We are now less than six weeks away from the hearing on the Medical Board’s case against Ken Stoller for writing 11 temporary and permanent exemptions from immunization under the prior law, commonly known as SB 277.
Dr. Stoller is still without the necessary funds to pay for the hearing, and this gogetfunding campaign has not yet produced meaningful results. So, if you can donate to the case, please do so, soon.
The Big Issue in the Case
As all of you Cali. folks know, on January 1, 2020, SB 277 was replaced by SB 276 and SB 714. I’ve described in several prior posts the changes and effect of the new law. Here are a few of them.
The big, and most likely dispositive question in this case is whether SB 277 changed the conditions under which vaccine medical exemptions could be written, (i.e., beyond the CDC/ACIP contraindications and precautions.)
The Board’s view is that SB 277 did not change the vaccine medical exemption law and/or standards, and that physicians had to write exemptions in complete compliance with the ACIP guidelines/AAP Red Book Appendix.
Our view is that SB 277 did change the law and standards, or at the very least, many physicians thought it granted them the authority to write broader than ACIP based exemptions upon a determination that immunization was not safe for a particular child. At the hearing, we hope to have Senator Pan explain some of his statements which sure sounded like physicians had that discretion.
We have prepared an extensive power point presentation explaining our view of the law, and why physicians like Ken Stoller thought immunization fail a risk/benefit analysis under the law for children with a history of autoimmune disease and some suggestive genetic markers. This approach is part of a new approach to immunization called adversonomics or vaccinomics which is explained in the power point. Since there’s no reason to hide the ball, the power point isbeing made available in my post on my web site. www.rickjaffe.com. Many of you will like it Ken's work.
Tomorrow, February 7, 2020, there is a pre-hearing conference to talk through with the judge some of the legal issues. So, more to follow.
If the result of this case is important to you, please consider making a donation.
Rick Jaffe, Esq.