In 2018, as noted below, the Medical Board of California accused John E. Humiston, M.D. of negligence in managing two patients. In one case he administered intravenous fluids and ozone therapy to a family member who turned out to have a life-threaening heart value infection. In the other case, he prescribed alleged anti-tumor and anti-Candida products without adequate information for a patient who was undergoing chemotherapy for breast cancer. The case was settled with a stipulated agreement under which he was reprimanded for committing “gross negligence in his care and treatment of a family member” and was required to take at least 20 hours of continuing medical education “aimed at correcting any areas of deficient practice.”
Humiston trained as a family practitioner. He was board certified in 2000, but is no longer listed in the ABMS directory of certified specialists. From 2003 to 2010, he worked as a staff physician at the William Hitt Center in Tijuana, Mexico. A biographical sketch published by the Foundation for Alternative and Integrative Medicine described his work there this way:
Dr. Humiston uses urine injections (to treat auto-immune issues), auto-hemotherapy using ozone infusions (which is used extensively in Germany), herbal remedies and various other supplements such as colloidal silver. Dr. Humiston claims that the ozone therapy eliminates the HIV virus and keeps the viral load under control. For his cancer patients, his program includes a variety of very valid components. . . . The cancer protocol includes: high doses of IV Vitamin C, ozone, Laetrile, fulvic complex, zeolite, trace minerals, calcium, magnesium, potassium, mushrooms, black salve, NuFlora, chlorella, anti-candida program, cysteine, NDF, melatonin, and traditional Chinese herbal formulas.
Dr. Humiston has found that most of his patients have an imbalance in the digestive tract that manifests with widespread Candida. He uses several approaches to address this including dietary changes, probiotics, liver support and Hanna Kroeger’s herbal protocol for Candida which he administers as a kit of three formulations. Dr. Humiston recommends the removal of amalgam fillings, limiting exposure to pesticides and discontinuing the use of steroids. For migraine headaches he always treats the liver, eliminates aged cheese (not a retaliation against the French), wine and coffee. He has many of his patients on a two-week clearance program.
Since 2010, Humiston has been on the staff of The San Diego Center for Health and Healing, which describes him on its Web site as “San Diego’s Premier Candida and NeuroRecover Specialist.” He alsoi serves as a consult to the Serenity Recovery Center, which treats drug addiction. The Center’s Web site says that NeuroRecover usually involves intravenous administration of amino acids 6-8 hours a day for approximately 10 days.
Attorney General of California
MATTHEW M. DAVIS
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
LEANNA E. SHIELDS
Deputy Attorney General
State Bar No. 239872
600 West Broadway, Suite 1800
San Diego, CA 92101
P.O. Box 85266
San Diego, CA 92186-5266
Telephone: (619) 738-9401
Facsimile: (619) 645-2061
Attorneys for Complainant
MEDICAL BOARD OF CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
|In the Matter of the Accusation Against:
JOHN EDWARD HUMISTON, M.D.
Physician’s and Surgeon’s Certificate
|Case No. 8002015014545
FILED March 7, 2018
1. Kimberly Kirchmeyer (Complainant) brings this Accusation solely in her official capacity as the Executive Director of the Medical Board of California, Department of Consumer Affairs (Board).
2. On or about June 4, 2003, the Medical Board issued Physician’s and Surgeon’s Certificate No. A 83402 to John Edward Humiston, M.J?. (Respondent). The Physician’s and Surgeon’s Certificate was in full force and effect at all times relevant to the charges brought herein and will expire on October 31, 2018, unless renewed.
3. This Accusation is brought before the Board, under the authority of the following laws. All section references are to the Business and Professions Code (Code) unless otherwise indicated.
4. ‘Section 2227 of the Code states:
“(a) A licensee whose matter has been heard by an administrative law judge of the Medical Quality Hearing Panel as designated in Section 11371 of the Government Code, or whose default has been entered, and who is found guilty, or who has entered into a stipulation for disciplinary action with the board, may, in accordance “with the provisions of this chapter:
“(1) Have his or her license revoked upon order of the board.
“(2) Have his or her right to practice suspended for a period not to exceed one year upon order of the board.
“(3). Be placed on probation and be required to pay the costs of probation monitoring upon order of the board.
“(4) Be publicly reprimanded by the board. The public reprimand may include a requirement that the licensee complete relevant educational courses approved by the board.
“(5) Have any other action taken in relation to discipline as part of an order of probation, as the board or an administrative law judge may deem proper.
“(b) Any matter heard pursuant to subdivision (a), except for warning letters, medical review or advisory conferences, professional competency examinations, continuing education activities, and cost reimbursement associated therewith that are agreed to with the board and successfully completed by the licensee, or other matters made confidential or privileged by existing law, is deemed public, and shall be made available to the public by the board pursuant to Section 803.1.”
5. Section 2234 of the Code states, in pertinent part:
“The board shall take action against any licensee who is charged with unprofessional conduct. In addition to other provisions of this article, unprofessional conduct includes, but is not limited to the following:
“(a) Violating or attempting to violate, directly or indirectly, assisting in or abetting the violation of, or conspiring to violate any provision of this chapter.
“(b) Gross ‘negligence,
“(c) Repeated negligent acts. To· be repeated, there must be two or more negligent acts or omissions. An initial negligent act or omission followed· by a separate and distinct departure from the applicable standard of care shall constitute repeated negligent acts.
“(I) An initial negligent diagnosis followed by an act or omission medically appropriate for that negligent diagnosis of the patient shall constitute a single negligent act.
“(2) When the standard of care requires a change in the diagnosis, act, or omission that constitutes the negligent act described in paragraph (1), including, but not limited to, a reevaluation of the diagnosis or a change in treatment, and the licensee’s conduct departs from the applicable standard of care, each departure constitutes a separate and distinct breach of the standard of care. ·
“. . . “
FIRST CAUSE FOR DISCIPLINE
(Gross Negligent Acts)
6. Respondent has subjected his Physician’s and Surgeon’s Certificate No. A 83402 to disciplinary action under sections 2227 and 2234, as defined by 2234, (subdivision b), of the Code, in that he committed gross negligence in his care and treatment of Patient A, as more particularly alleged hereinafter:
7. On or about October 17, 2016, Patient A,1 a family member of respondent who has a history of various medical conditions including bacterial endocarditis,2 began displaying flu-like symptoms. Respondent treated Patient A with intravenous fluids and Ozone therapy3
1Patient names are withheld to protect privacy interests.
2Bacterial endocarditis is an infection of the heart’s valves or inner lining.
3Ozone therapy is a form of alternative medicine treatment that increases the amount of oxygen by introducing ozone into the body.
8. On or about October 18, 2016, respondent again treated Patient A with intravenous fluids and Ozone therapy.
9. On or about October 19, 2016, Patient A’s symptoms seemingly improved, but then onor about October 20, 2016, Patient A’s symptoms worsened. On or about October 20, 2016, respondent treated Patient A with intravenous fluids and Ozone therapy.
10. In the evening of October 20, 2016, Patient A’s condition continued to decline and respondent brought Patient A to the emergency department at R.C.H.
11. At no time during did respondent order laboratory testing to assess Patient A. Upon presentation at the emergency department, Patient A was determined to be in septic shock, respiratory distress and hypovolemic shock. Further evaluation revealed vegetation of Patient A’s tricuspid valve and acute renal failure.
13. Respondent committed gross negligence in his care and treatment of Patient A, which included but was not limited to:
A. Involving himself in the medical care of a family member, Patient A; and
B. Failing to refer Patient A to a higher level of medical intervention in a timely manner.
SECOND CAUSE FOR DISCIPLINE
(Repeated Negligent Acts).
14. Respondent has further subjected his Physician’s and Surgeon’s Certificate No. A 83402 to disciplinary action under sections 2227 and 2234, as defined by 2234, subdivision (c), of the Code, in that he committed repeated negligent acts in his care and treatment of Patients A and B, as more particularly alleged hereinafter:
15. On or about July 21, 2014, Patient B, who was undergoing chemotherapy for stage 3 breast cancer, presented for integrative cancer management.
16. Respondent recommended Patient B use a product called Safinur4 and an anti-Candida5 supplement protocol. Following respondent’s recommendation, Patient B purchased a one-month supply of Safinur and anti-Candida supplements.
4Safinur, ligustrumjaponicum, is used in alternative medicine for its anti-tumor properties.
5Candida, candida albicans, refers to the overgrowth of yeast orfungus in the body.
17. Patient B subsequently conducted research but was unable to locate any information regarding Safinur or the anti-Candida supplement protocol.
18. Respondent committed repeated negligent acts in his. care and treatment of Patients A and B, which included but was not limited to:
A. Paragraphs 6 through 13, above, are hereby incorporated by reference and realleged as if fully set forth herein; and
B. Failing to provide Patient B with adequate information regarding Safinur and the anti-Candida supplement protocol to make an informed decision.
THIRD CAUSE FOR DISCIPLINE
(Violation of a Provision or Provisions of the Medical Practice Act)
19. Respondent has further subjected his Physician’s and Surgeon’s Certificate No. A 83402 to disciplinary action under sections 2227 and 2234, as defined by 2234, subdivision (a), of the Code, in that he committed a violation of a provision or provisions of the Medical Practice Act, as more particularly alleged in paragraphs 6 through 18, above, which are hereby incorporated by reference and realleged as ‘if fully set forth herein.
WHEREFORE, Complainant requests that a hearing be held on the matters herein alleged, and that following the hearing, the Medical Board of California issue a decision:
1. Revoking or suspending Physician’s and Surgeon’s Certificate No. A 83402, issued to respondent John Edward Humiston, M.D.;
2. Revoking, suspending or denying approval of respondent John Edward Humiston, M.D. ‘s authority to supervise physician assistants and advanced practice nurses;
3. Ordering respondent John Edward Humiston, M.D., if placed on probation, to pay the Board the costs of probation monitoring; and
4. Taking such. other and further action as deemed necessary and proper.
DATED: March 7, 2018
Medical Boardo California
Department of Consumer Affairs
Stale of California
This article was posted on March 19, 2019.