vaccine schedule. However there is a CDC “catch up schedule.” I know that in the past some children have received all the catch-up schedule vaccine shots and have been injured.

Ideally, we are looking for a child who got all the shots, had a serious adverse reaction, and then the familiy stopped vaccinating the child and their other children under the a religious exemption.

If that’s you, and don’t mind telling your story to the public, shoot me an email. At this point, me and some of my lawyer friends are looking into possible legal action. No decision has been made, and it will in part be determined by who could be the plaintiffs. No plaintiff will have to pay legal fees if a case is commenced.

Rick Jaffe, Esq.

This post may be considered to be ATTORNEY ADVERTISING under New York law. See my home page for details about me, including my CV, office address, areas of interest, and scroll through my posts to see my position on this and other relevant health issues.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Think “Saving Private Ryan”

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

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

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

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

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

So how do we get there?

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

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

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

Rick Jaffe, Esq.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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


1. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 – 73 above.
2. California citizens have a right to receive unconventional medical care and advice from California licensed physicians Bus. & Prof. Code section 2234.1, and that includes medical advice and services concerning childhood vaccines. The rationale being, per Section 2234.1(c), ”Since the National Institute of Medicine has reported that it can take up to 17 years for a new best practice to reach the average physician and surgeon, it is prudent to give attention to new developments not only in general medical care but in the actual treatment of specific diseases, particularly those that are not yet broadly recognized in California.”
3. Therefore, there are certainly no shortage of physicians critical of using family history and genetic associations to grant medical exemptions because using information beyond CDC guidelines has not gained consensus status, and the science is not settled on identifying children vulnerable to adverse events.
4. Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that the patients of Dr. Stoller, and the patients of other like-minded physicians, have a right to receive a vaccine medical exemption based on an alternative standard of medical exemptions beyond CDC guidelines, under Bus. & Prof. Code 2234.1 and a state constitution right. cf Schloendorff v. NY Hospital, 211 NY 125, 105 NE.102 1914 (J. Cardoza) (overruled on other grounds Bing. V. Thunig 2 NYS 656, 143 NE2d 3, (1957) (New York citizens have a privacy right to control their own bodies); Schneider v Revici 817 F.2d 987 (2nd Cir. 1987). (Acknowledging a patient’s right to receive unconventional medical treatment).
5. Dr. Stoller will demonstrate that the alternative vaccine standard of care which he uses (and again which had been endorsed by Senator Pan in SB 277) is safer and creates less of a risk of serious harm and permanent injury for children than the CDC guideline based standard of care, which further justifies the Court recognizing the patients’ right to obtain medical exemptions under this alternative standard of care, notwithstanding any current or future law to the contrary.
6. Plaintiff also seeks a declaratory judgment that based on the existing scientific research, and evidence of wrongdoing, including the suppression of vaccine injury findings, and the intimidation of physicians and researchers, the alternative standard of care for vaccine exemption is safer for children than the CDC guidelines.”

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


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

Rick Jaffe, Esq.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RicK Jaffe, Esq.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rick Jaffe, Esq.

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

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

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

A2371 is now law in New York.
Here is the law:

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

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


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

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

Here is the actual language:


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

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

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

Why am I skeptical?


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

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

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

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

Rick Jaffe, Esq.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And, Stay On-Message

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

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

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

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

That’s the way I see it anyway.

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

Rick Jaffe, Esq.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please be polite and respectful in your communications.

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

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

Or emphasize the fact that 38% of the measles cases in the 2015 Disneyland outbreak were from the vaccine. Or state that Governor Brown made it a point to specifically allow broadly written medical exemptions with SB 277.

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

(The Complaint is attached to this post

This event is global! It is being supported by many California state organizations, other states’ organizations, and national and international organizations and groups. Here is the link to the Facebook event page.

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




Rick Jaffe, Esq.