Credential: 34.003539
License Type: Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine
Licensure Date: 7-14-1983
Expiration Date: 10-1-2010
Specialty: Osteopathic Manipulative Medicine

More information:

• State Medical Board of Ohio Court Documents

Excerpted from the draft minutes of the January 2010 meeting:

Minutes of the Regular Meeting
September 8, 2009

6. Review, Consideration and Action on Complaints and Investigations

   2. Review, Consideration, and Action – Initial Reviews

      Case No. 10-01 David Korn, DO, MD(H)

      Mrs. Springer presented her report on this complaint and stated there were three allegations made by the patient; failure to properly supervise other physicians that provided actual care to the complainant; false advertising; and treatment of the wrong condition.

      Dr. Grout noted that Dr. Korn had not been hired as the medical director at the onset of the complainant’s first visit to Envita and that there was little evidence to show he directly supervised physicians involved in the actual care and treatment of the patient. She noted his consultation with the treating physician in discussing results of a lab test related to Lyme Disease that had been ordered, but that the consultation showed his function at the center to have been a consultant resource rather than involvement in direct patient care.

      The Board reviewed the informed consents signed by the complainant and found that they indicate an alternative approach in the type of care to be provided. Mr. Kennedy noted it was the patient’s responsibility to request conventional treatment at the time the consents were signed.

      Finally, with regard to the allegation of false advertising the Board noted that no materials were provided from the time period that the complainant sought medical treatment at the Envita Medical Center and that it would not be possible to review this allegation without materials from that time period. Mrs. Springer noted that the website currently on-

      Finding no evidence to support any of the allegations, Dr. Adler moved to close the investigation and dismiss the complaint. Mr. Kennedy seconded the motion that passed unanimously.

      Roll Call to dismiss: 6 – 0
      Adler, Kennedy, Rupley, Rowe, Farris, Grout

   3. Review, Discuss – Tracking Log Notification of New Complaints Filed

      Case No. 10-02 David Korn, DO, MD(H)

      Mrs. Springer explained that a complaint had been received from a patient that had sought minor surgical care from Dr. Korn. She informed the Board that she had agreed with the Osteopathic Examiner’s Board request that they assume jurisdiction to investigate the complaint in accordance with A.R.S. §32-2907.

      Dr. Rowe commented that he agreed that the Osteopathic Board should conduct the investigation on the basis that the patient was provided antibiotic therapy and minor surgery was performed.

      Dr. Grout moved to table the matter and cede the investigation to the Board of Osteopathic Examiners in Medicine and Surgery. Dr. Rupley seconded the motion that passed unanimously.

More information:

• Arizona Homeopathic Board January meeting minutes
• Arizona Board of Osteopathic Examiners Meeting Schedule and Minutes
• Dr. Korn and Arizona Homeopathic Board Complaints #10-01 and 10-02

Excerpted from the minutes of the Sep. 8, 2009 meeting of the Arizona Homeopathic Board:

Minutes of the Regular Meeting
September 8, 2009

6. Review, Consideration and Action on Complaints and Investigations

   3. Review, Discuss – Tracking Log Notification of New Complaints Filed

      Case No. 10-01 David Korn, DO, MD(H)

      Mrs. Springer explained that a complaint had been received against several naturopathic medical doctors employed at Envita Natural Medical Center that had also named Dr. Korn, in his role as the medical director at the center. She stated that a response was pending from Dr. Korn and that the Board of Osteopathic Medical Examiners had agreed that the primary investigation would be conducted by the Homeopathic/Integrated Medicine Board.

      Mrs. Springer informed Board members that the Board of Naturopathic Medical Examiners had requested a copy of the medical records in the case. During discussion of this request, AAG Baskin referred the Board’s attention to A.R.S. §§ 32-2907 and 2935(D) and stated that the statute applied to dual licensees. She suggested the Board may want to conduct their investigation and make a final decision and then refer the matter to the other Board.

      Dr. Rowe stated it was his preference to open an investigation, assign a medical investigator with Lyme’s expertise and include the Board of Osteopathic Medical Examiner’s concerns relative to the clarity of informed consent and the provision of conventional therapies in addition to alternative therapy. Board members also requested that the investigation include information relative to Dr. Korn’s job responsibility in his capacity as the medical director at the center and whether he had direct supervision responsibility.

      Dr. Rupley made a motion to open an investigation. Dr. Grout seconded the motion that passed unanimously.

Excerpted from the minutes of the Nov. 10, 2009 meeting of the Arizona Homeopathic Board:

Minutes of the Regular Meeting
September 8, 2009

4. Review, Consideration and Action on Complaints and Investigations

   2. 10-01 N.M. vs. David Korn, DO, MD(H) – Status Update

      Mrs. Springer informed the Board that the complaint information had been transmitted to the medical consultant and would be available for their review at the January 10, 2010 regular meeting.

Source: Phoenix New Times

A Florida doctor lost his license after he was diagnosed as a sex addict — he claimed he could cure his female patients by fondling their breasts.

A California doctor lost his license after he was charged with hiding more than half a million dollars in profits, convicted of tax fraud, and sent to prison.

Another California doctor’s license was suspended twice. The first time, he was accused of missing cancer in two patients. The second time, of misprescribing drugs.

Yet another California doctor went to prison and was ordered to pay $15 million in fines after he was convicted of defrauding Medicare by performing unnecessary surgery on the eyes of elderly patients.

And a fourth California doctor had his license suspended, then moved to Arizona and lost a patient. The doctor injected the patient with either cow hormones or sheep DNA (the doctor’s given two versions of the story), which caused an infection. The patient died.

In the world of medicine, there are no second chances. A doctor makes a misstep, and a patient can die. That’s why the boards that license allopathic and osteopathic doctors — M.D.s and D.O.s, respectively — are so tough, and often criticized for not being tough enough. (See “The Doctor Is Out,” John Dickerson, March 6, the first in our “Prescription for Disaster” series.) Lose your M.D. license in one state in the U.S., and you may never practice medicine again. Certainly not in this state.

Unless you know about Arizona’s Homeopathic Board of Medical Examiners.

For a few hundred dollars, some extra training (sometimes provided by the board’s president himself, for a fee) and a test on the principles of homeopathy, an M.D. or D.O. who likely can’t secure another medical license can get a license to practice homeopathic medicine in the state of Arizona. You’ll be banned from some procedures, but for the most part, you can go back to practicing medicine — diagnosing patients, prescribing drugs, even performing minor surgeries.

All the doctors listed above — and more — are now homeopathic physicians, licensed to practice by the state of Arizona. (Except for that Utah doctor. He lost his homeopath’s license last month after a patient died during a procedure he was not authorized to perform.)/p>

And it’s all perfectly legal under Arizona law.

Homeopathy isn’t dangerous, per se. The alternative practice began in Germany in 1810. By modern medical and chemistry standards, it’s a harmless pursuit because it dilutes chemicals almost to the purity of drinking water before injecting them into the body.

Classic homeopathy uses no prescriptions and is based on a theory that “like cures like” in sick patients. For example, if you’re allergic to pollen in the air, a homeopathic physician might take that very pollen, dilute it, and inject you with it. The theory is that a small amount of the problem ingredient will cure you of your symptoms — sneezing, in the case of allergies. Modern chemists say homeopathic injections are so diluted that they have no effect, good or bad.

One popular homeopathic cure, oddly enough, is poison ivy oil. Because poison ivy causes a rash and can cause a fever, homeopathic physicians dilute the oil in alcohol, dilute it again, and use it to treat rashes and fevers. It may seem backward, but that’s homeopathy. Homeopathic doctors track which substances help which patients, and then try the same treatments — pollen, poison ivy or otherwise — to treat patients with similar symptoms.

But that hardly matters here, because Arizona’s homeopathic license is not always used to practice homeopathy. In fact, none of the doctors in this story were practicing it when they killed or harmed their patients. And, as the Arizona Auditor General found last year, the real problem is that the board is lax when it comes to poor medical treatment, regardless of whether it’s considered homeopathic.

Homeopathic doctors can get the D.E.A. authority to prescribe the same drugs an M.D. or D.O. can prescribe, and are allowed to perform “minor” surgeries (for example, a homeopath can perform a vasectomy and administer local anesthesia, but can’t perform a breast augmentation or give a patient an epidural) — which have nothing to do with homeopathic medicine. That attracts doctors who can’t get, or who are about to lose, their conventional licenses.

Only two other states, Connecticut and Nevada, issue homeopathic licenses. Those states have tighter guidelines for getting a license and give their homeopaths less prescribing and surgical power than Arizona does.

So Arizona’s license is a unique opportunity. In effect, the law amounts to a loophole for doctors who’ve gotten in trouble, or know they’ll soon get in trouble, to practice medicine with the initials M.D.h., as homeopathic physicians — even if they don’t practice homeopathy.

The requirements for getting an M.D. license in Arizona are strict. You cannot even apply for an M.D. license if you’ve ever lost an M.D. license in another state. (And that includes California, which can “revoke” an M.D. license, then reinstate it. If your California M.D. license has been revoked, you cannot get an Arizona M.D. license.) You also cannot apply if you have a felony conviction.

It’s a little easier to get a D.O. license. If you have lost your D.O. license elsewhere, or you’re a convicted felon, you are eligible to apply — but given recent history, it is unlikely Arizona’s D.O. board will let you through. An M.D. cannot apply for a D.O. license, or vice versa. The rules for M.D.s and D.O.s are similar in other states.

In order to apply for a homeopathic license in Arizona, you must be either an M.D. or a D.O. in good standing in Arizona or another state. If you have lost a license elsewhere in the past, that’s okay. If you are a convicted felon, you’re still free to apply. And most significant: Once you are a homeopath, if you lose the license that got you in the door in the first place, you’re fine. It doesn’t affect your homeopathic license.

(Homeopaths in Arizona aren’t even required by law to practice homeopathic medicine. That’s a far cry from Connecticut, where the homeopathic license is good for homeopathic treatment and little else.)/p>

Doctors who’ve committed felonies or have had their licenses revoked in other states need only to listen to a couple audio CDs about homeopathy before applying for a homeopathic license in Arizona. (One $880 correspondence course is actually taught by board president Dr. Todd Rowe.)/p>

A homeopathic license in Arizona costs $975, almost twice as much as a conventional M.D. license ($500). Since a conventional license allows doctors to practice classic homeopathy, there are only two reasons to pay more for the homeopathic license: because you’re banned from getting a conventional license or because you want to experiment with treatments the conventional board doesn’t allow.

The homeopathic board also fails to discipline the doctors it has already licensed. That’s one finding from — amazingly — the first audit of the homeopathic board done since 1985. The report was released in August 2007 by Arizona’s Auditor General.

“The Board appears to allow conduct that the other two Arizona physician regulatory boards have determined is unsafe or unprofessional,” the auditor general reports.

Auditors concluded there may no longer be a need for the board, which was created in 1981 at the behest of alternative doctors, because many alternative procedures are now allowed with conventional licenses. They also found the board has:

• Sometimes waited for more than a year to look into complaints against doctors.
• Licensed homeopathic doctors who weren’t competent in homeopathy.
• Licensed a revoked Arizona D.O. who failed the homeopathy exam three times.
• Dismissed complaints against doctors without considering the accusations.
• Allowed doctors to practice medicine far beyond the scope of homeopathy.
• Failed to explain the difference between an M.D. and an M.D.h. to the public.

Copies of the August 2007 audit were delivered to the 12 state senators and representatives who sit on the Joint Legislative Audit Committee.

And yet, legislation currently being considered by the state House of Representatives would rubber-stamp the homeopathic board for two more years. Another bill attempts to clean up the board, but it fails to plug the loophole that lets doctors with revoked licenses into Arizona. In fact, the second bill solidifies the board’s power to license doctors who have had their licenses revoked.

Current homeopathic board members say they are addressing the concerns listed in the audit. But recent board decisions indicate otherwise.

New Times researched the licensing history of all 107 homeopathic physicians in the state and reviewed hundreds of pages of board records. Among the findings:

• One-fourth of Arizona’s homeopaths have lost their conventional M.D. or D.O. licenses.
• The homeopathic board has licensed at least five convicted felons, whose crimes range from tax fraud to mail fraud. Four are now practicing. The other is on parole.
• The board dismissed a complaint against a homeopath after a patient died. Although a county medical examiner determined that the homeopath caused the death, the board ruled that the procedure did not violate the rules of homeopathy.
• One-fourth of the homeopaths licensed in Arizona don’t live or practice in Arizona. Some practice with their Arizona M.D.h. in states where their M.D. license has been revoked. That is illegal in some states and legal in others.
• Other state medical boards pay professional investigators to study complaints against doctors. The homeopathic board uses volunteer alternative doctors to investigate their colleagues.
• Some doctors use their Arizona homeopathic licenses to perform face lifts, breast augmentations, liposuctions, and other surgeries that homeopaths aren’t allowed to perform.
• Doctors who claim an interest in homeopathy need little training in the field to get an Arizona license.

Anna Prassa was a public member of the homeopathic board from 2000 to 2006. She says the board is flawed beyond repair.

“There’s a reason why another state revokes a doctor’s license,” Prassa says. “For that to happen — and then they can waltz right into our state and get a license — that’s a problem. It’s a crime.”

DR. GARY PAGE

In 2004, Dr. Gary Page, a dermatologist and M.D. from Utah, sent an application to the Arizona Medical Board. The Arizona Medical Board sent Page’s application right back. Because his Utah license had been surrendered for Internet prescribing (and his California license revoked, as a result), Page wasn’t eligible by law to apply for an M.D. license in Arizona.

If Arizona didn’t have a Homeopathic Board of Medical Examiners, Page’s story would likely have ended there.

Unable to practice medicine as a conventional M.D., Page sent an application to Arizona’s homeopathic board.

Even though Page had no history of practicing homeopathic medicine, and though he’d been previously stripped of his medical licenses, Arizona’s homeopathic board welcomed Page into the state.

Page was issued a homeopathic M.D.h. license. He moved to Gilbert with his wife and five kids — supposedly to practice alternative medicine.

But on July 3, 2007, Page was not practicing homeopathy, or any form of alternative medicine. He was performing a standard liposuction — a surgery not allowed under a homeopathic license.

According to records from the homeopathic board and the Arizona Medical Board, Page’s patient, a 53-year-old woman, prepaid for liposuction on her thighs. Page injected the patient with anesthesia, which was allowed by his M.D.h. license, and then performed the liposuction, which wasn’t.

The patient died shortly after surgery. The Maricopa County Medical Examiner cannot release the cause of death because board documents have concealed the victim’s name.

That death — the third fatality at the Anthem cosmetic surgery clinic — was reported by the media. What wasn’t reported is that Page walked right through the homeopathic board’s loophole, securing an Arizona M.D.h. even after he’d lost his M.D. licenses in other states.

On March 18 of this year, Page surrendered his homeopathic license as the board was preparing to revoke his license because liposuction falls outside the scope of “minor” surgery homeopaths are allowed to perform.

He never could have practiced in Arizona, if not for the loophole that lets previously revoked doctors practice here as homeopaths.

Page did not return phone calls and e-mails seeking comment.

DR. GABRIEL COUSENS

In 1998, Charles Levy, 57, booked a flight to Arizona. Levy, an insurance agent, told his family he was in good health and planned to visit the Tree of Life Spa for a time of rejuvenation with a homeopathic doctor.

He looked forward to the live organic vegan diet and spiritual rest described by Dr. Gabriel Cousens, whose Web site promotes him as an M.D. and M.D.h.

Cousens is not eligible for an M.D. license in Arizona because his license was once taken away (but reinstated) in California and remains censured in New York. According to Arizona Medical Board spokesman Roger Downey, that makes a doctor ineligible for an Arizona medical license. If Cousens were a D.O., he would be eligible. But he’s not. He’s been practicing here as a homeopath for 15 years.

According to court records from a civil suit filed by Levy’s family, Levy showed up at Cousens’ secluded campus in the green hills of Patagonia, Arizona. He was hoping for a time of physical and spiritual rest. Cousens told him that injections of cow adrenaline and/or sheep DNA could energize his body. Levy agreed to five injections, which aren’t a homeopathic treatment but are allowed by Arizona’s homeopathic board.

Unfortunately, the injection site — on Levy’s right buttock — grew infected, so he went to see Cousens about it. Cousens didn’t recommend an antibiotic. Instead, he treated the growing abscess with acupuncture and massage.

The infected area became green and black. It spread down Levy’s thigh, and on March 1, 1998, Levy did not wake up in his dorm room at the Tree of Life Spa. Cousens found Levy unconscious and attempted CPR, with no success.

Cousens did not call 911. Instead, he called an air ambulance, and arranged for a helicopter pickup on the football field of a nearby high school.

Cousens and a nurse carried Levy — draped in a bathrobe, bleeding from his mouth and groin — to a car and drove him five minutes to the field.

A Patagonia police officer was driving by the school when he saw Cousens and a number of spa guests gathered around an unclothed body lying on the grass.

Levy’s buttock and thigh were black and swollen. His eyes were wide open. He was dead. After the helicopter took the body, Dr. Cousens told the officer that he’d injected Levy with sheep DNA. Later, Cousens contradicted his statement, saying the injection was actually cow hormones.

Whether the injection was cow or sheep didn’t matter to Santa Cruz County Medical Examiner Dr. Cynthia Porterfield. She examined Levy’s body and ruled that the injection and subsequent infection killed him. Specifically, she found that Levy died from Clostridium perfringens, a bacteria that grows in gas gangrene. During the Civil War, that bacteria claimed thousands of soldiers’ lives when it grew in their battle wounds. Modern antibiotics can kill the bacteria easily when used.

“I spoke with him the day before. The next day, I got a phone call that he was gone,” Levy’s son, Howard, says. “I pretty much haven’t recovered since. He was not on any medication, didn’t have high blood pressure, or a weight problem. He could go out and run three miles on the boardwalk.”

Levy filed a lawsuit against Cousens, and Cousens paid an undisclosed amount to settle the suit after the medical examiner pinned the death directly on him.

The osteopathic medical board also examined the autopsy and ruled that the medical examiner was right to name the injection and infection as the causes of death.

But when Cousens’ dead patient came up before the homeopathic board in 2001, the board dismissed the complaint — despite the medical examiner’s findings.

The board ruled that, though a patient did die, the doctor did not violate any laws of homeopathic medicine.

In his October 11, 2000 court deposition, board member Dr. Garry Gordon says he served as the board’s lead investigator into Cousens, but he also worked as an expert witness for Cousens in court.

Because the homeopathic board dismissed the complaint, the medical board in California — where Cousens holds his M.D. — has no way of knowing Cousens injected a patient with animal hormones. It has no way of knowing he treated a growing infection with acupuncture or that a county medical examiner named his treatment as the causes of a patient’s death.

The Arizona board has since destroyed audio records from that meeting (technically, it did so legally).

“I think it’s a travesty that he’s still practicing in Arizona,” Howard Levy says from his home in New York. “Those people who are allowing this to continue to happen are just as guilty. The simple fact that he can continue to practice medicine in any way, shape, or form shows that the system is failing the general public.”

Today, Cousens still practices at his spa in Patagonia. He says he has “28 cubic feet of scientific literature” that disprove the medical examiner. He says Levy died of an extremely rare syndrome that strikes suddenly and kills in hours. Cousens also says Levy was sick when he arrived at the spa and had the gas gangrene infection long before his cow adrenaline injections.

“Dr. Porterfield, the pathologist, really was neglectful,” says Cousens, who also says he thinks he would have won the case in court. (He says his insurance company forced him to settle.) “I believe that if we were in front of the medical board, they would have cleared me just as well.”

DR. CHARLES CROSBY

In 2002, the Florida Department of Health forced Dr. Charles Crosby, a D.O., into the state’s impaired-physician program. Crosby had been kissing and groping female patients and staff, according to Florida records.

Crosby was diagnosed with a narcissistic disorder and with Frottuerism, a disorder “characterized by intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving touching or rubbing against the body of a non-consenting person.”

The surgeon and pain-management specialist’s bedside manner included “touching patients’ breasts in a way they found offensive (example, stroking their nipples) . . . kissing patients and staff . . . and using crass and sexual remarks that others found offensive.”

Crosby told a psychiatrist he had “developed a special technique of manipulating women’s breasts to treat pain in other areas of their body.” That psychiatrist diagnosed Crosby with a breast fetish and ruled him unfit to practice medicine.

In June 2003, Crosby was still practicing medicine when he was caught manipulating the breasts and ribs of a woman at a medical trade show in Norfolk, Virginia.

On March 17, 2004, Florida’s physician intervention program warned Crosby that it was restricting his practice and might suspend his Florida license.

Two months later, Crosby was standing before Arizona’s homeopathic board, petitioning for a homeopathic license. Crosby didn’t have enough homeopathic training, but the board voted to give him a license, as long as he took 40 hours of homeopathic courses. The homeopathic board licensed Crosby in Arizona — even as the Florida board was investigating him for groping his female patients.

Two months after Crosby secured his Arizona homeopathic license, the Florida board suspended his license. Crosby apparently never moved to Arizona. He lives and advertises in Florida, and his license is still suspended there. His Arizona homeopathic license is active, though he’s on probation, which means Crosby has to submit reports that confirm he’s seeing a psychiatrist.

Crosby declined comment for this story.

DR. MURRAY SUSSER

Dr. Murray Susser, 73, has been practicing alternative medicine for decades. The California Medical Board has taken his license away twice.

The first time was in 1997. According to California Medical Board records, Susser failed to identify some conventional cases of cancer. He failed to diagnose colon cancer in one patient, even though the patient had blood in her stool and complained of rectal bleeding.

For another patient, Susser prescribed natural vitamins in dangerous quantities, including “tannic acid, which is carcinogenic,” and testosterone, which boosted blood pressure to unhealthy levels. According to California Medical Board records, Susser failed to see bowel cancer in that patient, too.

Susser’s discipline culminated when he advised a patient who was jaundiced and experiencing severe abdominal pain to not go to the emergency room. Paramedics forced the patient to go to the ER, where she was diagnosed with severe liver and pancreas damage, due to the all-natural injections.

After two years of community service at 25 hours a week, Susser’s California medical license was restored in 2000. His New York license is still surrendered.

In 2002, Susser secured a homeopathic license in Arizona. He’s been practicing in Scottsdale ever since. In 2005, the California Medical Board again took away Susser’s license (he’s on probation again) for prescribing ketamine, an anesthetic and animal tranquilizer.

In 2006, Arizona’s homeopathic board examined the same charges and dismissed them.

Known as “Special K” in the club scene, ketamine is similar to PCP. It can cause hallucinations along with extreme detachment from reality. The homeopathic board concluded that Susser was not in the wrong to prescribe ketamine to fibromyalgia patients — even though it falls outside the conventional standard of care.

In an interview for this story, Susser calls ketamine the pain reliever of the future for patients with chronic pain.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration begs to differ. The FDA approves ketamine only as an anesthetic and veterinary tranquilizer.

Susser also says the details in the California Medical Board’s paperwork are charges and not facts. He says they weren’t proved and that he signed the agreements only to avoid court fees.

DR. ELLIOTT SCHMERLER

On January 9, 2007, a physician stood before Arizona’s homeopathic board and told his personal story of redemption. Too bad it wasn’t all true.

It had been five years since Dr. Elliott Schmerler pleaded guilty to felony tax fraud. According to IRS documents, Schmerler funneled more than $500,000 through a corporation in the Bahamas and then used the money for personal expenses. He was sentenced to 15 months in prison and stripped of his Nevada medical license.

Two of Schmerler’s cosmetic surgery patients had poor results, and he paid out money in lawsuits to two others, according to his homeopathic application and records from the Nevada Medical Board.

By December 2006, Schmerler had served his time in prison and finished his probation for the tax fraud case. He wrote the IRS a check for $96,533 to settle the score. That month, the Nevada Medical Board issued Schmerler a restricted medical license that specifically banned him from performing cosmetic surgery in the state.

Because of his revocation and felony conviction, Schmerler could not perform cosmetic surgery as an M.D. in Arizona.

One month after Nevada issued him a restricted license, Schmerler was in Arizona, petitioning for his homeopathic license. Standing in the basement boardroom at the state building for regulatory boards, Schmerler told the board a big lie.

“Since our previous meeting, I was issued a new, unrestricted license by the Nevada Allopathic Medical Board,” he said.

None of the board members mentioned that Schmerler’s printed license restricted him from ever performing any kind of cosmetic surgery.

Instead, the discussion focused on giving doctors second chances, particularly when their history involves felonies.

“I fully recognize we may take a little heat from the media because ‘that homeopathic board is back to licensing felons again,’” then-board president Dr. Garry Gordon said as he made a motion to accept Schmerler’s application. “But I take the full responsibility of recognizing everything I’ve seen and read about this doctor going forward.”

The board members didn’t ask Schmerler why Nevada banned him from cosmetic surgery. They didn’t ask about the liposuction patient who ended up with an infected, oozing stomach or the breast augmentation patient who woke up with a lopsided chest — both documented in his own application and in Nevada Medical Board records.

Nobody asked Schmerler why the Nevada Medical Board disciplined him for “intent to deceive” or whether he would attempt to practice his specialties — liposuction and breast augmentation — in Arizona. Those procedures aren’t allowed with a homeopathic license.

Instead, the board took Schmerler at his word. Gordon asked his fellow members to give Schmerler another chance at honesty.

“Physicians are really not well suited to digging ditches, but they don’t have a lot of other things they’re good at doing,” he said. “They shouldn’t be used car salesman. When I was in California, I was astonished how everyone who serves their time and does their probation is finally re-licensed.”

Arizona law doesn’t let the conventional board give M.D.’s such second chances. The only way Schmerler could bring his services to Arizona would be through the homeopathic board’s loophole.

The board voted 5-0 to grant Schmerler a homeopathic medical license.

So how has Schmerler used his shot at redemption?

Schmerler advertises himself on the Web and at his Scottsdale office as an M.D. He is not a licensed M.D. in Arizona. Homeopathic board president Dr. Todd Rowe says it’s illegal for a homeopathic doctor to advertise as an M.D. if the doctor isn’t licensed in Arizona.

According to Schmerler’s office staff at A Surgical Art: A Cosmetic Surgery Group in downtown Scottsdale, Schmerler doesn’t specialize in homeopathic medicine. He specializes in cosmetic surgeries — also illegal because his homeopathic license limits him to minor surgery.

A call to Schmerler’s office confirms he specifically performs tummy tucks, breast augmentations, liposuctions, and facelifts, none of which is minor and none of which is legal to perform with only a homeopathic license.

There’s no evidence Schmerler has harmed anyone in the year he’s practiced here. But it’s clear that he walked right through the homeopathic loophole to perform cosmetic surgery — the very thing he’s banned from practicing in his home state of Nevada, and the very thing Arizona’s conventional medical boards are designed to regulate.

Schmerler did not return phone calls requesting an interview for this story.

DR. RICK SHACKET

In 2003, Dr. Schmerler’s partner in practice, Dr. Rick Shacket, shared the same page of an IRS press release, long before he shared the same office suite in Scottsdale. The press release detailed the felony convictions of both doctors.

Shacket secured his homeopathic license in 2001, before his conviction. The next year, he was sentenced to 33 months in prison after he pleaded guilty to creating a false identity so that he could hide $540,000 in profits, according to IRS documents.

A standard practice for nearly every medical board in the country, the California Osteopathic Board revoked Shacket’s license. But Arizona’s homeopathic board didn’t. Shacket’s Arizona license remained intact even while he was in prison and on probation. His profile on the Arizona Homeopathic Board Web site shows no discipline or letters of concern since his licensing in 2001.

In 2005, the osteopathic board also gave Schmerler an Arizona license.

Shacket did not return calls for comment.

DR. JEFFREY RUTGARD

In 1995, Dr. Jeffrey Rutgard, a San Diego ophthalmologist, was found guilty of talking senior patients into unnecessary eye surgeries, so he could pocket the Medicare payments. He was sentenced to 11 years in prison and ordered to pay $15 million to Medicare. The California Medical Board revoked his license during the 1994 trial.

Rutgard was out of prison by 2004. He promised the Arizona homeopathic board he would move to the state to learn alternative medicine. A chiropractor even testified that he’d take Rutgard under his wing to keep an eye on him.

Four years later, Rutgard apparently has yet to relocate to Arizona. The board hasn’t penalized him, and Rutgard’s license is intact. Despite his revoked California M.D. license, he practices part time in California with his Arizona M.D.h. and under the supervision of another homeopath, according to Homeopathic Board records.

California Medical Board spokeswoman Candace Cohen says Rutgard is breaking the law in that state if he is diagnosing patients or prescribing drugs, regardless of the Arizona license.

New Times could not confirm whether Rutgard has broken the law in California. He has paid his annual renewal fee of almost $1,000 for five years.

Rutgard did not return a message left on his home answering machine, requesting an interview.

Dr. Todd Rowe has served on Arizona’s homeopathic board since 2005. He took over as president a month after state auditors released their report in the fall of 2007. Rowe, a psychiatrist, holds a valid Arizona M.D. license in addition to his homeopathic license.

Rowe says he and his board members are working to fix the problems outlined in the audit.

“I do feel like there’s cleaning to do, and we have been working on that. We thought the auditors did an excellent job and really listened to the issues,” he says.

But Rowe disagrees with the audit’s statement that the homeopathic board may not serve a purpose. He and others in the alternative medicine community say Arizona holds the unique position of protecting alternative medicine.

As for the audit finding that licensed homeopaths aren’t practicing homeopathic medicine, Rowe says the board wants to change its name to the board of “homeopathic and integrative medicine.” That way the board can continue licensing alternative treatments outside the scope of homeopathy.

Rowe adds that the board is prepared to protect and regulate alternative medicine and that it’s cracking down. “We’ve been tightening our discipline, at least since I’ve come onboard,” he says. “All of our disciplinary actions have been at least if not more stringent than other boards.”

He says the board is speeding up its investigations, too, by using volunteer homeopathic doctors to investigate complaints against their colleagues. Though that’s a far cry from the professional, independent investigators the conventional medical board uses, it may be better than the recent system, in which board members investigated complaints themselves.

“We’ve made significant changes in the last year. There’s a flow chart now that mandates we investigate every matter, at least since I’ve been president,” Rowe says.

But three months ago, on January 9, the board failed to see an apparent violation of law right under its nose. Dr. Elliott Schmerler, the doctor banned from practicing cosmetic surgery in Nevada, stood before the board. It had been one year since the board voted to license Schmerler, a convicted felon.

The American Board of Cosmetic Surgeons had filed a board complaint that Schmerler was using their acronym, ABCS, on his business card and Web site — implying he’s still board-certified, which he’s not.

Schmerler showed the homeopathic board a new business card and said he had pulled the misleading acronym off his Web site. The board didn’t discipline him, writing him a non-disciplinary letter of concern instead.

With that, Schmerler was off the hook.

The board had just been reminded, by the death of Dr. Gary Page’s liposuction patient in July 2007, that it’s illegal to use a homeopathic license for major cosmetic surgery in Arizona.

Still, none of the board members asked Schmerler why he’s advertising as a cosmetic surgeon and M.D., when he isn’t licensed as either in Arizona.

Rowe tells New Times he is aware that it’s illegal for a homeopath to perform breast augmentations and tummy tucks in Arizona without an M.D. or D.O. license. He also confirms that “it’s against the law for a doctor who isn’t an M.D. in Arizona to advertise himself as an M.D.”

So why didn’t either issue come up in January, when Schmerler was before the board?

“We are only allowed to focus, as a board, on the complaint. We’re limited in what we can explore outside of the initial complaint,” Rowe says. But he adds that the board could open its own complaint, if it wanted. He says he’s not sure why it didn’t.

If Arizona lawmakers did disband its homeopathic board, it wouldn’t be the first time that’s happened in this country. In 1957, the state of Maryland disbanded its 80-year-old homeopathic board amidst controversy surrounding the doctors it was licensing. Other states have followed suit, forcing homeopaths to get licensed with the conventional board.

Some of Arizona’s lawmakers say they have higher hopes for the largest homeopathic board in the nation. Despite last year’s less-than-favorable audit, the state Senate voted last month to continue the board for two years.

The Senate also passed another omnibus bill that addresses a few of the problems highlighted in the audit. Both bills are expected to pass the House this month. But they don’t plug the biggest loophole.

Barbara Leff, a Republican from Paradise Valley, and Paula Aboud, a Tucson Democrat, are members of the Senate Health Committee. Leff did not return calls for this story, but Aboud says she knows about the audit and that she and Leff sponsored amendments to the omnibus bill that would affect the homeopathic board. One amendment touches more on the concerns of activist doctors than the concerns of the audit.

One new clause in the bill confirms the board’s power to license doctors who’ve been kicked out of other states.

Aboud — who has sought treatment from homeopaths — says she’s concerned about that very problem.

“If you’re doing classical homeopathy, which is merely a spiritual practice of working on the level of the spirit or the body, there are not too many ways a person can be harmed,” Aboud tells New Times.

“But this homeopathic board is allowing a homeopathic doctor to do surgery and acupuncture and treatments that do harm the public.”

The bill passed by the Senate in March and pending in the House as of press time does take a step toward closing the loophole. It would require doctors who’ve been revoked to wait five years before applying for their homeopathic license. That doesn’t stop doctors from applying months or weeks before their licenses are revoked in their home state.

Dr. Charles Crosby, the Florida sex addict, illustrates why the new legislation wouldn’t close the loophole. The intent behind the new line is that a doctor like Crosby couldn’t apply for a homeopathic license until five years after he lost his Florida license.

But Crosby didn’t apply for his homeopathic license after Florida suspended him. He applied for it two months before they suspended him.

In all states, doctors know when a medical board is investigating them. If doctors think they may lose their conventional licenses, they can secure an Arizona homeopathic license during the months of investigation in their home state.

Then, if their conventional license is stripped, they retain a homeopathic license. The bill that passed the Senate would not stop shrewd doctors from walking through the loophole. It still would allow them to keep a homeopathic license, even if they were stripped of the M.D. or D.O. license two months later — as Crosby was.

Conventional medical boards across the country rubber-stamp revocations. For example, when Dr. Gary Page surrendered his Utah license, California automatically revoked his license there.

Arizona’s homeopathic board, however, doesn’t have to follow suit.

The new legislation wouldn’t affect the homeopathic board’s ability to ignore revocations in other states — or even here in Arizona.

In fact, the proposed fixes would have let every single one of the problem doctors in this story into Arizona, though it would have delayed one doctor for two years.

If the House passes a bill that doesn’t close the loophole, the governor could still veto it. Governor Janet Napolitano’s spokeswoman, Jeanine L’Ecuyer, says she’s surprised to hear the homeopathic board has licensed convicted felons.

“The governor has a general policy of not commenting on legislation until it’s before her for her signature or veto,” L’Ecuyer says. “But what you’ve described is of tremendous concern. We will begin the process of working with the board to see what’s going on because public safety is paramount to the governor.”

Dr. Kathleen Fry is one homeopath who doesn’t think the new legislation would do enough. Fry is also an M.D. in good standing with the Arizona Medical Board. She testified before the Senate Health Committee in February that the homeopathic board is broken.

“I ask you not to continue this corrupt system because more people may end up maimed or dead.” Fry said, then referring to Page’s patient.

“It is this careless language that I believe led to the death of the unfortunate woman in Anthem last summer who underwent liposuction under local anesthesia. This language in this bill does not preclude another such tragedy occurring.”

Chris Springer, executive director of the Arizona Board of Homeopathic Medical Examiners, is also the board’s only employee. And she’s a part-time employee. For 30 hours a week, Springer wears the hats of application reviewer, phone answerer, initial complaint investigator, liaison between other boards and spokeswoman, among others. Before this job, she was the director of the state’s board of nursing home administrators.

Springer has a few things to say about the audit and the potential new laws that would affect the board. She says there will be no more second chances for doctors who’ve lost their licenses elsewhere, regardless of what the Legislature does this session. Her board is getting tough, Springer says. “The second chance isn’t going to happen anymore.”

As if the fallout from last year’s audit weren’t enough, Springer is fighting not just to keep the homeopathic board in existence, but also to keep her job in existence. This year, Napolitano is combining the staffs of several tiny boards. In Arizona, the concern seems to be more with consolidating office equipment and jobs than with regulation — at least, the regulation of homeopathic medicine.

In a lot of ways, Chris Springer represents the homeopathic board’s six members. Down in the basement boardroom, cleaning up agendas after a recent board meeting, Springer gives her opinion of Dr. Gary Page.

She doesn’t see Page as a formerly revoked doctor who found a loophole to practice in Arizona. She doesn’t see him as a man whose patient died hours after a liposuction he wasn’t licensed to perform.

“He has five kids and wife. Now he doesn’t have a job,” she says quietly. “It’s sad.”

Correction (posted April 24, 2008): It should have been stated that Dr. Rick Shacket surrendered his California medical license after a felony conviction for tax fraud.

David Korn’s Justice Court History

• Apr 13, 2001 – Case #0702CV-0102390 – Arcadia Biltmore Civil Justice Court
  Judgement against David Korn in the amount of $1,748.00 to be paid to Desert Medical Careers
• Jan 04, 2007 – Case #TR2007-101183 – Criminal Traffic violation, North Mesa Justice Court, adjudicated
• Mar 09, 2009 – Case #CT2009-150548 – Civil Traffic violation, Downtown Justic Court, adjudicated
• Apr 08, 2009 – Case #CT2009-212475 – Civil Traffic violation, East Mesa Justice Court, adjudicated
• Apr 08, 2009 – Case #CT2009-216282 – Civil Traffic violation, University Lakes Justice Court, adjudicated
• Dec 31, 2009 – Case #CT2009-7440222 – Civil Traffic violation, East Mesa Justice Court, new case

More information:

• David C Korn Maricopa County Justice Court Cases

This is an update to a a previous post regarding Dino Prato’s license to practice medicine.

As of the date of this post, Mr. Prato’s Natural Issues blog states:

After completing a four-year accredited doctoral program, Dino graduated with his naturopathic medical degree. Although he’s not currently engaged in the clinical practice of medicine, Dino is a licensed naturopathic medical doctor in Vermont and Hawaii.

When the blog was originally created, it said that Dino Prato was "a licensed naturopathic medical doctor in Maine, Vermont, Montana, and Hawaii".

A re-check of the licensing authorities in the four states where Mr. Prato was licensed shows:

• Maine: License #NP290 expired 10.31.2007 and was not renewed
• Montana: License #103 expired 04.30.2008
• Vermont: License #099.0000202 active, expires 09.30.2010
• Hawaii: License #ND-169 is active, expires 12.31.2011
  The pending complaint #NAT-2008-0001L referenced previously has been removed.

Mr. Prato remains unlicensed to practice medicine in Arizona.

In May 2009, the state of Montana convened a contested case hearing regarding the proposed disciplinary treatment of the naturopathic physician license of Santo D. Prato.

The Business Standards Division filed a complaint against Mr. Prato alleging that his answer to a single question on his license application in 2006 was "fraudulent, deceitful, or a misrepresentation of fact" and constituted unprofessional conduct.

Excerpted from the court documents:

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Prato is licensed by the State of Montana as a Naturopathic Physician holding license number 103.
2. On April 7, 2006, as a part of an application to be licensed as a naturopathic physician in the State of Arizona, the State of Arizona informed Prato that the Arizona Naturopathic Physicians Board of Medical Examiners had opened an investigation “regarding possible inappropriate and unlawful use by you of the following credentials, but not limited to, “N.M.D.”, “Dr.”, “Naturopathic Physician” and “Naturopathic Specialist”.” Exhibit 2, Licensure Application Update from the State of Arizona dated April 7, 2006. The letter further advised Prato that use of the terms “Dr.”, “NMD,” and “Naturopathic Physician” might have violated Arizona Revised Statutes §§ 32-1555 and 32-1557.
3. Prato applied for his Montana license on September 11, 2006. On the basis of the information in the application, Montana issued Prato a license in November 2006.
4. Prato’s Montana application contained a number of questions regarding Prato’s background and his profession. Question #16 asked him “Has a complaint ever been filed against you alleging unethical behavior or unprofessional conduct?” Prato did not answer this question, instead leaving it blank.
5. Question #17 of the application asked him “Has any legal or disciplinary action been filed against you which relates to the propriety or your fitness to practice this profession?” Prato answered this question “no.”
6. Prato answered Question #17 in the negative because at the time he answered Question #17 he honestly did not understand the question to be asking him about the licensure application process in Arizona. He understood the licensure process in Arizona to be a license application and not a legal or disciplinary action related to his fitness to practice.
7. On March 11, 2008, approximately one and one half years after Montana issued Prato his license, he entered into a consent agreement with the Arizona Naturopathic Physicians Board by which he was required to withdraw his application to practice naturopathic medicine in Arizona. Exhibit 3. The consent agreement specifically notes that the Arizona Board’s investigation involved allegations of unprofessional conduct against the licensee. Exhibit 3, page 2.

…

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

2. The Failure to Demonstrate a Violation Requires Dismissal
   6. If a licensee is found not to have violated any of the provisions of Mont. Code Ann. Title 37, Chapter 1, Part 3, then the Department prepares and serves the Board’s findings of fact together with an order of dismissal of the charges. Mont. Code Ann. § 37-1-311.
   7. Because BSD has failed to demonstrate that the licensee engaged in conduct that violated Title 37, Chapter 1, Part 3, Montana Code Annotated, dismissal of the charges is appropriate.

IV. RECOMMENDED ORDER

Based on the foregoing, the hearing examiner recommends that the Board of Alternative Health Care enter its order dismissing the allegations contained in the complaint filed against the licensee as BSD has failed to prove its case by a preponderance of the evidence.

More information:

• The Proposed Disciplinary Treatment of the Naturopathic Physician License of Santo Prato License No. 103
• Arizona Revised Statutes Title 32 – Professions and Occupations
• Arizona Naturopathic Physicians Board of Medical Examiners
• Montana Code Annotated – Table of Contents – Title 37, Chapter 1, Part 3 – Uniform Professional Licensing and Regulation Procedures
• Montana Code Annotated – Findings of fact – Order – Report

4. Complaints and Investigations
   3. Review, Consideration, and Action – Initial Review(s)
      Case No. 08-10 David Korn DO, MD(H)

      Ms. Springer informed the Board that the medical investigator’s report had been completed but not received in time for this meeting. In addition, she explained that the Board had to determine whether or not to seek primary jurisdiction since Dr. Korn was also licensed by the Osteopathic Board of Examiners.

      Dr. Grout made a motion to request primary jurisdiction since the type of care provided to patients involved homeopathic procedures. Dr. Rupley seconded the motion. During discussion Dr. Grout inquired if it was proper, as was the case in the instant matter, for the Board to accept anonymous complaints.

      Mr. Farris made a motion to adjourn to executive session at 10:30 a.m. for legal advice. Dr. Grout seconded the motion that passed with a majority vote. Dr. Adler dissented. The Board returned to the regular session at 10:55 a.m.

      Returning to the original motion to claim primary jurisdiction to conduct the investigation, the Board voted unanimously to assert primary jurisdiction and directed Ms. Springer to notify the Osteopathic Board of Examiners.

      The matter was continued to the next regular meeting.

Excerpted from: Arizona Homeopathic Board Meeting Minutes, September 9, 2008

5. Complaints and Investigations
   2. Review, Consideration and Action – Ongoing Investigations
      Case No. 08-10 David Korn DO, MD(H)

      Ms. Springer gave a status report concerning the status of the Board’s request for primary jurisdiction noting that no decision had been made at the Osteopathic Board. The Board requested that upon notification of the jurisdictional determination, Dr. Korn be informed of the Board’s intention to hold an investigational interview pursuant to A.R.S. 32-2934 (C), at the next regular meeting.

Excerpted from: Arizona Homeopathic Board Meeting Minutes, November 18, 2008

3. Review, Consideration and Action on Applications
   2. Medical Assistants
      Sheena Korn

      The Board considered the application of Sheena Korn following a short break. Mr. Farris commented that the application should be tabled until an informal hearing is held in Case No. 08-10. Following a brief discussion about the number of training hours completed at the Columbus Paraprofessional Institute (CPI) medical assistant program in Columbus, Ohio, Mr. Farris stated that he would like additional information about the type of training courses completed by Mrs. Korn while attending CPI. Dr. Grout stated that the transcript is not clear on the number of training hours completed, nor is there a course listing of the types of courses completed.

      Mr. Farris asked what training standards were required for medical assistant training in the homeopathic medical assistant rules. Mrs. Springer stated that the rules require 240 classroom hours in medical secretarial skills and 240 classroom hours in back office assisting as well as 320 hours of supervised clinical experience. Dr. Grout stated that the supervision from Dr. Korn would comprise a practical education program and that additional information should be obtained to verify the types of duties and the number of hours she provides to patients that come to the clinic.

      Mr. Farris requested that the application be tabled and additional information about Mrs. Korn’s training be obtained. The other Board members concurred.

4. Review, Consideration and Action on Complaints and Investigations
   2. Review, Consideration, and Action – Ongoing Investigations
      Case No. 08-10 David Korn DO, MD(H)

      Dr. David Korn was present with his wife Sheena, and attorney, Mr. Stephen Myers to respond to questions.

      Mrs. Springer read a statement of the initial allegations in the anonymous complaint. The Board’s medical consultant, Dr. Charles Schwengel was available to present a report of his visit to Dr. Korn’s clinic and investigation into the allegations. Dr. Schwengel began his presentation stating that no evidence was found to support the allegation of a violation of universal precautions standards. He had found the facility to be clean and in-service training information timely and appropriately documented as required by OSHA. Dr. Schwengel responded to a question from Dr. Rowe regarding an allegation that personal laundry had been done at the clinic. He confirmed that Dr. Korn had admitted this allegation, but that he was unaware that this action was a violation of OSHA standards. There was additional discussion regarding the status of Mrs. Korn and her work role at the clinic. Dr. Schwengel stated she was not registered with the homeopathic board as a medical assistant. He noted Dr. Korn had provided documentation of her training in phlebotomy and medical assistant coursework at a college in Columbus, Ohio, as well as current coursework in a nursing program. Noting that one of the allegations related to Mrs. Korn providing IV therapy to patients, both Dr. Adler and Dr. Rowe inquired whether current medical assistant rules address this issue. The Board thanked Dr Schwengel for his presentation.

      Mr. Farris made a motion to adjourn to Executive Session for legal advice at 11:30 p.m. Dr. Rupley seconded the motion that passed unanimously. The Board returned to the regular session at 12:00 p.m.

      The Board invited Dr. Korn to address the Board. He stated that Mrs. Korn was well trained, that she had completed prerequisites for a nursing degree, and had completed training related to oxidative therapy, the provision of IVs and phlebotomy. In response to a question from Dr. Rowe, he confirmed that he provides supervision to staff as needed.

      Mr. Myers requested to speak to the Board and stated that the Board’s request for a response to the anonymous complaint had not included a specific allegation. Following that statement, Board members continued their inquiry. Dr. Rowe inquired why Mrs. Korn was not registered as a homeopathic medical assistant. In his response, Dr. Korn stated he felt it was not necessary in that she had standard medical assistant training as well as specialized training in oxidative therapy and IVs.

      Dr. Rowe made a motion dismissing allegations 2, 4, 5, and 6 noting that there was insufficient evidence to support a violation. He made a recommendation that the Board hold an informal interview regarding allegations 1 and 3 at the next regular meeting. Mrs. Stika seconded the motion that passed unanimously.

      Vote: 6-0 Informal interview
      Dr. Rowe, Ms. Stika, Dr. Grout, Dr. Rupley, Dr. Adler, Mr. Farris

Excerpted from: Arizona Homeopathic Board Meeting Minutes, January 13, 2009

4. Review, Consideration and Action on Complaints and Investigations
   2. Informal Interview pursuant to ARS 32-2934(G)
      Case No. 08-10 David Korn DO, MD(H)

      Dr. Korn was present at 2:30 p.m. for an informal interview pursuant to A.R.S. §32-2934(G). Also present were Stephen Myers, Dr. Korn’s attorney, and Dr. Charles Schwengel, DO, MD(H), the Board’s medical consultant. A court reporter was present to transcribe the proceedings.

      Mrs. Springer read a statement summarizing the complaint that was originally referred by the Arizona Industrial Commission, Division of Occupational Safety and Health from an anonymous complainant. In November, the Board had considered six allegations made in the complaint. At that time, the Board voted to dismiss four of the allegations as unsubstantiated. The informal interview was scheduled to address two remaining issues that alleged medical assistants were performing procedures only a registered nurse may perform.

      Board members Grout and Adler referred to the current medical assistant rules and noted that there were no specific rules addressing the question of whether a medical assistant may draw blood and perform IV therapies. Dr. Korn stated that his wife, the medical assistant noted in the original complaint, had completed standard medical assistant training in Ohio, had multiple course work related to the provision of chelation and IV therapies, and was completing nursing studies at a nearby community college. He confirmed that Mrs. Korn was not currently registered as a medical assistant but had a pending application before the Board. In addition, Dr. Korn noted he had employed another medical assistant in his clinic and was in compliance with supervision aspects regarding medical assistants.

      Mr. Farris questioned Dr. Korn about Mrs. Korn’s usage of the term “nurse” on an in-service training record. At this point, Mr. Myers requested permission to address the Board and stated that Mr. Farris’ concern had not been listed as one of the allegations in the informal interview notice.

      Dr. Korn concluded his statement to the Board.

      Assistant Attorney General Hargraves directed Board member’s attention to the definition of ‘medical assistant’ as defined in A.R.S. §32-2901(15) and a review of the current medical assistant rules in AAC R4-38-301-311.

      Dr. Adler stated that current medical assistant rules do not clearly specify who should be registered to provide these types of therapies. It was his opinion that the medical assistant had been adequately supervised and trained and was qualified to provide the therapy.

      Both Drs. Rowe and Grout agreed that the current rules create a gray area and that could lead to various interpretations of the need for registration. Dr. Rowe went on to state that the new proposed rules specify that any medical assistant providing a technical homeopathic function will be subject to registration. He expressed concern that Dr. Korn appeared to have been aware that Mrs. Korn did not correctly designate her title on an in-service training record.

      Dr. Rupley indicated he would be comfortable with a letter of concern relating to the titling of office personnel, specifically the use of the term ‘nurse’ by Mrs. Korn on the in-service training record.

      Mr. Myers asked to address the Board regarding this issue and stated that he and his client were unaware of the Board’s concern with the use of the term ‘nurse’ and were unprepared to discuss the issue and had not been provided notice of the Board’s concern in the ’Notice of Informal Interview’. He directed their attention to the listed allegations in the Notice.

      Mr. Farris and Dr. Adler stated they were comfortable with the discussion of the allegations as indicated on the notice of informal interview. Dr. Adler moved to dismiss the case. Mr. Farris seconded the motion that passed with a majority vote. Dr. Rowe voted ‘No’ stating his continued concern with the usage of the term ‘Nurse’ on the in-service record.

      Roll Call: Dismiss 5 aye, 1 nay
      Aye: Rupley, Farris, Grout, Stika, Adler
      Nay: Rowe.

Excerpted from: Arizona Homeopathic Board Meeting Minutes, March 10, 2009

3. Review, Consideration and Action on Complaints and Investigations
   2. Medical Assistants:
      Shenandoah Kern

      At the Board’s request Ms. Springer provided information about Ms. Korn’s medical assistant training and nursing training. Dr. Grout made a motion to approve the application. Dr. Adler seconded the motion that passed unanimously.

This article and the entire website seem hell bent on trying to uncover every possible negative thing they can about Envita. Never mind the lives they have saved. Not one positive outcome story appears on this website.

On the About page we describe the topic of this site, which is Envita’s approach to treating pediatric brain tumors and in particular, DIPG. Envita has no successes with DIPG. Envita posted a video testimonial of one of these patients on their website, but removed it after she passed away.

There is plenty of positive information about Envita and the treatments they offer available here:

• Envita testimonials
• Envita’s blog

You mention 4NK therapy not being FDA approved. As if that means it is safe. What about the millions who have died taking Vioxx and many other “FDA approved” drugs. Please!!

FDA approval doesn’t mean that a treatment is safe, there is corruption and many flaws in the system. This does not imply that 4NKT is safe or shouldn’t have be subject to regulations.

You mention their nutritional product markups. Seem pretty miniscule compared to the drug companies who mark up product over 300%.

Our healthcare system is a mess. But without health insurance, none of us can afford to pay for a serious illness like a brain tumor. At the moment, it’s a necessary evil.

A family with a seriously ill child is already financially strapped, even if health insurance were to pick up everything, almost universally the illness itself forces the family to make lifestyle changes that result in a significant loss of income. As exorbitant as those drug costs are, if insurance will pick up the cost, this relieves the family of a financial burden they just can’t afford. And even if they do choose to take their child to Envita, they are still paying for their health insurance to cover the costs of surgery, MRI’s, and in the case of DIPG, radiation, another necessary evil and the only treatment right now that increases survival time.

What about all the money that is raised by cancer foundations. I would guess it is in the hundreds of billions by now, and what do they have to show for it. No real new or innovative treatment options and no real change in survival rates. About the only real improvements in outcomes have come from earlier detection and intervention.

Progress has been made for certain cancers, and for others, there has been almost none.

For the period 1975-1977, the overall 5-year survival rate for all pediatric cancers was 58.1%, for the period 1996-2003, the pediatric cancer survival rate increased to 79.6%.

Per the SEER Cancer Statistics Review, survival rates for pediatric tumors of the brain and central nervous system went from 56.9% to 74.1% over the same time period. Leukemia survival rates went from 50.3% to 81.3%.

Although overall survival rates for pediatric brain tumors have increased, the rates for certain tumors, such as glioblastoma multiforme (GBM), atypical teratoid rhabdoid tumor (AT/RT), and diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma (DIPG) remain dismal, with 3-5 year survival rates between 3 and 20%.

Survival rates in pediatric brain tumors have very little to do with early detection, there is no early detection for brain tumors at this point in time.

Lastly you comment on the lack of information about the doctors at Envita. And your name is?? I admit I haven’t looked thoroughly, but I didn’t see in any of the pages I visited the name(s) of those who are running this website. The kind of negative information you have produced does nothing to better serve those who suffer from cancer. This kind of negative information could be found in any allopathic hospital or cancer treatment center as well. If that is what someones agenda was. I think people would be better served by posting that which is positive as well.

Envita is providing medical services to their patients at tremendous personal cost to their patients. The Envita websites don’t list the names or credentials of any of the doctors on their staff. The founder of Envita misrepresented his medical credentials and was brought up before the naturopathic board.

Most hospitals maintain a list of the doctors on their staff, along with a CV listing their education, credentials and publications.

We are not medical doctors, we are the parents of seriously ill children, some of whom have passed away. We do not charge for our services.

The information provided on this site is all verifiable through independent sources, links to which are provided. Any reader of this information can click on the links and decide for themselves whether the conclusions we’ve drawn are valid. Unlike Envita, we welcome comments, which are moderated to prevent spam.

If you can provide some reliable and evidence-based information on the efficacy of any treatments that Envita offers to treat children with brain tumors, please send it to the contact email on this site and we will publish it.

This post is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Password:

For the tax year 2005, Dino Prato is listed as the president, and Sandy Yozipovic, a senior national sales director partner of Primerica Financial Services, is listed as the co-chair.

The purpose of the foundation is listed on their Form 990 as:

Provide Educational Services Involving Homeopathic, Naturopathic, and Integrative Health Remedies.

On their website, the Fullness Foundation states their mission as:

The purpose of our foundation is to raise millions of dollars through our annual fundraising events. Our “Give Them Wings” program will provide scholarships to help relieve the financial burden that every family faces when they have a child diagnosed with cancer. The scholarship program is currently being built.

The Fullness of Life Foundation funded Poly MVA treatments for Riley, a 14-year girl with a brain tumor who had failed traditional treatments. No funding was offered to the families that brought their children to the Envita clinic in the summer of 2008.

On October 14, 2005, Envita hosted their first major fundraising event, One Night Stand Against Cancer.

Envita’s second annual fundraiser, "Celebrate Life" was held October 20, 2006 and included a charity golf tournament, health talk, silent auction, and live entertainment.

This year’s fundraiser, Believe, a Concert for Life will be held on October 25. Tickets are $85-$135.

Envita’s form 990 for 2006 covers the period July 1, 2006 to June 30, 2007.

The Schedule of Special Events and Activities attached to the form shows that the Foundation spent nearly $70,000 to put on the Celebrate Life event which netted them less than $1,500.

The exact figures:

Envita charges the DIPG kids they treat $1,800 for each Poly MVA infusion. Four infusions a week totals $7,200 per week.

Envita’s recommended protocol for the Poly MVA kids is now 60 infusions total, 4 infusions per week, total treatment taking 15 weeks. At $1,800 a pop, that’s $108,000.

Not including bloodwork and other Envita-recommended supplements, some of which cost well over $1,000 per month.

Despite the almost $70,000 spent to put on the benefit, The Fullness Foundation didn’t raise enough money to pay for one single Poly MVA treatment for one child.

The entire revenue of the Foundation for fiscal year 2006 was $41,433, not quite enough to cover the cost of 23 Poly MVA infusions at the prices they charged those kids.

Other clinics in Arizona, some run by other Envita doctors offer intravenous Poly MVA at half the cost that Envita charges their patients.

An 8-oz. bottle of Poly MVA purchased at full retail price can be ordered for $230. One bottle is used for multiple treatments. Volume buyers get an additional discount.

Most of the desperate families who brought their children to Envita are not wealthy. The amount of their children’s treatment exceeds what most of them make in a year, excluding loss of income, travel, and lodging costs. These families and their friends were able to put together fundraisers that raised well over 10 times what the Fullness of Life Foundation has raised in three years.

The Fullness Foundation knows how to put on a fancy party for rich people at partial taxpayer expense, but the most recent financials don’t show that they know how to raise money.

Caveat emptor.

Maybe they should hire the families and friends of those kids, they know how to raise money.