Copy of Statement Submitted to National Vaccine Advisory Committee

Natural Solutions Foundation
www.HealthFreedomUSA.org
“Health Freedom is Our First Freedom!”

March 14, 2009

National Vaccine Advisory Committee (NVAC)
Washington, D.C.
Via Internet: nvpo@hhs.gov

VACCINATION CLAIMS RESEARCH STATEMENT

Introduction

1.0. Overview:

The Natural Solutions Foundation, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as “the Foundation”) and all those who hereafter join in, bring to the attention of the Committee the need for scientific research regarding the often repeated, but unsubstantiated claims made in the Advertising and Promotion of Vaccinations to the professional community and lay public. Both health professionals and the Public are lead to believe that Vaccines are both “safe and effective” through many millions of dollars in annual advertising expenditures and publications, without adequate substantiating immunological, sociological or epidemiological research. Under current inadequate standards, pharmaceutical companies do not have to prove that any particular vaccination actually produces immunity to a particular disease organism, rather, all that is currently required is to demonstrate that there is some anti-body production after vaccination, justifying the use of the vaccine. The link between the production of these antibodies and their effectiveness in disease prevention, and the demonstration that the vaccine is safe on either a long or short term basis, alone or in combination with other vaccines or factors, is not required. This is clearly inadequate to demonstrate that any vaccine is “safe and effective” to protect against disease.

The Foundation is a nongovernmental organization (NGO) incorporated in the State of Nevada and recognized as exempt under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. The mission of the Foundation includes educating decision-makers with regard to natural solutions to health care needs and challenges. The Foundation has about 200,000 citizens on its opt-in Health Freedom eAlert System.

1.1. This Statement is submitted in response to the Committee “seeking public input into the scientific research agenda being developed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Immunization Safety Office (ISO)…” see: Draft Agenda Recommendations, April 11, 2008, http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/00_pdf/draft_agenda_recommendations_080404.pdf

We make this Statement with regard to providing the Public truthful and not misleading information about both Mandated and Voluntary Vaccinations through Vaccination Advertising, Vaccination Information and Vaccination Labeling provided to physicians, patients, parents, and guardians.

1.2. We resolve and state that there is neither significant scientific agreement nor sufficient reliable and competent scientific evidence from reliable, independent and unbiased sources to allow the conclusion that individual and/or multiple vaccinations, particularly of young children, provide any measurable public health care benefit. This is true whether the vaccinations are mandated or voluntary.

Further, there is a large body of evidence which shows that repeated single and multiple vaccinations, especially in young children, can cause or precipitate, and has in fact caused and/or precipitated, devastating and irreparable harm to hundreds of thousands of the most vulnerable citizens: our children. Vaccination is an un-insurable medical risk which has never been demonstrated with convincing scientific rigor to be either safe or effective. For that reason, vaccination must never be mandated or offered on a voluntary basis without provisions for the broadest medical, philosophical, and religious exemptions. In addition, vaccination must only be offered under any circumstances upon fully informed voluntary consent.

1.3. Billions of dollars of special vaccine-dose assessment and tax funds have already been paid to families of vaccine-injured children under the auspices of the Federal Government’s National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP} which was created by the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-660) in part to “establish and maintain an accessible and efficient forum for individuals found to be injured by certain vaccines.” In fact, vaccine injuries are so common that the VICP was established to deal with the devastating consequences of vaccination, of which parents and patients were not and are not informed. See: http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/ The VICP is a “no-fault” alternative to the traditional tort system for resolving vaccine injury claims that provides compensation to people found to be injured by certain vaccines. The U. S. Court of Federal Claims decides who will be paid.

1.4. The current vaccination injury compensation structure is at: http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/table.htm

1.5. Serious negative vaccine consequences are so common that the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) catalogs tens of thousands of vaccine- related injuries and deaths. See: http://www.whale.to/vaccines/vaers.html; New England Journal of Medicine, 2007; 357: 1275-9. It is of major significance to note that the CDC, FDA and other agencies estimate that only 1 to 10% of vaccine adverse events actually occurring are reported, so the actual magnitude of the problem is unknown and , according to the US Government’s own estimates, is highly likely to be substantially greater than current documentation of reported events suggests. (e.g., a National Vaccine Information Center survey of NY pediatricians found that only 2.5% report adverse events).

1.6. If the frightening facts reported in VAERS are considered, no reasonable regulator can permit the current system to continue. It must be halted immediately in order to stop the irreparable harm we demonstrate here and which full properly designed and implemented scientific research would amply confirm.

1.7. Further examples of both potential and actual harm to the Public abound and are very evident with many current Vaccination advertising practices.

1.8. For one example, a report cited on the Internet indicated, “Only after filing a lawsuit against the FDA was Judicial Watch able to uncover New FDA Records Detailing an additional 8 deaths among an additional1,824 Adverse Reaction Reports Related to Gardasil, Merck’s Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Vaccine between May 10, 2007 and Sept. 7, 2007. The death reports include 12 and 13 year old girls.” This brings the known total for this one vaccination to 3,461 adverse reactions, including 11 deaths, since the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of the vaccine; see: http://ahrp.blogspot,com/2007/10/8-more-deaths-liked-to-gardasil-hpv.html

1.9. Current Vaccination Advertising and Labeling do not adequately warn the Public of the significant, but un-insurable, medical risks inherent in vaccinations, the complete lack of proven clinical efficacy in disease prevention inherent in the procedure which makes it, at best, experimental, nor do they disclose to the public their exemption rights. Full discussion of the risks and possible unproven benefits and informed consent waivers are not provided by physicians concerning the pros and cons of vaccination. Instead, like the students at the University of Maine campus, in December of 2007, who were vaccinated under duress, on pain of being locked out of their dormitories, eating halls, classrooms, libraries and all other University facilities unless vaccinated – or revaccinated – , patients, parents and guardians are not fully informed. No discussion of dangers, potential adverse events and other considerations pertaining to personal choice in the face of an un-insurable risk took place in Maine, nor was any discussion about personal exemptions, as established by law, permitted. The same is true in physicians offices, hospital emergency rooms and other vaccination sites across the United States.

1.10. The same was also true on November 17, 2007, when 2,300 children were vaccinated, literally at gunpoint, with the presence of police dogs, in the Prince George’s County Courthouse, Prince George’s County, Maryland, under the watchful eye of a Maryland Judge. The parents, mostly minority, poor and many unable to read, were threatened with jail and fines if they refused vaccination in a state which provides for exemptions were never discussed with the parents. It is important to note that the Maryland States’ Attorney, Mr. Genn Ivey, told our Foundation representative privately, and repeated during an international radio broadcast, that he had learned these vaccines were so dangerous that he availed himself of the exemption and did not allow his own children to receive the vaccines.

1.11. Thus the impact of misleading advertising, backed by coercion, was used to force 2,300 schoolchildren to be vaccinated; many against their parents’ will, in the absence of either due process or full disclosure. Many children were re-vaccinated with all vaccines because, as the Prince George’s County School District admitted, it had lost the children’s immunization records. These children were put at an increased risk by this process because the neurological and other related damage following vaccination is directly proportional to the total body burden of toxins introduced by vaccination. This fact is not disclosed to parents and was not disclosed to the parents of the Prince George’s County children. Instead, advertising, including unproven and scientifically flawed, weak professional documentation is used to portray vaccination as safe and effective in preventing diseases, creating an untruthful and misleading perception. All such advertising should stop until adequate warnings and disclosures can be approved and implemented and compelling scientific validation for these claims can be provided.

1.12. And by way of final example, the public media reported in late February and March, 2009 on the alleged “accidental” contamination of season flu vaccines delivered to 18 countries with live, infective human Avian Flu Virus. Had this contamination not been discovered in time, a world-wide Avian Flu Pandemic could have been triggered by mass vaccination. There is less than no proof that Avian Flu Vaccine is either safe or effective since the pandemic version of the disease does not yet exist. Although FDA approval to some versions of Avian Flu Vaccine has already been given in the absence of human testing, there is absolutely no evidence that any of these vaccines will protect against, either safely or otherwise, the development or severity of Avian Flu in human. Any claims for, or advertising of, these products must be halted until acceptable scientific proof can be provided. See: https://staging.drrimatruthreports.com/?p=2191

II. Actions Requested

2.0. We urge the Committee to take the following actions (hereinafter, the Statement Action Requests):

2.1. Issuance of an immediate Recommendation to suspend advertising of vaccinations by the manufacturer, public health agency or any other entity or person whether protected from liability under such Federal Laws as Title 42, Chapter 6A, Subchapter XIX, Part 2, Subpart A, Section 300aa-16, Limitations of Actions, or not until all reasonable scientific research shows that any particular vaccine is safe and effective.

2.2. Issuance of an immediate Recommendation to halt Interstate Commerce regarding vaccines and vaccine related goods, until all reasonable scientific research shows that each particular vaccine is safe and effective. At that time, Interstate Commerce of that vaccine may resume.

2.3. Issuance of a Recommendation that any practitioner or entity administering vaccines should be required to notify patients, parents or guardians in their own language that vaccines are currently the subject of scrutiny because of their lack of proven protection in communicable disease and their dangers to persons receiving them. Patients, parents or guardians wishing to proceed with vaccination should have a waiver form explaining the dangers, uncertainties, un-insurability, presented to them and State and or Federal exemption opportunities provided to them. Signing such an explicit waiver is the minimum required for truly informed consent under the terms of the Declaration of Helsinki, 1964, http://www.wma.net/e/policy/b3.htm – which constitutes part of the Law of Nations under the United States Constitution.

2.4. Issuance of a Recommendation that all appropriate Federal Agency rules ensure the public that the un-insurable medical risk of vaccination injury will not be mandated over the medical, philosophical and religious exemption rights of Citizens. States which threaten to withhold services such as schooling from unvaccinated children, forbid admission of unvaccinated students to universities and colleges or access to facilities and services after tuition or its equivalent has been paid, and similar coercive activities based on inaccurate and misleading advertising of vaccine efficacy and safety should be denied all Federal scientific research or other funds.

2.5. The Foundation expresses carefully considered doubt that the involved Federal Agencies have exercised prudent judgment in the face of abundant scientific, empirical and other information, supported by adverse event reporting, in permitting the production, shipment, sale and injection of vaccines. Scrutiny should focus on all ingredients in vaccines: active, inert, intended, adventitious, unintended, trace and adjunctive; since all ingredients, alone or in combination with each other or constitutional, environmental, pharmaceutical or other factors, may cause responses in the body leading to harm. Squalene, for example, is an adjuvant used to enhance immune response which may be safe when ingested or used as a topical agent, but is the cause of serious auto-immune disorders when injected. Many new generation vaccines contain Squalene as an adjuvant.

2.6. The Foundation urges that the Committee Recommend that all future Vaccination Advertising and Labeling contain, at a minimum, the following Warning and Disclosure –

“WARNING: The safety and efficacy of vaccination has not been demonstrated by reliable, independent, unbiased, and competent scientific or clinical evidence. DISCLOSURE: You or your children may have a right under law to a medical, philosophical or religious exemption from this vaccination.”

2.7. Vaccination remains an experimental modality. Under the Declaration of Helsinki, it is imperative to assure that all recipients or their parents or guardians are fully informed about the dangers they may face if they allow themselves or their charges to be vaccinated. A waiver must be required from patients, parents or guardians indicating that pros and cons of vaccination were fully discussed with, and understood by, them and that all exemption rights were also fully discussed and understood. The waiver must state clearly that the recipient, parent or guardian fully understands that manufacturers of vaccines have no liability for any damage which they may cause, including death and that the risks in vaccination are un-insurable.

2.8. At a minimum, to meet international standards regarding medical experimentation, such as the Declaration of Helsinki, a physician, upon appropriate consultation, must be permitted provide a valid medical excuse from current and future vaccinations recommended by any Federal Agency for any child who has suffered a reaction of any type to any previous vaccination. The child’s medical history, as reported by the parent, shall be taken to provide conclusive evidence of such reaction. No child shall be subjected to any vaccination unless the physician administering the vaccination shall have certified in writing that it is both safe and necessary that the particular child is vaccinated against that particular disease or diseases and why such vaccination is necessary. Physicians who find no justification for vaccination shall not be liable to censure, discipline and/or harassment by their state medical boards of jurisdiction or other professional organizations including, but not limited to, the American Medical Association (AMA), American Association of Pediatric Physicians (AAPP), and State Medical Associations.

2.9. As an executive agency advisory committee, the NVAC must “Take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed” (Article II, Section3, United States Constitution)

2.10. Further, the Committee should consider medical ethics as set forth in the AMA Code of Ethics, The Hippocratic Oath, the Oath of Maimonides, the UN Declaration of Human Rights and the Declaration of Helsinki. The Foundation urges the Commission to consider the overriding importance of the injunction to “…first do no harm…”

III. Statement in Support of Statement Requested Actions

3.0. When the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) recently recommended that infants and toddlers be subjected to the flu vaccine, the States began the process of mandating the vaccination before the child could be admitted to pre or public school. New Jersey became the first state to mandate the flu vaccination for children, publishing the final rule on January 7, 2008, effective January 2009. Such mandates condition the acceptance of a public benefit (“free public education”) or a private one (attendance at preschool) upon submission to a questionable, experimental and potentially dangerous medical procedure.

3.1. This is particularly troubling since those doses of flu vaccine supposedly manufactured without mercury continues to contain “trace” amounts of mercury since even the allegedly “mercury free” versions use mercury in the manufacturing process, adding a “trace” amount to the administered dose. There have been no safety studies done on Thimerasol (manufactured by Eli Lilly) since the 1929 study done by K.C. Smithburn on patients dying from meningitis. All patients to whom Thimerosal was administered died but Smithburn concluded that Thimerosal was safe since the patients would have died from other causes anyway. AllMSDS for Thimerosal states, “Exposure to mercury in utero and in children can cause mild to severe motor coordination impairment.” Eli Lilly MSDS June 13, 1991. None the less, this toxic component is being offered to patients, including pregnant women and children, increasingly as a mandated vaccination. Other components of vaccines are also highly troubling for similar reasons: the science establishing their safety is either non-existent, absurd or deeply flawed.

3.2. The Foundation, asking how much mercury is enough to cause harm, submits the following: “Most worryingly, exposure levels were not particularly high, Hair concentrations in the [Japanese] villagers averaged 4 micrograms of mercury per gram of hair. This is just a tenth of the level considered dangerous for adults by the World Health Organization, and not much higher than that found in many countries. In the US and Japan, for instance, the average mercury concentration in hair is around 1 and 2 micrograms per gram respectively.” This tends to show that the CDC’s claimed “trace” levels of mercury remaining in vaccines may very well be dangerous. See: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2003-06/ns-esmo61103.php

3.3. According to the New York Times on April 5, 2003, “The Food and Drug Administration has begun using the Environmental Protection Agency’s much lower safe level for mercury in the human body, an official of the food and drug agency said this week, ‘Before the change, the F.D.A. guidelines set a safe level that was four times as high as that of ..environmental agency.. standard.’” See: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9507EFDD1538F936A35757\C0A9659C8B63

3.4. Therefore, a question for scientific research becomes: “Is there a ‘trace’ amount of Mercury or other toxins in the recently recommended flu vaccination?” How much of a “trace” is needed in any vaccination to cause harm.

3.5. According to Centers for Disease Control (CDC), “Thimerosal still may be used in the early stages of making certain vaccines. However, it is removed through a purification process.” leaving a “trace” amount of “less than 0.3 mcg” in the final dose. See: http://www.ageofautism.com/2007/12/emails-from-cdc.html Additional research is necessary regarding the direct and cumulative effects of such trace dosages.

3.6. The existence of any trace amount of mercury is very troubling, especially as the “trace” amounts add up and accumulate over repeated vaccinations. Recent analysis shows that contrary to earlier reports, there is a measurable relationship between autism and mercury toxicity. See: http://mcs-america.org/January2008pg17.htm – citation: J Child Neurol. 2007 Nov; 22(11); 1308-1311. In this context we note the mushrooming autism rate appears to be in direct correlation with introduction of new vaccines (e.g., MMR), and we further note the conspicuous absence of autism in religious and other populations that do not vaccinate. This contradicts various authorities’ assertions that vaccines do not cause autism. On November 9, 2007 the Federal government’s lawyers conceded a Court of Federal Claims case involving autism caused by vaccines; there are 4900 other pending autism-vaccine injury cases before the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. See: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kirby/government-concedes-vacci_b_88323.html Other more recent cases seem to hold otherwise and the parents of injured children still believe they are not being treated fairly.

3.7. The Natural Solutions Foundation, however, does not limit its concern to mercury adulterated vaccinations. Even if vaccines become truly mercury free, they would still (a) lack proven effectiveness and (b) continue to contain other ingredients, such as Squalene, which assault healthy immune systems. The Foundation continues to object strongly to any mandated or voluntary vaccination which may cause harm to individuals either through its component or synergistic parts or through the impact of single or multiple vaccines on the immune system. These impacts are anything but trivial: although they can be immeasurable, extremely worrisome, troubling, debilitating and/or lethal. Despite deceptive advertising to the contrary, there are safe and effective alternatives to dangerous vaccinations that can, in a modern society with proper hygiene, prevent the spread of infectious disease. The Foundation reminds the NVAC that many diseases for which vaccinations are administered are self limiting and pose little or no human health threat. If not confronted successfully by the immune system, these diseases can be well treated using modern medical methods.

3.8. It is a serious affront to basic, inalienable human rights to force or mislead individuals, especially parents and guardians of minor children, to accept invasive medical treatments without fully informed, voluntary consent. See the discussion below regarding the World Medical Association’s Declaration of Helsinki in this regard; see: http://www.wma.net/e/policy/b3.htm

IV. Legal Authorities in Support of the Statement

4.0. This Statement is grounded in fundamental principles of inalienable right, law and equity.

4.1. The primary legal basis for submitting this Statement to the Commission is the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States: “Congress shall make no law… abridging… the right of the people… to statement the Government for a redress of grievances.”

4.2. We also cite the World Medical Association 1964 Declaration of Helsinki; see: http://www.wma.net/e/policy/b3.htm This Declaration has the force of International Law and it clearly forbids experimental medication or medication without fully informed consent.

4.3. The Acts establishing the authority of the Federal Agency under which the Committee deliberates are also a legal basis for the Statement. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) exists solely to protect the Public, within the limits established by the Constitution of the United States of America. Among the principles established by the Laws and Regulations, long the explicit policy of the Federal Government, is that all commercial advertising must be “truthful and not misleading.”

4.4. The statute in the derogation of the common law and Constitutional limitations, establishing exemptions from liability of Vaccine Injuries, 42 USC 300aa-16 (and the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, there under) is further cited as a law that must be strictly construed in favor of patients, guardians, parents and children, and strictly construed against the economic interests of the pharmaceutical industry and other exempt persons.

4.5. Basic common law principles prohibiting forced acquiescence under duress and limited or intentionally distorted information, as exemplified by the United States Supreme Court decision in the case of Thompson v Western States Medical Centers – 535 U.S. 357 (2002), as further described below.

4.6. Additionally, the Statutes authorizing the Federal Agency contain general provisions that support the actions requested in this statement. Federal Law includes provisions that grant the responsible persons in the Federal Agency broad authority to promulgate rules and regulations “necessary to carry out the Act[s].”

4.7. The United States Supreme Court has spoken forcefully, enforcing the consumers’ right OR consumers’ rights to truthful information about healthcare issues. See: Thompson v Western States Medical Centers, 535 U.S. 357, where Justice O’Connor wrote, “If the First Amendment means anything, it means that regulating speech must be a last-not first-resort. . . We have previously rejected the notion that the Government has an interest in preventing the dissemination of truthful commercial information in order to prevent members of the public from making bad decisions with the information. . . Even if the Government did argue that it had an interest in preventing misleading advertisements, this interest could be satisfied by the far less restrictive alternative of requiring . . . a warning that . . . its risks were unknown.”

4.8. The basic rule, announced by the case, to determine constitutionality permitted government restrictions on Commercial Speech (speech that makes or is about an offer for a transaction, such as the sale of Dietary Supplements or vaccinations) is a two prong test: the first prong is to ask two questions: (1) is the speech in question about unlawful activity and (2) is the speech misleading. If “no” to both, the speech is entitled to protection unless the Government can carry its burden and prove (1) the governmental interest involved is “substantial”, (2) the regulation must “directly advance “the governmental interest and (3) the regulation of Commercial Speech cannot be “more extensive than is necessary to serve that interest” (quoting Central Hudson v Public Service, 447 US 557, at 566).

4.9. The Federal Government, through the Federal Trade Commission, has stated its general rule for the advertising of products that are alleged to have health benefits, to ensure that such advertising is “truthful and not misleading.”

4.10. In this context, it is useful to recall the 1996 comments of then FTC Commissioner Starek, at the National Infomercial Marketing Association (comments the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) maintains on its web site). He explained the issue to which the Supreme Court alluded in Thompson – preventing misleading advertisements: “As many of you know, the FTC is charged with protecting consumers from unfair or deceptive acts or practices. In advertising and marketing, the law requires that objective claims be truthful and substantiated. The FTC does not pursue subjective claims or puffery—claims like ‘this is the best hairspray in the world.’ But if there is an objective component to the claim—such as ‘more consumers prefer our hairspray to any other’ or ‘our hairspray lasts longer than the most popular brands’—then you need to be sure that the claim is not deceptive and that you have adequate substantiation before you make the claim. These requirements apply both to explicit or express claims and to implied claims. Also, a statement that is literally true can have a deceptive implication when considered in the context of the whole advertisement, even if that implication is not the only possible interpretation.

“The substantiation requirement exists because every time an advertiser makes an objective claim, the advertiser also implies that there is a reasonable basis for the claim. This reasonable basis is substantiation. What constitutes a reasonable basis for a particular claim can vary, depending upon the nature of the claim, the product, the consequences of a false claim, the benefits of a truthful claim, the cost of developing substantiation for the claim, and the amount of substantiation that experts in the field believe is reasonable. Health and safety claims generally require competent and reliable scientific evidence. And if a marketer makes a representation that a claim has a particular level of support—for example, ‘clinical studies prove…’– the law requires at least that level of substantiation.”

4.11. The required level of substantiation for alleged claims about medical products such as vaccines is “significant scientific agreement.” In the case of vaccines, there is no significant scientific agreement by unbiased sources regarding the vaccines and manufacturers’ claims for the safety and efficacy of the product which satisfies the rule against false advertising; especially where and when the public is misled by not being warned of either the dangers of the product or of any right of members of the public to refuse vaccination on religious, medical or philosophical grounds. We urge the Committee to consider that the advertising of vaccinations is clearly a case where “requiring… a warning that… its risks were unknown…” (Thompson v Western States, supra.) is the minimum required by Law to protect the public, and especially the most vulnerable among us, our children. No scientific research agenda which does not warn the Public of the unknown risks is a legally responsible agenda.

III. Conclusion

Due to the urgent and potentially cataclysmic results of unproven vaccinations on significant numbers of patients, extreme caution is necessary before these experimental treatments are advertised as either safe or effective. The scientific research agenda needs to address this critical issue. The emergent nature of the risk of unscientific pseudo-justifications for vaccination claims means that the lives of patients, including innocent children and adolescents is at stake and hangs in the balance, The Foundation urges the Committee to act immediately to Recommend appropriate Warning and Disclosure language, such as that suggested herein, be required, covering all vaccination-related communication to assure the Public that a proper scientific agenda has been adopted for vaccination research. Scientific research is needed regarding the cumulative effect of multiple vaccinations which continue to contain “trace” or larger amounts of mercury and other toxins. Populations which do not vaccinate, such as the Amish, need to be studied since it appears that such populations have not experienced horrific elevation of autism rates and other deleterious effects of vaccinations.

Vaccination remains an unproven, experimental medical procedure subject to the restrictions of the Declaration of Helsinki. Absent stringent, high quality research to document that vaccination is both safe and effective, any communication to the contrary is both false and misleading.

Natural Solutions Foundation
www.HealthFreedomUSA.org

Maj. Gen. Albert N. Stubblebine, III (U.S. Army, Ret.)
President & Trustee
Rima E. Laibow, MD
Medical Director & Trustee
Ralph Fucetola, JD.
Vice President, Trustee and Counsel