History of Confederation of State Licensing Boards(Case of Barbara Solomon MD, versus the LicensingBoard of the State of Maryland - Updated 7/24/07)by Dr. B.A. SolomonThe Confederation of States Licensing Board started as a result of the Wilkes decision of the Supreme Court of the United States of America in 1991 that prohibited the doctors of the American Medical Association (AMA) from persecuting Chiropractors. Previously, physicians were persecuting chiropractors, a newly founded specialty of practitioners. The group that organized persecution activities against chiropractors was the Anti-quackery Committee of the AMA. As a result of the Wilkes decision the anti-quackery committee of the AMA was disbanded and reformed (outside the AMA) into a new private special interest group, the Confederation of State licensing board. This group has no official government standing, but has representatives for state licensing boards for physicians in every state of the United States. ( Doctors licensing boards are not Federal. Doctor licenses are granted by each individual state by state licensing boards that are official). The Confederation of State Licensing Boards has redefined alternative medical care as "questionable health care practices" and recommends to the individual licensing boards that they cooperate with the Attorney General's office of the their State to prosecute the licensed physicians that do alternative medicine. After charges are made against such physicians they are not allowed any witnesses or testimonials before the respective State Administration Law Judge in favor the alternative medical care that was received by patients that were successfully treated.
The above was important in my case. In 1999 a patient complained that I have bruised her finger during a procedure called Electro-dermal screening that measures electrical currents found along acupuncture meridian of patients. The patient also complained that I did not have her sign a consent form to use an alternative technique on her. (How she knew this we do not know unless the Board told her). This EAV ( Eleclectro Acupuncture Technique) was originated by Dr. Heinrich Voll, a German physician that used a dermatron, an instrument like an ammeter, to measure currents produced after stimulation of the meridians using one volt on the meridians of the bodies of his patients. He would put remedies on the bodies of his patients, or in the circuitry of his instrument that would change the currents of the meridians. He used this technique to find remedies that would strengthen the meridians of his patients. This technique could distinguish between remedies that would help the patient versus the remedies that would hurt them. After taking 80 hours of training, I learned to use the Computron, an EAV device, to measure currents on the various meridians of the patient's body. If the currents revealed an impedance or resistance to the current of the patients meridians, then I could find the information of the remedies that would strengthen the current, correct the impedance, and therefore help the patient. The information gained using this instrument could tell me if the remedies needed to be directed to elimination of heavy metals, various bacteria, parasites, whether the disturbances were due to electromagnetic disturbances, or whether or not there were electrical disturbances causing the meridian disturbances. Once the information of the disturbances was obtained, then remedies could be more accurately designed to help the patient, rather than remedies that were logically deduced or guessed at.
In my case, once the complaint of the patient with the bruised finger was given to the Licensing Board, they went over the record and found that I had not had the patient sign a consent form to do the alternative procedure, the EAV testing. They wanted to investigate my practice to make sure that I had my patients sign consent forms when I did this procedure on other patients. They requested my office schedule for three months period. My attorney took this issue to district court on the basis that the records could only be obtained by the Board by informing the patients that their records were being taken, and if there were disciplinary charges against me. At that point in my case, there were no disciplinary actions taken by the Board against me, and the case was only at the investigation level. At that level the patients had to give their permission for the board to get their records. The patients whose records were requested, without exception, would not give their permission for me to send their records to the board for the investigation to occur. My attorney took my case to the District Court and the judge said that I had to give the records to the Board. My attorney then took my case to the Court of Special Appeals who said that the Board could only take the consent forms of these records, but not the whole record. However, in December 2000, they did not change the Board's ruling that I had to turn over the whole records since at that point the Board had not subpoenaed the whole records of the 19 patients.. I did not turn over the 19 records from the three months office schedule that the Board had subpoenaed. After a hearing in which I was not allowed to speak and where I was not allowed to have any witnesses testify, The Board revoked my License to practice medicine in the state of Maryland for failure to cooperate with their investigation. My license was revoked 4/05/01.
My 1999 case up to that point had cost me about $120,000 to defend myself, and caused me considerable mental anguish. I pursued not giving the patient's records to the Licensing Board because I feared censure of those methods that were helping patients get well. I considered it important to protect the methods that I was using since they were helping patients to get well, whereas these patient were not able to get well by traditional methods. Following that time period, I did a study with Dr. Michael Baylin DDS regarding 98 patients who were chronically ill. These patients were treated for allergy using the methods of Electrodermal screening for diagnosis, and for creation of allergy immunotherapy serums that were used for treatment, and for identification of cavitation lesions of the jaw, not identified by Panorex X rays used by traditional dentists. The patients were later treated by Dr. Baylin, who removed silver amalgam fillings that contained mercury (a poisonous heavy metal), treated the patients for heavy metal poisoning, and treated the jaw infections. The average improvement in these patients was 80 to 90 percent by their own evaluations. Their improvements were such that they were able to get back to their normal productive lives which they could not do before.
After my license was revoked 4/05/01, some of my patients and I went to testify at Annapolis regarding the issue of alternative medical care. I had an issue with the Maryland State Medical Licensing Board in 1979 for using unproven techniques, unproven treatments, and for using cytotoxic testing to identify allergic foods in patients with migraine headaches, irritable bowel. Following my testimony to the Licensing Board about the medical literature of food allergy, migraine headaches, and irritable bowel etc, I received a suspension with a stay in 1982. They did, however, allow me to continue the technique of cytotoxic testing for food allergy.. This technique had previously helped the patients that testified for me in 2001. At least 20 patients came down to testify (in 2001) before the Environment Affairs Committee of the House of Representatives, and to the parallel Economic and Environmental Affairs Committee of the Senate. They testified that after going to many doctors for a number of years, without being helped, they came to me to have this cytotoxic food testing done. The elimination diet based upon the testing helped them.
Two separate bills, one from each of these committees, were being introduced to the legislature to limit the power of the Medical Board regarding alternative health care practitioners. The two bills, one from the committee of the Senate and one from the committee of the House were quite similar, but both failed when they were brought to the floor of the Senate and House legislature due to strong lobbying of the Medical Society of the State of Maryland. My patients and I had testified at the committee level of the House and Senate about three times. The last time I testified was at a hearing of how the Licensing Board of the State of Maryland was complying with the Confederation of the State Licensing Boards regarding their duties regulating doctors. This hearing was for the benefit of the Federal government who investigates the Licensing Boards every ten years. ( The Sunset Revue). At that hearing, after hearing how the State Licensing Board was complying with the Confederation of State Licensing Board, I testified that I wanted to "Give them a little historical perspective" by giving them the history of the Confederation of State Licensing Board that I outlined in the beginning paragraph of this article. Since the Confederation of State Licensing Board was the same as the old Anti-quackery Committee of the AMA they would have the same attitude toward alternative medical care as the old anti-quackery committee. My case illustrated this point. I was not allowed any witnesses when I went before the Attorney Law Judge from the State of Maryland, before my license was revoked in 2001.. (outlined previously) in the first paragraph of this document. I was not allowed any witnesses before the Administrative Law Judge, Susan Fox, before my license was revoked.
In the meantime, shortly before my license was revoked 4/05/01, I went to work in Washington DC at N.I.H.A. (National Integrative Health Associates), since in addition to having a license in the state of Maryland I had license to practice in the Washington DC.. I worked there one day a week starting in November of 2000, and have been working there three days a week since April 5, 2002. At N.H.I.A. there were five dentists that use mercury free amalgam, treat cavitations lesions of the jaw with Sanum injections and or surgery. I was welcomed for using learned alternative techniques such as Environmental Medicine techniques for allergy, Electrodermal screening for allergy testing, for creating allergy serums, for testing for incompatible dental materials, and for jaw infections that usually are silent because they are hard to detect by Panorex X-ray. The dentists and I work in a cooperative effort to bring a better state of health to the patients that come to N.I.H.A than is possible by doing medical, dental or X rays separately.
The DC licensing board sent me notice 12/01 that since my license was revoked in Maryland I would have a hearing for possible disciplinary action in Washington DC. I had a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge in Washington DC in 2002. The licensing board in DC was recommending that my DC license to practice medicine be revoked since it was revoked in Maryland. My Maryland Attorney testified to the Administrative Law Judge at that hearing what the law in DC was, since there was no disciplinary action taken in my case by the Board regarding the lady who claimed that I had bruised her finger in Maryland. The law in DC required that the Board in DC had to get a Judge's order to get the records. The ruling of the DC Judge was that I had complied with the law in Maryland, and essentially had complied with the DC law by not giving the board in Maryland the patient's records. Therefore he recommended that the DC Board not take my license. I have not heard anything contrary to this ruling as of July 24, 2007.
Early in 2002, my attorney in Maryland asked me to find out, by the grape vine, if I could get my license back by turning over the subpoenaed records to the Board. The answer was yes, I could get my license back. I turned over my records to the Maryland Board in 6/17/02. I was sent an application to get my license back in Maryland, and this I filled out and mailed in 6/29/02. In the future, either I will get both licenses back free and clear, or I will lose both licenses, or something in between. The patients in the meantime had given their permission to the Maryland Licensing Board to revue the records. As to this date I have not heard from the licensing board regarding this reapplication, or as to the results of the revue of the patients records that they now have.
At the present time I have been working at N.I.H.A. three days a week. I'm very happy at this location since I have been relieved of organizing administrative help necessary for my work. This is done for the doctors at N.I.H.A. by the administrative staff who are very skilled professionals. All I do is my work as a doctor. My take home pay is better because I take home 40 percent in DC compared to the 15 percent I took home in Maryland. You could say that I'm thankful that my license was taken in Maryland, thus forcing me to go to DC where I am much better off.