• Maryland Authorities Charge Lupron Protocol Promoters With Unprofessional Conduct, Unlicensed Practice ofMedicine
• Geiers Sue OAP Petitioners Attorneys For $600,000
• Maryland Medical Board Suspends Dr. Mark GeiersLicense
• Fraud Watchdog Sounds Autism Fundraising ScamAlert
• 2011 IACC Strategic Plan for Autism Spectrum DisorderResearch
• U.S. Supreme Court Ruling in Bruesewitz v.Wyeth
• MITs Face-to-Face OnlineStudy
• A Complete Abandonment OfPrinciple
• OSR: Off TheMarket
• OSR: The LittlestConsumers
• OSR: A Bevy Of AdverseEvents
Autism & Disability Sites & Blogs
Action for Autism
Adventures In Extreme Parenting
Along The Spectrum
Andreas Buzzing About
The Art of Being Asperger Woman
Ask An Aspie
Asperger Square 8
Aspergers Parallel Planet
Aspie Home Education
Aspies For Freedom
Autiemom Speaks Out
Autism All The Time
The Autism Crisis: Science Ethics of Autism Advocacy
Autism Natural Variation
Autistic Adults Picture Project
Autistic Conjecture of the Day
Bartholomew Cubbins on Autism
Chewing the Fat
Commentary on the State of the World
Countering Age of Autism
Desperately Seeking Ethics Reason
The Family Voyage
Grey Matter/White Matter
Hard Won Wisdom
I Speak of Dreams
Ian Johnsons neurodiversity blog
in regione caecorum rex est luscus
Jenny McCarthy Body Count
The Joy of Autism
Killer of Sacred Cows
The Kingdom of Laurentius Rex
Left Brain/Right Brain
Life in the New Republic
A Life Less Ordinary
The Life That Chose Me
meow meow meow... blah blah blah
Misadventures from a Different Perspective
The Misbehaviour of Behaviourists (Discussion Board)
Mom Not Otherwise Specified
Mom to Mr. Handsome
More Than a Label
Mother of Shrek
My Act of Combating Neurobigotry
My Son Has Autism
My Sons Autism
Neurotypicals Are Weird
No Autistics Allowed
Odd One Out
One Dads Opinion
Parenting a Complex Special Needs Child
Pre-Rain Man Autism
Processing in Parts
The R Word
Random Reminiscing Ramblings
The Rettdevils Rants
Sam I Am
Shh... Mum Is Thinking
Snippets: Short Takes on Autistic Topics
So Much For Mercury
Stop. Think. Autism.
This Way of Life
A Touch of Alyricism
Touched by an Alien
Touched By An Alien
Translating Autism: Autism Research
We Go To School To Think
What Sorts of People...?
Whitterer on Autism
Whose Planet Is It Anyway?
Wikipedia on Neurodiversity
Older Advocacy Letters
Anti-Mercury or Anti-Vaccine?
Autism Human Rights (CAC)
Autism Personhood (NIMH)
The Autism Epidemic Real Epidemics (MIND)
Autism, Mercury Politics (Globe)
Babies Autism (Newsweek)
Deadly Immunity? (Salon)
Evidence of Venom (David Kirby)
Lenny Schafers Inquisition
On My Name Is Autism
On Generation Rescues Rescue Angels
Parents vs. Research (NYTimes)
What Caused the Autism Epidemic? (NYTimes)
Science Sites & Blogs
The Angry Toxicologist
Bartholomew Cubbins on RNA
Confessions of a Quackbuster
The Daily Transcript
Ethics of Vaccines, Center for Bioethics, U Penn
Existence Is Wonderful
GNIF Brain Blogger
Good Math, Bad Math
Junk Food Science
NHS Blog Doctor
A Photon In the Darkness
Respectful Insolence (Orac Knows)
Vaccine: The Book
Law & Politics
Citizen Media Law Project
Consumer Law Policy
Drug Device Law
Legal Blog Watch
The Legal Satyricon
NY Personal Injury Law Blog
Point of Law
The following is the full text of the Notice of Charges and Allegations against Rashid Buttar, D.O., issued by the North Carolina Medical Board on November 20, 2007. The Notice describes Dr. Buttars treatment of four patients via intravenous administration of EDTA, DMPS, vitamin and mineral supplements, and hydrogen peroxide. The Board alleges that Dr. Buttar:
provided therapies that were unproven and wholly ineffective;
charged exorbitant fees for his ineffectual therapies, and dunned widows and survivors of his deceased patients for thousands of dollars;
order[ed] numerous tests and lab work that had no rational, medical relationship to the Patients cancer diagnosis in an attempt to drive up costs;
treated [patients] on an indistinguishable or arbitrary protocol regardless of their individual diagnosis All Patients received frequent, expensive treatments that had no recognized scientific evidence of any validity whatsoever on almost a daily basis without any evidence of sustained improvement.
The Board charges that Dr. Buttars treatment of these patients was unprofessional, unethical, ineffective, and exploitive, and therefore seeks to annul, suspend, revoke, or limit his license to practice medicine.
A hearing is scheduled on Wednesday, February 20, 2008.
BEFORE THE NORTH CAROLINA MEDICAL BOARD
In re Rashid Ali Buttar, D.O., Respondent
NOTICE OF CHARGES AND ALLEGATIONS; NOTICE OF HEARING
The North Carolina Medical Board (hereafter, Board) has preferred and does hereby prefer the following charges and allegations:
1. The Board is a body duly organized under the laws of North Carolina and is the proper party to bring this proceeding under the authority granted it in Article 1 of Chapter 90 of the North Carolina General Statutes.
2. Rashid Ali Buttar, D.O. (hereafter, Dr. Buttar), is a physician licensed by the Board on or about May 20, 1995, to practice medicine and surgery, license number 95-00528.
3. During the times relevant herein, Dr. Buttar practiced medicine in Cornelius, North Carolina.
4. Patients A through C presented to Dr. Buttar with a diagnosis of cancer.
5. Patient A presented to Dr. Buttar with a diagnosis of cervical cancer.
6. Patient B presented to Dr. Buttar with a diagnosis of ovarian cancer.
7. Patient C presented with a diagnosis of adrenal cell cancer.
8. Patient D presented to Dr. Buttar with a history of colon polyps.
9. Patients A, B and C would eventually succumb to their cancer.
10. Patients A, B and C, desperate for any hope to combat their disease, came to Dr. Buttar because of Dr. Buttars representations that the therapies he offered would be effective in their battle against cancer. Dr. Buttars representations were false, and were made by Dr. Buttar with full knowledge of their falsity.
11. Dr. Buttar provided therapies to Patients A, B and C that were unproven and wholly ineffective. The therapies consisted primarily of intravenous administration of a variety of substances, none of which has any known value for the treatment of cancer. The substances included EDTA (ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid), chromium, certain vitamins, and hydrogen-peroxide.
12. Dr. Buttar charged exorbitant fees for his ineffectual therapies. The total cost of the intravenous injections and other therapies for these cancer patients at times ranged in the thousands, sometimes tens of thousands, of dollars. Not only would Dr. Buttar order and have administered unproven and ineffectual therapies for Patients A, B and C in an attempt to drive up his billings, he would also order numerous tests and lab work for these patients that had no rational, medical relationship to the Patients cancer diagnosis. Moreover, many tests and lab work that were ordered by Dr. Buttar were never adequately justified in the medical records of the patients, were never linked to the patients diagnoses or clinical condition, and in some instances never interpreted.
13. There is no evidence that any of the extensive and expensive laboratory data obtained on Patients A, B, C and D were used for treatment decisions. In essence, the medical records indicate that the extensive testing and lab work for Patients A, B, C and D were not ordered for any medical or clinical purpose, but were instead ordered in an attempt to drive up costs.
14. Patients A, B and C seemed to be treated on an indistinguishable or arbitrary protocol regardless of their individual diagnosis. None of the Patients (A – D) showed any evidence of response or benefit to the treatments they received at Dr. Buttar’s office. All Patients received frequent, expensive treatments that had no recognized scientific evidence of any validity whatsoever on almost a daily basis without any evidence of sustained improvement.
15. The medical records of Patients A, B, C and D also do not indicate that Dr. Buttar ever examined or followed any of the patients. All four patients were seen and treated mainly by Dr. Buttars nurse practitioner. Despite having little, or no personal interaction with Patients A, B, C and D, Dr. Buttar nonetheless charged thousands of dollars to each patient for his services.
16. Dr. Buttar charged Patient C over $32,000.00 for treatments he knew to be ineffectual. Immediately prior to his death, Patient C sent a check to Dr. Buttar, for partial payment, in the amount of $6,700.00. Before Dr. Buttar could cash the check, Patient Cs widow cancelled the check because she felt that Dr. Buttars treatments were useless even though Dr. Buttar had promised her and her husband that his treatments had a 100% success rate.
17. After Patient Cs widow cancelled the $6,700.00 check, Dr. Buttar referred Patient Cs account to a collection agency. The amount that Dr. Buttar sought from Patient As widow exceeded $25,000.00, which included the unpaid portion of Patient Cs bill, interest, and a 25% collection fee.
18. Patient B was treated by Dr. Buttar for a period of two months, from April 2004 to June 2004. During this two month period, Dr. Buttar charged Patient B in excess of $30,000.00 for ineffectual therapies that included injections of intravenous vitamins and other substances, chelation therapy with DMPS (Dimercapto-propane sulfonate) and EDTA, Philbert Infra Respiratory Reflex Procedure and Ondamed biofeedback. All of Patient Bs clinical notes were written by his nurse practitioner, and for an extended period of time, Dr. Buttars nurse practitioner exclusively saw and treated Patient B.
19. Prior to her death, Patient B paid Dr. Buttar $10,258.00. Dr. Buttar has sought collection from Patient Bs estate the remaining $19,765.00 of his charges.
20. Patient A was treated by Dr. Buttar for one month beginning in July, 2006. Patient A came to Dr. Buttar after a radical hysterectomy, chemotherapy and radiation therapy all failed to halt the spread of her cancer, which by July 2006 had spread to her liver and lungs. Dr. Buttars treatment of Patient A was to administer hydrogen peroxide intravenously. Patient A paid $12,360.00 to Dr. Buttar for an initial fee. Over the next month, Patient A would have nineteen (19) other office visits with Dr. Buttar and pay an additional $18,000.00, for a total of $27,820.00 (Patient As family received a refund of $2,540.00). The average cost of Patient As office visits for Dr. Buttar (to receive IV hydrogen peroxide) was $1,464.00. All examinations and office visit notes for Patient A were written by Dr. Buttars nurse practitioner. Although Patient A was billed for physician attendance and supervision, it is unclear from Patient As medical record whether Dr. Buttar ever examined Patient A or provided much of any supervision to his nurse practitioner.
21. Patient D presented to Dr. Buttar with a history of colon polyps. Dr. Buttar initiated chelation therapy for Patient D without ever seeing the patient or establishing a diagnosis. Patient D was seen only by Dr. Buttars nurse practitioner and not on all visits. Most of the documentation regarding Patient D has to do with billing issues. There is no diagnosis, no treatment plan defined, and no repeat evaluation of Patient D directly. Patient Ds clinical notes consist of six (6) pages, but her financial and laboratory related items consist of some sixty (60) pages. In sum, there is no documented history or examination on repeat visits for Patient D, no stated working diagnosis, and no rationale for the treatment plan. However, there is extensive diagnostic testing without medical justification or indication.
22. Dr. Buttars treatment of Patients A, B, C and D constitutes unprofessional conduct, including, but not limited to, departure from, or the failure to conform to, the standards of acceptable and prevailing medical practice, or the ethics of the medical profession, irrespective of whether a patient is injured thereby, within the meaning of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 90-14(a)(6), and grounds exist under that section of the North Carolina General Statutes for the Board to annul, suspend, revoke, or limit his license to practice medicine and surgery issued by the Board or deny any application he might make in the future.
23. Dr. Buttars treatment of Patients A, B, C and D constitutes unprofessional conduct in that he provided a therapy, whether it be characterized as experimental, nontraditional, or a departure from acceptable and prevailing medical practices, that nonetheless has a safety risk greater than the prevailing treatment or that the treatment is generally not effective within the meaning of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 90-14(a)(6), and grounds exist under that section of the North Carolina General Statutes for the Board to annul, suspend, revoke, or limit his license to practice medicine and surgery issued by the Board or deny any application he might make in the future.
24. Dr. Buttars conduct in regard to Patients A, B, C, and D constitutes Dr. Buttar providing services to a patient in such a manner as to exploit the patient within the meaning of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 90-14(a)(12), and grounds exist under that section of the North Carolina General Statutes for the Board to annul, suspend, revoke, or limit his license to practice medicine and surgery issued by the Board or deny any application he might make in the future, and furthermore, upon a finding of the exploitation, the Board may order restitution be made to the payer of the bill, whether the patient or the insurer, by the physician, provided that a determination of the amount of restitution shall be based on credible testimony in the record.
NOTICE TO DR. BUTTAR
Pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 90-14.2, it is hereby ordered that a hearing on the foregoing Notice of Charges and Allegations will be held before the Board, or a panel thereof, at 8:00 a.m., on Wednesday, February 20, 2008, or as soon thereafter as the Board may hear it, at the offices of the Board, 1203 Front Street, Raleigh, North Carolina, to continue until completed. The hearing will be held pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 150B-40, 41, and 42, and N.C. Gen. Stat. § 90-14.2, 14.4, 14.5, and 14.6. You may appear personally and through counsel, may cross-examine witnesses and present evidence in your own behalf. You may, if you desire, file written answers to the charges and complaints preferred against you within 30 days after the service of this notice.
The identities of Patients A through D and the date and place of treatment of these patients are being withheld from public disclosure pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 90-8. However, this information will be provided to you upon your request.
Pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 150B-40(5), it is further ordered that the parties shall arrange a pre-hearing conference at which they shall prepare and sign a stipulation on pre-hearing conference substantially in the form attached hereto. The prehearing stipulation shall be submitted to the undersigned no later than seven days prior to the hearing date. The right to be present during the hearing of this case, including any such right conferred or implied by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 150B-40(d), shall be deemed waived by a party or his counsel by voluntary absence from the Board’s office at a time when it is known that proceedings, including deliberations, are being conducted, or are about to be conducted. In such event the proceedings, including additional proceedings after the Board has retired to deliberate, may go forward without waiting for the arrival or return of counsel or a party.
This the 20th day of November, 2007.
NORTH CAROLINA MEDICAL BOARD
Janelle A. Rhyne, M.D. President