1000 mLs of Truth: The Deposition of Stanley Plotkin

1000 mLs of Truth

The Deposition of Stanley Plotkin

The following is the transcript for the deposition of Stanley Plotkin in January 2018:

MS. NIEUSMA: I’m going to ask that everybody speak up. You’re all coming across a little soft other than Maureen. She’s doing fine.

VIDEO OPERATOR: This is the start of media labeled number one of the video-recorded deposition of Dr. Stanley Plotkin in the matter of Lori Matheson, formerly known as Lori Ann Schmitt, versus Michael Schmitt, filed in the State of Michigan, Circuit Court, County of Oakland, Family Division. This deposition is being held at 5833 Lower York Road in New Hope, Pennsylvania, on January 11, 2018.

Counsel, please introduce yourselves for the record.

MR. SIRI: Aaron Siri, co-counsel on behalf of plaintiff.

MS. RUBY: Amy Ruby, on behalf -- co-counsel on behalf of plaintiff.

MS. NIEUSMA: Laura Nieusma, counsel for defendant, Michael Schmitt.

VIDEO OPERATOR: The court reporter will now swear in the witness.

-- -

STANLEY PLOTKIN, M.D., having been first duly sworn to tell the truth, was examined and testified as follows:

-- - EXAMINATION

BY MR. SIRI:

Q: Good morning, Dr. Plotkin.

MS. RUBY: Can we just make a record under this...

MR. SIRI: I would just like to clarify that this is being recorded by a video deposition pursuant to MCR 2.315.

BY MR. SIRI:

Q: Good morning. Can you please state your full name for the record.

A: Stanley A. Plotkin.

Q: Dr. Plotkin, have you been deposed before?

A: A long time ago. Many years ago.

Q: In what matter was that?

A: Oh, it had to do with an abortion done because of congenital rubella.

Q: What year approximately?

A: The 1960s.

Q: And what was your testimony about?

A: My testimony was about the abnormalities that occur in infants of women born -- that is, infants of women who have congenital, who have rubella during pregnancy and whose fetuses are frequently affected with considerable congenital abnormalities.

Q: From rubella?

A: From rubella.

Q: Did that involve a vaccine?

A: I, at the time I was developing a vaccine against rubella; yes.

Q: Have you been deposed in any other case?

A: Not that I can recall, no.

Q: Have you ever been an expert witness in any lawsuit other than this one?

A: Again, not for many years. I believe I did a couple of those cases in the ‘60s, but I have avoided depositions since then.

Q: Why is that?

A: Because I consider that they seldom bring out all the facts, but I’m willing to help in this case.

Q: I’m going to go over a few rules with you for this deposition.

A: Mm-hmm.

Q: The court reporter has placed you under oath. Same as a court of law, you’re testifying under penalty of perjury.

A: Mm-hmm.

Q: The court reporter’s making a record and will take down the questions that I ask and the answers that you provide.

A: Mm-hmm.

Q: If you don’t understand a question, let me know before answering. Okay? The court reporter can’t take down nods. That’s another rule. So if you -.

A: Yes.

Q: Anytime you want to vocalize, please wait until I complete asking a given question, even if you think you know the answer, so that we have a complete record, please. As I -- don’t speculate. If you don’t know the answer, then so state. But you should provide your best recollection, even if it’s vague or partial. Okay?

A: Yes.

Q: Are you taking any medications or are under the influence of any substance that might affect your ability to testify today?

A: I don’t think so, no.

Q: Is that no?

A: No.

Q: Okay. Did you discuss this deposition with anyone?

A: Actually, no. I’ve had some conversations with Laura Nieusma, but not about the substance of my testimony.

Q: Before today, did you have any discussions with anyone related to this deposition?

A: No. Actually, I know very little about the issue here. I understand that there’s a disagreement between parents, but that’s all I really know.

Q: And you haven’t discussed this lawsuit with anyone apart from opposing counsel?

A: No.

Q: How did you first learn about this lawsuit?

A: It was from a lady by the name of Karen Ernst, who was the head of an organization called Voices for Vaccines, which is a group of laypeople who are favorable to vaccination. And she had heard from the father, I believe, who was looking for experts to testify on his behalf.

Q: So you discussed this lawsuit with her?

A: Not really discussed the lawsuit. She referred me to the father, and I sent an email saying that I would be willing to testify. I have not talked to the father. I’ve never met the father. So I, everything has happened secondhand, so to speak.

Q: And it was Karen Ernst who asked you to be an expert in this case?

A: She asked me if I would be willing, yes.

Q: How many discussions have you had with her?

A: No discussions.

Q: About this case.

A: About this case, simply had an email exchange asking me to do it.

Q: I’m going to request a copy of that email chain, okay, Dr. Plotkin?

A: If I can find it, I’ll be glad to send it to you.

Q: Thank you. So before today, other than speaking with opposing counsel and an email communication with Karen Ernst, you have not discussed this lawsuit, this deposition, or the role that you’d be playing here today with anybody else; is that right?

A: I’ve had an email exchange with Paul Offit, Dr. Paul Offit, who is actually a former student of mine.

Q: Who is Dr. Offit?

A: Dr. Offit is a pediatrician at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia .

Q: What did you discuss with Dr. Offit?

A: I discussed with him the issues or the possible issues about refusal to vaccinate.

Q: What was the substance of those discussions?

A: The substance basically concerned what arguments are often used to oppose vaccination.

Q: What are those arguments?

A: The arguments generally are that vaccines can cause reactions and that the reactions are worse than the disease.

Q: And what did Dr. Offit have to say about that?

A: Well, he pointed out, of course -- and he’s the author of a chapter in my Vaccines book -.that the opposite is true, that the disease is worse than the reactions to the vaccines.

Q: Do you have peer-reviewed science to support that statement?

A: Do I have what?

Q: Peer-reviewed science to support that statement?

A: Yes, of course.

Q: Would you be willing to provide that science?

A: Well, the science is in the chapter in my textbook. But there are innumerable references, some of which I have, but I can certainly provide you with a list of references in the chapter.

Q: Great. Have you reviewed any documents to prepare for this deposition?

A: You know, I’ve looked at the web. I don’t usually do that, but I’ve looked at the web, some of the anti-vaccination websites.

Q: Which of those sites did you look at?

A: Oh, gosh. I can’t give you the names. I’ve just sort of scanned through a number of them.

Q: Do you remember the names of any of them?

A: Let’s see.

MS. NIEUSMA: Dr. Plotkin, just to be clear, if you don’t remember something, just say you don’t remember and you can move on from there.

THE WITNESS: Yeah. Well, here’s one called VaxTruth: Everything you ever needed to know about medical exemptions to vaccination but didn’t know to ask. There are a couple of others that I looked at, many of which were appalling.

BY MR. SIRI:

Q: Why do you believe they’re appalling?

A: Because they’re ignorant of the facts, exaggerations, half-truths, or even misconceptions.

Q: VaxTruth, does that website, is that a website that catalogs personal stories of families who believe their child was injured by vaccines?

A: You know, I did not -- what shall I say? -- read these word for word. I imagine that that’s the case, but I couldn’t tell you specifically about which website says what.

Q: But you found VaxTruth appalling?

A: Yes.

Q: Other than reviewing the, what you refer to as anti-vax or websites, did you review any other documents to prepare for this deposition?

A: Yes. I looked at a number of vaccine safety studies, which, again, are referenced in the vaccine safety chapter.

Q: And apart from that, anything else?

A: No.

Q: Have you been provided any documents related to this lawsuit?

A: To whom?

Q: Have you, Dr. Plotkin, been provided any documents relating to this lawsuit specifically?

A: No, I have not.

Q: Have you reviewed any medical records related to this case?

A: Medical records? No.

Q: Have you done anything other than what we’ve already discussed to prepare for this deposition today?

A: No. Basically, no.

Q: Have you discussed the child at issue in this case?

A: No.

Q: So you don’t know anything specific about the child at issue in this case, correct?

A: I do not.

Q: You don’t know anything about her medical history, correct?

A: Correct.

Q: And you don’t know anything about her family’s medical history, correct?

A: Correct.

Q: Have you been on any trips in the last year?

A: Many.

Q: Where to?

A: Several trips to Europe, to France, to Germany. Let’s see. Have I been to Asia in the last year? Yes. I’ve been to Japan. Basically, I mean, of course, many trips in the United States, England.

Q: How many times -.

A: At least a dozen trips.

Q: At least a dozen. How many times were you in France in the last year?

A: Oh, gosh. Twice, I think.

Q: Germany?

A: Once.

Q: England?

A: Once.

Q: These are all separate trips?

A: Yes.

Q: In which you got on a plane from the United States, flew there, flew back?

A: Yes.

Q: Japan, how many times?

A: Once.

Q: How many times to other countries outside of U.S.?

A: I’ve probably had about a dozen trips altogether. If I known that you were interested, I would have brought my calendar.

Q: How about trips in the United States that required you to get on a plane, how many of those would you say in the last year?

A: Mainly to California. A lot of trips to Washington. Boston.

Q: California, Washington. Same city in California each time or different?

A: No. San Francisco, San Diego.

Q: What were the purpose of most of these trips?

A: Attend meetings, scientific meetings.

Q: Were any of them related to companies developing vaccines?

A: Oh, yes.

Q: Would you say most of them were?

A: Most of them? Probably about half of them.

Q: Do you have any, do you have any trips planned for 2018?

A: Yes.

Q: Where to?

A: I’ll be going to India next month and, however, I’m trying to cut down on foreign trips. So at the moment, I’ll be going to Germany in June. Aside from that, I’ll be going to France in May. I think that’s all I can recall at the moment.

Q: What’s your trip to France for?

A: I’ll be teaching in an advanced vaccinology course in Annecy.

Q: Where?

A: Annecy.What’s that? I’m sorry.A-N-N-E-C-Y. It’s a town in France.

Q: Who is sponsoring this course?

A: Well, it’s sponsored by the University of Geneva and the Gates Foundation.

Q: Anybody else?

A: No. Basically those are the funders.

Q: And your trip to Germany, what’s that for, Doctor?

A: I’ll be going to visit a biotechnology company that is trying to develop vaccines based on RNA.

Q: Do you have a position or affiliation with that company?

A: I’m simply on their scientific Board.

Q: One? And your trip to India, purpose of that

A: To discuss vaccination against chikungunya, a virus which is epidemic in India and in South America.

Q: And who are those discussions with?

A: Well, it’s under the aegis of an organization called CEPI, which is a coalition to develop vaccines against epidemic diseases. So it’s an organization that’s received funding from various governments to meet the challenges of epidemic diseases like Ebola and chikungunya, et cetera.

Q: This trip also include meeting with vaccine developers?

A: Well, they will be present at the meeting. They will come and present the results of their efforts to develop a vaccine against chikungunya.

Q: Any trips planned in the United States for 2018?

A: Wish I had known to bring my calendar. I have no trips planned this month or actually next month. But I will be going to some NIH-sponsored meetings in March, as I recall, and there’s a vaccine conference in Washington in April that I’ll be going to.

MS. NIEUSMA: When you say Washington, do you mean Washington state or District of Columbia?

THE WITNESS: District of Columbia. In May I’ll be going back to France for the advanced vaccinology course. That’s as much as I can remember at the moment.

BY MR. SIRI:

Q: Okay. There might be others; you just don’t have your calendar here today, right?

A: Right.

Q: And the NIH meetings, where are those taking place?

A: In Bethesda.

Q: How far is that from here?

A: From here?

Q: Yeah. Do you drive there?

A: Oh, no. I take the train to Washington and then the Metro to Bethesda.

Q: How long does that trip take?

A: The train is an hour and a half. Metro is maybe 20 minutes.

Q: What’s the name of the plaintiff in this case?

A: Well, from what was said before, the plaintiff, I think, is someone named Schmitt. I’ve not followed -- as I’ve said before, I have not been involved in the legal details. So I don’t know the names except from what I’ve heard.

Q: What’s the name of the defendant in this case?

A: As I understand it, they’re a married couple, but that’s all I can tell you. So I presume they’re both named Schmitt.

Q: What’s the name of their child?

A: I do not know.

Q: How old is their child?

A: I do not know.

Q: Do you know whether the child has received any vaccines?

A: I do not know.

Q: The name of the child is Faith. I’ll refer to the child as Faith during this deposition, okay?

A: Mm-hmm.

Q: Faith’s father believes that Faith’s mother was wrong to not have given Faith all CDC-recommended vaccines on time. Do you agree with the father?

A: Yes.

Q: Is it your understanding that the father wants Faith to receive all vaccines she has missed and continue to receive all CDC-recommended vaccines?

A: That is my understanding, yes.

Q: Do you agree with the father that Faith should receive these vaccines?

A: Absent any contraindication, yes.

Q: Sitting here today, do you know whether Faith has any contraindications?

A: I do not know.

Q: So sitting here today, you don’t know whether Faith should or should not actually get these vaccines?

A: In the absence of a contraindication, Faith should receive the vaccines.

Q: But you don’t know whether she has a contraindication?

A: I do not know the medical history of the child.

Q: What vaccines has Faith missed according to the CDC schedule that you believe she should get?

A: Well, the CDC’s schedule includes the diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, hepatitis B, haemophilus influenzae, polio, measles, mumps, rubella. I don’t know how old she is, so I don’t know, you know, where to stop. But there are vaccines recommended in preadolescents. So she should receive those when she reaches the appropriate age.

Q: So just so I got -- just to make sure I understand, you believe she should get the hepatitis B vaccine?

A: Yes.

Q: Rotavirus?

A: Yes.

Q: DTaP?

A: Yes.

Q: Hib?

A: Yes.

Q: PCV13?

A: Yes.

Q: IPV?

A: Yes.

Q: The flu shot annually?

A: Yes.

Q: IIV, we’ll call it the flu shot?

A: At the moment, yes.

Q: I’m sorry. At the moment?

A: At the moment.

Q: What do you mean?

A: I mean that there are two influenza vaccines, one of which is recommended for this year; the other is not recommended at the moment but may be in the future.

Q: You think she should get the recommended one?

A: Yes.

Q: And you think she should get the MMR, I believe you said?

A: Yes. And varicella.

Q: And hepatitis A vaccine?

A: I’m sorry.

Q: And hep A vaccine?

A: And the hep A vaccine, yes.

Q: How many doses of hep B as a child do you recommend they receive?

A: Three.

Q: How many doses of rotavirus do you recommend?

A: Two or three.

Q: And you recommend Faith receive those, right?

A: Yes.

Q: And you recommend that she receive the three doses of hep B?

A: Yes.

Q: And how many doses of DTaP do you recommend she receive?

A: Well, currently at least three, then a booster and eventually another booster.

Q: How many doses of Hib do you recommend she receive?

A: Well, three are usually sufficient.

Q: How many doses of PCV13?

A: Three.

Q: And how many doses of IPV or an inactivated polio vaccine?

A: