Pertinent Background Information For Dr. B. Solomon versus Maryland State Licensing Board (concluded 2001)
I graduated from Oakland High School in 1949, and graduated from the University of California in 1953, where I subsequently obtained a Masters Degree in Biochemistry in 1954. I worked at the University of California Department of Pharmacology as a Research Assistant and published a paper regarding my research project done there. From there I entered Medical School in 1956 and Graduated from Medical School in 1960.
My graduation from George Washington School of Medicine was in June of 1960. I interned at DC General hospital July 1960 to July 1961. My first year of medical residency was July of 1961 to July of 1962 also at DC General Hospital. My second year of medical residency was July of 1962 to July of 1963 was done in Baltimore City Hospital in (Baltimore) Maryland. I repeated the second year of residency at Baltimore City Hospital from July of 1963 to July of 1964. I did a year of fellowship of Pathology July of 1964 to July of 1965 also at Baltimore City Hospital. I had been moonlighting at a job in the evening at Perry Hall Medical Center during my fellowship and decided to stay full time at this place of employment.
During my residency at Baltimore City Hospital I developed a migraine headache problem with vomiting episodes that I had solved by a change in diet. At the same time I had applied what I learned with my migraine problem to a cancer patient that I was caring for, who was continually vomiting. With the change in diet she also stopped vomiting, and helped with her cancer. I became convinced of the importance of food allergy in the symptoms of patients that I would see every day as a specialist in Internal Medicine. I associated myself with a national group of Doctors known at that time as " the Society of Clinical Ecology" who later became known as the American Academy of Environmental Medicine. They felt that food allergy, as well as airborne allergy and chemical allergy was important. I adopted a technique that I learned about from this association whereby with a simple blood test I could identify foods to which a person was sensitive. The name of the test was cytotoxic testing. I underwent training for this testing, and sent several other individuals for training in this technique, who then tested various patients in my office who came to me with symptoms that I felt were related to food allergy. Thereby I adopted the technique in my office practice. I used this technique successfully on patients with Irritable Bowel Syndrome, Migraine headaches, Sinus headaches, Fatigue, Arthritis, and Asthma and Allergic rhinnities.
In 1979 I was charged with incompetence, by the Maryland Licensing Board for using unproven, techniques and unproven methods in treating patients with Fatigue, Irritable bowel, Migraine headaches, sinus headaches arthritis using cytotoxic testing and diet elimination based upon the cytotoxic testing for the aforementioned conditions. My hearings lasted over year. I produced literature documentation, 90 references, regarding food allergy and the conditions for which I was using the testing. I described the method of cytotoxic testing and presented the references that I put in a book that I gave the commissioner's as back up evidence that food allergy was important for the symptoms that I was encountering in my practice. As a result of the hearings I was allowed to continue the cytotoxic testing but I was given a suspension with a stay regarding my license. I was on a two year probation for record keeping. As a result of the suspension with a stay, I lost all of my hospital privileges in the two hospitals that I was admitting patients to, but was allowed to continue my office practice using cytotoxic testing and food elimination diets based upon the cytotoxic testing. During those two years probation for record keeping, I started to type my records instead of hand writing them and I learned the most up to date method of record keeping devised by Dr. Weeks. -- the SOAP method which I continue to use today is still used by other physicians as well. This case was concluded in 1982
Over time I reviewed in my mind my case and the outcome of my case. I was happy to be able to continue the cytotoxic testing and with resultant food elimination in many of the patients that I was seeing, but was unhappy about losing my hospital privileges. I felt that if they approved of the techniques I was using, enough to let me continue them that they should not have given a black mark resulting in the loss of my hospital privileges. The results of the hearing was hardly fair. After thinking it all over I came to the conclusion that the outcome of my case was largely political. During the hearings, I was told that there were many complaints as to what I was doing. Since that law is that I had to be informed about patient complaint, they had to be doctor complaints that were given to the Board. These complaints were not from patients, or they would have informed me. These were doctor complaints, they would not and did not inform me. I imagine a patient who had a stomach pain for years come to me, and I identified that wheat or other foods bothered his stomach. He goes back to the doctor who has been giving him antispasmodic medications for years, and asks the doctor "Why didn't you tell me that wheat was giving me stomach pains instead and giving me medications for the pain?" The doctor then tells his doctor friends to go after the doctor who advised his patient to avoid wheat. I was told there were many complaints. Did the Board gave me a suspension with a stay, a black mark to placate the doctors who complained about me, yet still allowed me to continue what I was doing? Since there was nothing really wrong, and that I was obviously helping my patients with what I was doing, I realized at that time that the direction that the Board takes in many cases must be politically motivated.
The monetary cost to me during this case in 1979 to 1982 was $120, 000 in legal fees and considerable stress and anxiety because I did not know whether or not they were going to take my license permanently. I persisted because I felt very strongly that what I was doing was helping patients who were not helped by traditional medical care. At that time I was motivated to get my medical license in DC, and this helped me later on down the road.
I felt that it was important to prove the point that attention to food allergy was important in the welfare of patients with certain conditions. After the case was finished I felt that I had to do a study to prove what I was saying that food allergy was very important. After the cytotoxic testing I adopted a second technique to determine food allergies, called the ALCAT testing. The inventor of the ALCAT testing Dr. Mark Pasula learned cytotoxic testing from my office, although he says that he learned it from another practitioners office. He want back to Florida where he was based and developed a testing method where blood of the patient was incubated with different foods for 90 minutes. A laser beam was used to count cells before and after the 90 minute of incubation. the degree of decrease in cell number as a result of incubation with the food in questions was used as a marker for allergic reaction and was noted as mild, moderate and marked. The reaction tracked the interaction of the food with the antibody to the food that was in the patients blood at the time of testing. The greater the number of antibodies to a food (the greater the allergic reaction) the greater the reduction of the white blood cell measured by the laser beam. I tested 100 patients that had symptoms of Migraine headaches, Sinus headaches, Gastroesophageal reflux, Irritable Bowel Syndrome, Fatigue, Degenerative arthritis, Inflammatory Arthritis. After ALCAT testing for 100 foods and food elimination based upon the ALCAT testing the patients rated the improvement in their symptoms. There was a significant amount of improvements in the patients that were tested, and results were published in the Journal of the American Academy of Environmental Medicine in 1992. Improvements in Migraine Headaches was 90 % in 9 cases and there was a further improvements with treatment with allergy serums for dust, pollen and molds. Treatments of gastroesophageal reflux was 75 % improved with food elimination based upon the results of the 100 food ALCAT testing. Results of Irritable Bowel Syndrome was 70 % improved with elimination diet based upon the results of the 100 food ALCAT testing. There was a 40 % improvement in degenerative arthritis and a 60 % improvement in inflammatory arthritis with food elimination based upon the results of the 100 food ALCAT testing. There was a 60 % improvement in fatigue in patients with Tension Fatigue Syndrome with elimination diet based upon the 100 ALCAT. There was an improvement of 30% in Asthma with elimination diet based upon the results of the ALCAT.
When the second case came in 1999 with me and the licensing board. They said that all they wanted to do was to see if I had informed consents signed for the alternative techniques that I was using (which at that time was) in addition to food testing, the use of the Computron, an EAV instrument. I felt that the real reason that they wanted to see my records was to see my application of the computron and as a result limit my use of this instrument. This instrument was invented by Dr. Heinrich Voll In Germany, EAV stands for ElectroAcupuncture According to Voll. Meridians had been designated by the Chinese over the last 5000 years as energy pathways. Dr. Voll felt that the meridian pathways were Electron pathways. He applied the use of an Ammeter to measure electron flow after a meridian point was stimulated by one Volt of electrical pressure. He would measure electron flow in the meridians of his patients, and if there was a disturbance of electrical flow over a meridian he would put various treatments, or remedies in circuit with the meridian and find the remedy that would help the current. He found this remedy would then help the patient. Various other Americans studied with doctor Voll applying the use of the their computer programs to his technology. The Computer Program that I used with the Computron that I used was devised the Doug Leber a Naturopath and John Shell. Doug Lebers program was the most complete of all of the others that I revued, containing every remedy and every disease that I have ever seen in a very organized manner, and for this reason I felt that his program was the most complete. I purchased a Computron in 1995. I used it very secretively at first, and continued to take seminars with Doug Leber until I was thoroughly familiar with the computer program of the Computron.
From the doctors in the American Academy of Acupuncture and Bioenergetic Medicine I obtained an IRB (Investigational Revue Board )Status with the FDA, through the American Academy of Acupuncture and Bioenergetic Medicine to use the computron for my cases of food allergy and later for my cases of environmental allergy. I obtained this status in later part of the 1990's. I was told that they would come to defend me if I should have any problem with my licensing board in Maryland.
Although the Board's stated reason in 1999 was to revue the charts for consent forms for the use of the EAV technology in my practice, I felt that what they really wanted to do was to check into the applications of the EAV testing that I was doing and to limit my use of this technique to food allergy testing for which I had an IRB status with the FDA through the American Academy of Acupuncture and Bioenergetic Medicine. They might then not allow me to use it for determination of jaw cavitations, heavy metals, bacteria, viruses etc, which it is very capable of doing. I felt that the EAV technology was too good to allow the Maryland Board to limits its use again for political reasons.
At the time that this was happening to me there were other doctors in other states than the state of Maryland that were being investigated for doing more updated allergy testing, such as testing at one to five increments instead of testing at one to ten increment that were used by the classical allergists. The licensing boards were directed by the classical allergist to investigate and take licenses from doctors that were using updated allergy testing techniques, using one to five testing increments.. This was stopped by a proposed antitrust suite. In spite of this doctors were still being investigated and harassed by licensing boards for using EDTA chelating for atherosclerosis, losing their licenses, and being investigated for doing other alternative techniques that were getting good results helping patients. I saw (from other cases of my colleagues in the American Academy of Environmental medicine) where the licensing boards were going after these doctors for techniques that were newer and better than the methods used by the classical allergist whose techniques were older and not as good as the newer, advanced ones used by my colleagues in my Academy.