We had our oral argument on the Board's Motion to eliminate parts of our case.
Here are the results:
Jim Neurenschwander won't be testifying in the case because his testimony does not relate to the 10 patients but just general concepts of vaccine safety. The judge didn't feel that his testimony would assist her in deciding the case.
Greg Glaser, Esq. will also not be testifying in the case for basically the same reason. He was going to explain the opinions he formed about SB 277 which he shared with Ken Stoller and many other physicians.
The judge didn't exclude all of our exhibits, mostly because the Board didn't provide them to her yet, and neither did we. She said she would rule on each exhibit as we offered it into evidence. However, it seems clear that she's not all that interested in vaccine safety in general, or vaccine safety data, but just about the decisions about the 10 patients. I'm not completely understanding her thinking about this, but forward we go.
For some reason which I am not sure about, two hours after the oral argument, she scheduled a status conference for tomorrow morning. There are a couple possibilities I can think of, but I won't speculate. There are a couple things in the works.
As of now, the case is still scheduled to begin on Monday. But it will be a shorter hearing now since we have two fewer witnesses. For whatever it's worth (and it may not be much), she has read both very excellent reports, and they are now part of the record which will be reviewed by the appellate courts.
Regardless of what this judge does or does not do, I have a pretty clear idea of how the board feels about Ken and the other doctors who wrote broad SB 277 exemptions. I am here to tell you that this case will be decided by the appellate courts, and there absolutely will be a precedential appellate decision on SB 277 based exemptions/exceptions under the integrative standard of care.