Barb Wilkie's EHN Website
Last updated 2008

EHN Board President Barb Wilkie was very ill from chemically-induced kidney disease for several years. She passed away May 31, 2011. EHN presents this site both as a tribute and as valuable information. Many links and references will be out of date but Barb's research holds up over time. We will be transferring the site page by page, with updated details, to EHN's main site. If you would like to reach an EHN staff person, please contact us directly.


EHN [of California]
P.O. Box 1155
Larkspur, California, 94977-0074

Support and Information Line
(SAIL) 415.541.5075
A 501 (c) (3) non profit agency.

Dr. Sinaiko

California State Senate Business & Professions Committee
California Citizens For Health:

Also see Act Now!


$$$$$ NEEDED $$$$$ $$$$$ NEEDED $$$$$ $$$$$ NEEDED $$$$$

(Dr. Sinaiko closed his office in October. Another Environmental Injustice! -- barb)

Report in from Shula, Tue, 9 Nov 1999

Dear Supporters,

Thanks to all your help, we have almost -- almost -- received enough donations and pledges to cover the expenses from before and the beginning expenses of the Appeal process. Richard Turner, Dr. Sinaiko's attorney, went ahead and dug into his own pocket -- again -- to go forward with the appeal as the time was running out. This guy deserves a medal. No lawyers jokes for me ever again !!

The first document filed in the appeal is now on the web site at the link called "APPEAL" (aren't I original?) or go directly there at

I have also updated Dr. Sinaiko's front page at based on a letter he wrote to his patients.

Best wishes,

Shula Edelkind
Progress in Medicine Foundation
Medical Defense Fund
PO Box 1565
Fontana, CA 92334

Report in from Shula, Thu, 21 Oct 1999

FR: shula@feingold.orgwrote:
Subject: Dr. Sinaiko - update

Dear Supporters,

As you know, the only thing left to do now for Dr. Sinaiko -- and for other physicians whose practice is in any way similar -- is to support the appeal. Unfortunately, we are one day and $20,000 shy of the money needed to begin the appeals process.

We need 2 people to donate $ 5,000
... and 4 people to donate $ 1,000
... and 6 people to donate $ 500
... and 10 people to donate $ 100
... and 20 people to donate $ 50
... and 50 people to donate $ 20
Can you help?

If so, let me know immediately by return email. Pledges are OK. If we do not start the work by this weekend, we cannot prepare the appeal in time. The money is for buying the new sets of transcripts (26 volumes) and other evidentiary papers, court fees, preparation fees, not to mention paying past preparation expenses that our attorney has himself paid out of his pocket when our funds fell short.

Thank you,

Shula Edelkind


Report in from Shula, Sun, 12 Sep 1999

Dear Supporters,

I sent you the short version [below, see Sept. 4] as soon as I received the information. Now, you can see the full annotated Decision on Reconsideration with comparisons with the original Decision. It is in 2 versions: for reading on-screen, and for printing to read elsewhere.

I will shortly also have a third version on there.... one with the comparisons but no annotations, which may be easier to read but which will lack my brilliant comments, of course.

In analyzing the Decision some interesting things became clear:


    (1) They removed references of "NO scientific support" for Dr. Sinaiko's practices.

    (2) They removed references to Dr. Sinaiko's "lack of skill and knowledge."

    (3) That left them with "practicing outside the standard of practice expected from the community of physicians in California."

    (4) In their detailed history of each patient, they continued to ignore and leave out most the appointments showing improvement under Dr. Sinaiko's care --- when it suited them, they left out actual YEARS of the patient's care. For the most part they acted as though the Defense Brief and Oral Presentation did not exist.

    (5) As in the first Decision, the only "harm" they could find was that the child "should have" been sent for counseling, and not tested for allergies, and that he prescribed a medicine that SL "couldn't afford." They continued to refer to diagnoses of candidiasis hypersensitivity, MCS, chronic fatigue syndrome, and allergy-related ADHD as nonexistent diseases.

    (6) They certainly made it clear that a physician must not treat a patient by history and symptoms without a positive test or in the event of a negative test -- in spite of the known occurrences of false positives, which they don't mention. The particular case here involved a parasite infection with a history of a trip to India and an untreated sexual partner also from India, and appropriate symptoms - but not a positive test for giardia. Neither can one give a therapeutic trial, which all doctors do because it is often the patient's response to the medicine that is the best way to find out if they need it. No -- one must first PROVE by whatever risky or invasive means that the patient really has the disorder before daring to treat it. If a false negative is suspected, well, tough. It's not safe for the doctor to treat that patient.

    (7) They continue to maintain that the method of preparing the antigen shot for EPD -- which includes dilution, a procedure all allergists must use -- is "adulteration." They base this charge on the definition of adulteration as dilution or changing of the strength of a drug.

    (8) They continued to maintain at length that amphotericin B is a "dangerous drug" in spite of their acknowledgment that it is not dangerous in the manner used. They continued to maintain that it was not allowed for sale in 1993 in spite of FDA evidence (which they did not admit) to the contrary. Part of the punishment prevents Dr. Sinaiko from prescribing it unless the FDA specifically approves it for the specific use.... in other words, "off-label" use is still prevented, although they tried to make it appear that they only care about this specific drug. They did not show that the drug in any way harmed the patient. What would prevent their doing that for any other specific drug? They also hid this sentence effectively within an unrelated paragraph.

    (9) Use of EPD by Dr. Sinaiko is forbidden unless he can obtain a Calfiornia IRB and an IND (this is what drug companies get at the point when they want to do clinical trials - it would involve a great deal of money, as well as placebo-controlled drug trials to "prove" it safe and effective.) This is an impossible condition. It appears from feedback from individual doctors that other physicians using EPD in other states, too, are quickly getting out of the field. There is a climate of fear now related to this safe and effective treatment. It is no longer safe -- for doctors.

True to Prosecutor Terrazas' boast of his intended "death of a thousand cuts" there are so many parts to this case that each special interest can say "well, there were other factors involved as well." That is true, but each "factor" is equally undeserved and bogus, and the whole is calculated to keep groups interested in only one facet of the case from being supportive. Be aware that this is not because he did "so many things wrong," but because when a doctor learns about one new treatment, he often also is open to learning about another ... and furthermore, this is a tactic purposely used by the Medical Board as a divisive technique. Where they couldn't find things, they invented them.

For example, based on NOTHING comes the brand-new accusation in the middle of the Discussion Section -- that he did not document the patients' response when he discontinued a diet or treatment. This was NEVER an allegation. Another novel sentence added to the Discussion stated that doing experimentation without proper documentation or evaluation of patient response is outside the standard of practice. As a statement, this is a true sentence; however, it has nothing NOTHING whatsoever to do with the case. Besides the fact that he did NOT DO "experimentation," he was NEVER ACCUSED of failing to document or evaluate any patient response. This stuff was just made up without a shred of basis - without even an "accusation" to back it up !!

With this I will leave you with the links ... Click on the "RULING" link on the web site at

The Patient Support Group will be brainstorming and making plans to raise money for the appeal, so that Dr. Sinaiko can return to be their physician providing them with the treatments that they need, especially including their allergy treatments. You can contact them if you would like to volunteer to help by e-mailing Karen Scott at and as always you can donate to the Fund either on the web site by credit card or at the address below.

Best wishes,

Shula Edelkind
Progress in Medicine Foundation
Medical Defense Fund
PO Box 1565
Fontana, CA 92334


Report in from Shula, Sept. 4, 1999 --

Dear Supporters,

The decision by the Board is coming through my fax machine right now. It appears to be very similar to the original decision ..... including all the lies in the original ... and all the years of improvement of the patients left out ....Board experts Tepper, Zlotlow, Diller and Miraglia are said to have "sterling qualifications in their fields" .... that may be so, but 3 of the 4 operate in DIFFERENT fields from Dr. Sinaiko. And Dr. Terr's conflict of interest is apparently not a problem because he is "distinguished." All the same words as Judge Astle used.....which were written by Terrazas. The punishment is different.

The revocation is stayed, and instead, Dr. Sinaiko is to be punished as follows:


  • Probation for 5 years


  • Pass an oral exam in Allergy and Immunology, with specific focus on the "diseases which gave rise to the Accusation in this matter" [i.e., he will be required to say that they don't exist, right?]


  • The exam will be made up and graded by the MBC...


  • If he does not pass after 3 tries in 18 months, it is a violation of probation (that means revocation)


  • Take and pass a course of Ethics approved by the MBC


  • Prohibited from using EPD unless he gets an IRB from a local California medical school AND an IND (investigational new drug application .... this would be reasonable if he were a pharmaceutical company and had invented the medicine to be used for sale)


  • Prohibited from prescribing amphotericin B until it is approved by the FDA specifically for this use.


  • Be monitored twice monthly by a monitor who will review everything including his billing practice (that was never an issue)


  • Pay for all the above "services"


  • Take a course in prescribing practices approved by MBC


  • Take 65 hours of courses per year designed by MBC in addition to usual continuing education courses


  • Pass a test designed by the MBC for each of the above courses


  • Pay $49,472.79 (the reduced "recovery fee" to pay for his own prosecution) within 90 days from effective date of this decision, which is October 4.


  • Appear in person for interviews at MBC whenever they say


  • Failure to pay any of the costs is a "violation of probation" to result in revocation


  • Retirement before the end of probation will result in revocation, called here "voluntarily tendering his certificat tot he Board."


  • Any accusation or petition to revoke probation during probation will extend the probation until whenever they say the matter is "final."

Can he fight this? Does he have a choice?
A bigger problem -- can he afford it?

I will keep you posted.

Shula Edelkind

Please note: To really keep up with the latest information, please join up with
Shula's alert list. I bring you information, only as I am able. -- barb

Next hearing:

Date: July 30, 1999
Time: 9:00 a.m.

Place: Embassy Suites - near San Francisco Airport
(Mendocino Room)
150 Anza Blvd.
Burlingame, CA 94010
(650) 342-4600

The time alloted to each side is 15 minutes "opening" and 5 minutes to "close"

July 16, 1999

Dear Supporters,

The Brief on Reconsideration was filed on July 6th!!

We worked so long and hard on it that the lamp overheated and caught itself on fire, and the main computer overheated and quit. We accidentally formatted the backup disk, and had to put the document back together from the transfer disks.

Which we did, working through July 4th, and 5th, and into the morning of the 6th. Our hats off to Rocky Mountain Litigation Service for their printing and professional binding, even picking up sections at 2:00 am.

The Brief consists of 8 volumes -- the main Brief plus 8 Appendices in 7 volumes. The main Brief volume has 214 pages + 261 footnotes. Every point had to be raised at this time or it cannot be raised in the future, in case we must go on to Superior and Supreme Courts.

I have posted the Brief on the website at . I think even those of you who have already read the previous documents will find this one worth the trouble. There are also summary "yellow boxes" which will provide a quick look if you prefer to scroll through stopping only on them.

I have also posted the information about the Hearing itself, next to it. Following is the information:

Date: July 30, 1999
Time: 9:00 a.m.

Place: Embassy Suites - near San Francisco Airport
(Mendocino Room)
150 Anza Blvd.
Burlingame, CA 94010
(650) 342-4600

The time alloted to each side is 15 minutes "opening" and 5 minutes to "close."

I hope you will be able to join us. There is power in numbers. Wear your orange and/or yellow pin if you have one -- they will also be available at the Hearing.

RE: Dollars and Cents -- The bottom line is that we have already raised (and disbursed) about $156,700 but we need about $75,000 more to make it through the Hearing, if everyone who has helped is to get paid and/or reimbursed their costs, especially our attorney who has been paying his staff out of his fees -- and at times even out of his own pension fund, as our fees have had some trouble keeping up.

Our hats are also off to the EPD Society which has provided a much-needed major financial shot in the arm (no pun intended) when we most desperately needed it. We will do our best -- now and later -- to assure that EPD remains available for Americans.

Best wishes,

Shula Edelkind
Colleen Smethers

A must read! . . .
Was this doctor "unconventional" enough to lose his license?
Medical Economics Magazine

July 2, 1999

Spread far and wide, please. . . I have no idea how long the survey will be up, so please act now. (The info could be there, but I'm not seeing it.)

I've just learned Medical Economics Magazine has up a survey on Dr. Sinaiko -- he's the SF doctor who is being run outta Dodge by the Calif Medical Board.

Please go to where you can cast your vote online and from which you can also link to the article. Frankly, I'd like you to take the time to read the article before you vote

For more information, see --
Progress in Medicine Foundation
(AKA: The Medical Defense Fund)

Thanks for taking the time. -- barb


Don't forget to come to the May 8th Medical Board
meeting at the State Capitol Building in Sacramento.

9:00 Dr. Kenneth Pelletier speaking on "State of
Science-Based Research in Alternative Medicine."
See his bio at


May 3, 1999 update [1] DON'T FORGET -- SATURDAY MAY 8
Don't forget to come to the May 8th Medical Board
meeting at the State Capitol Building in Sacramento.
9:00 Dr. Kenneth Pelletier speaking on "State of
Science-Based Research in Alternative Medicine."
See his bio at

Get a ribbon supporting freedom of medical choice and
sign up to speak at our table.

[2] CANCELLED: MAY 11 Physicians Right To Practice Bill
This was scheduled to be presented on this date.
This cancellation will allow it to be presented in January
in a stronger position.

[3] POSTPONED: Dr. Sinaiko's hearing has been postponed. Superior Court has agreed that to do justice to reviewing
the enormous amount of materials, the brief should be filed
no earlier than June 30, 1999, and the hearing date to
follow that. The dates will be set by the Medical Board.

Some of you may have visited the bookstore-in-progress
already. Come back now and see how we've grown !!
We will continue to add new books, so visit often and
see what we have. One or two of you have recommended
books for inclusion, but please forgive me -- at some point
my ADHD took over (or was that a "senior moment"?) and
I cannot find the file where I put the suggestions. Please
e-mail me -- again -- with the names of any books you
would like to recommend for our Bookstore.

Remember, the Bookstore is a way to help the Fund without
costing you anything ........ any time you want to browse, just start at our web site .... and any book or
video you buy will generate some income for us as well.

Thank you all for standing by us. Just a few more months !!
Best wishes,

Shula Edelkind
Medical Defense Fund


Dr. Sinaiko and Senate Bill 1045


Dear Supporters,

Below are the contact numbers, email etc. for the members of the Senate committee before which Dr. Robert Sinaiko was invited to testify -- however that was cancelled. You can see the recommendations of the CMA at

If you support this Bill, as we do, please send a short note to each of the Senators telling them so. Opinions can be sent by email from the web pages listed below, and email addresses are also included. Or faxes can be sent to each of the Committee Members. If you represent an organization, please also send a fax on your organization letterhead.

URGENT!!! Please pass this information on to any other organizations or mailing lists you can. -- Shula


Senators to receive letters regarding SB 1045

California State Senate Business and Professions Committee

Current Status of SB 1045[BILL.CURRENT.SB.FROM1000.SB1045]

Senator Liz Figueroa (Chair)
She does not accept faxes, but will accept
e-mail or a letter by mail or hand-delivered.


State Capitol Room 2057
Sacramento, CA 95814

(916) 445-6671 (Sacramento)

Senator Maurice Johannessen (Vice Chair)
(916) 445-3353
(916) 445- 7750 FAX

Senator David G. Kelley
(916) 445-5581
(916) 327-2187 FAX

Senator Kevin Murray (author of Senate Bill 1045)
(916) 445-8800
(916) 445-8899 FAX

Senator Jack O'Connell
(916) 445-5405
(916) 322-3304 FAX

Senator Richard G. Polanco
(916) 445-3456
(916) 445-0413 FAX
Senator Jackie Speier
(916) 445-0503
(916) 327-2186 FAX

Thank you,

Shula Edelkind
Medical Defense Fund





Comments? (Barb's email is no longer valid, please contact EHN). Please put WWW in subject line. Thanks.




Please check back often as we are always adding valuable links to our pages of Links.

As with all organizations, EHN depends upon your contributions of time and energy, as well as your membership support.






Top of page

Return to Act Now! (

Return to EHN's homepage (

ehnindex.htm -- rev. 5/ 3/99

The Environmental Health Network (EHN) [of California] is a 501 (c) (3) non profit agency and offers support and information for the chemically injured. EHN brings you topics on this page that need your immediate attention The URL for this page is