THE MOST DANGEROUS DOCTOR IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA-RICHARD PAN-Complaint Information:click the link below to file against physician license number 84883
The Medical Board is responsible for reviewing and investigating complaints about, and disciplining licensed physicians. We must flood the medical board with requests and make our voices heard. We believe Dr. Pan is the most dangerous doctor in the country and must be stopped. Forced unlimited vaccinations is the most dangerous and tyrannical proposed edict in our Nation’s history.
Complaint Against Senator Richard Pan
California Senate Health Committee Hearing and Vote on SB277, Public Health: vaccinations
Testimony given by California State Senator, Dr. Richard Pan, on April 8, 2015, directly contradict established facts in the following source documents:
- U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Vaccine Injury Compensation Program
- CA SB277, Public health: vaccinations
In context, Dr. Pan, as author of SB277, is using his medical license to create, influence passage, and enact public health legislation based on testimony in direct conflict with readily-available and established fact.
The following is excerpted testimony given by Sen. Richard Pan as statements and in answer to fellow Health Committee member’s questions. The video of this testimony is provided here:http://calchannel.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=7&clip_id=2716&hc_location=ufi
Senator Pan testimony:
- 00:21:50 Vaccines are safe and efficacious.
- 00:23:45 Evidence shows that the disease that has been prevented by vaccination is at least a thousand times more likely to cause a lasting problem than the vaccine itself and there have been no confirmed deaths caused by the measles vaccine.
Statements 1 and 2 are invalid, as evidenced in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Vaccine Injury Compensation Program to compensate vaccine-related injury or death. The Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) database, as of December 14, 2014 articulates 6,962 serious adverse events reported to the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) in connection with measles vaccine since 1990, with over half of those occurring in children three years old and under. Of these events329 were deaths, with over half of the deaths occurring in children under three years of age. To date, more than $2.8 billion has been awarded to victims and victim’s family for overall vaccine injury and death.
- 0026:00 Let me be clear, SB277 does not mandate vaccinations, but the choice, that choice, requires responsibility and we have the responsibility to protect all children attending school by requiring vaccinations when children go attend school with other children.
- 3:02:00 As I said before, this bill is not about mandatory vaccinations; we don’t want to get to the place where we are going to be mandatorily vaccinating children against their parents’ will.
- 03:37:30 Informed consent is still necessary to get your child vaccinated. (in reference to the amended bill)
Statements #3 – 5 are incorrect. Reference SB277 Public health: vaccinations, which calls for mandatory vaccination for all school children, where parents will not be able to get a medical exemption for their children and will not be able to home school and will face the possible permanent removal of their children from their homes, fines and imprisonment. The bill does, in fact, get rid of “personal believe exemption” the only non-medical exemption. Per SB277 language, “This bill would eliminate the exemption from immunization based upon personal beliefs.” Furthermore, “informed consent” is not an exemption and, therefore, cannot be asserted as ‘still necessary to get your child vaccinated.’
This bill is about taking away your God given rights to protect our children’s bodies from the tyrannical edicts of medical tyranny and what amounts to forced medical procedures and forced poisoning of our children’s bloodstreams. No religious or personal belief exemption in the bill means an impossible to obtain medical exemption door is closed resulting in forced vaccinations at gunpoint for those who cannot afford to home school.
Dr. Pan acting as a physician in his professional capacity in order to unduly directly influence the legislative process with what appear to bald faced lies is, in our opinion amounts to valid grounds for revocation of his medical license. In addition, we believe his actions are in clear, absolute and direct violation of the American Medical Association’s code of ethics. Dr. Pan knows the following American Medical Association (AMA) Code of Ethics opinions completely contradict FORCED vaccination:
Apparently, Richard Pan has no regard for Freedom of Religion, informed consent that the American Medical Association upholds in its Code of Ethics. Does he support a totalitarian government that will force parents to vaccinate their children whether they are publicly, privately, or homeschooled or face criminal charges? Therefore it is time for all parents to call for the:
Revocation and/or Suspension of Dr. Pan’s Physician License.
The state licensing board has wide discretion in the matter of revocation of licenses and may revoke a license without any terms or conditions, leaving no possibility for reinstatement.
The general defenses against a revocation of license include denial of due process, violation of equal protection clause, compelling self-incrimination, etc. However, courts have held in a number of cases that the “state had a legitimate interest in protecting its citizens from incompetent physicians, and requiring doctors suspected of being incompetent to attend an investigatory hearing or submit to reexamination was rationally related to that interest, so neither a statute nor a board’s treatment of a physician violated the equal protection clause[iii].” However, such revocation shall be done only after affording sufficient notice and hearing and courts have held that a substantially ex parte proceeding of revocation violates due process.
A statute empowering the state licensing board to revoke licenses shall not be vague and ambiguous. Courts have held that certain acts or conduct that are described in broad general terms are not prima facie objectionable if the general words are accompanied by more specific ones that may be properly construed to limit and make certain the general ones. The legislative purpose of the statute is protecting the public against the unauthorized practice of medicine and courts have held that the Board must be accorded authority to define the grounds for medical discipline on a case-by-case basis[iv].
The Board’s power to revoke licenses includes the power to suspend an erring medical practitioner from practice. Upon a finding of unprofessional conduct warranting revocation, the Board has discretion suspend the practitioner from practice for the period permitted by the statute. The board can also impose conditions during the suspension period and may require a showing of professional competence before reinstating a license[v].
Professional incompetence, bad character, immorality, professional misconduct, dishonorable conduct, conviction of criminal offense, and gross negligence form valid grounds for revocation of license. The valid grounds for revocation of license may often be enlisted in the statute. Acting in excess of one’s professional authority, like for instance, engaging in the general practice of medicine or surgery, or professing to do so, in excess of a license limited to the practice of special branch of medicine warrants the revocation of the limited license.
The board has power to initiate disciplinary action against a physician even in the absence of any complaints from the patients. The board may take action even in the case of a single act of violation and in the absence of proof of injury.
Courts have held that the revocation of a license is proper if the physician has been found guilty of drug abuse or was suffering from mental disability.
The procedure for revocation may be established by statute and state legislatures generally delegate to an administrative tribunal the power of revocation or suspension, together with the power to hear and determine charges. “A trial and conviction in a court of competent jurisdiction is not a condition precedent to a proceeding by the state board of health against a physician to revoke his license for any of the causes provided by statute[viii].”
Generally, statutes of limitation are not applicable to disciplinary proceedings and courts have held that due process does not require the application of a statute of limitations to such proceedings. However, due process requires the application of the doctrine of laches, albeit narrowly to license revocation proceedings[ix]. Courts have held that this has to be done without jeopardizing the public interest.
Moreover, the evidence must unequivocally indicate that the conduct of the licensee did not conform to the conduct of a member of the same profession exercising reasonable care and skill, supplemented by testimony to the effect that other professionals would have utilized a different procedure is insufficient to establish negligence or incompetence[xi].
The burden of proof is on the applicant seeking restoration of a medical license. The applicant must adduce sufficient evidence so ineluctable in its implications that it would compel restoration of license by the Board. There is conflict of opinion regarding the burden of proof. One view is that issues of fact in a revocation or suspension proceeding do not have to be shown beyond a reasonable doubt, but only by a preponderance of the evidence. On the other hand, some courts have held that the board is required to use clear and convincing evidence due to the plenary nature of the proceedings[xii].
Courts will review the conclusions of law de novo. While reviewing the sanctions imposed by the licensing board, the court defers to the board’s expertise and will not generally substitute its discretion for that of the board. The physician can seek mandamus as an available and appropriate remedy for wrongful revocation if no other method of review has been provided by the statute. However, mandamus is not the proper remedy if the statute provides another adequate remedy, such as appeal.
[i] Younge v. State Bd. of Registration for Healing Arts, 451 S.W.2d 346 (Mo. 1969).
[ii] Faulkenstein v. District of Columbia Bd. of Medicine, 727 A.2d 302 (D.C. 1999).
[iii] Artman v. State Bd. of Registration for Healing Arts, 918 S.W.2d 247 (Mo. 1996).
[iv] State Bd. of Medical Examiners v. McCroskey, 880 P.2d 1188 (Colo. 1994).
[v] Board of Dental Examiners v. Hufford, 461 N.W.2d 194 (Iowa 1990).
[vi] Ricks v. Mississippi State Dept. of Health, 719 So. 2d 173 (Miss. 1998).
[vii] Paulson v. Board of Medical Examiners of State of Iowa, 592 N.W.2d 677 (Iowa 1999).
[viii] Bandeen v. Howard, 299 S.W.2d 249 (Ky. 1956)
[ix] Sinha v. Ambach, 91 A.D.2d 703, 457 N.Y.S.2d 603 (3d Dep’t 1982).
[x] Artman v. State Bd. of Registration for Healing Arts, 918 S.W.2d 247 (Mo. 1996).
[xi] Sizemore v. Texas State Bd. of Dental Examiners, 747 S.W.2d 389 (Tex. App. Dallas 1987).
[xii] Painter v. Abels, 998 P.2d 931 (Wyo. 2000).