Case Summary

Summary of the Case of the NY OPMC (Office of Professional Medical Conduct) against Charles Gant.

In the late 1990’s, Dr. Charles Gant’s research into natural alternatives to the prescribing of Ritalin and similar brain-injurious, addictive amphetamine- and cocaine-like drugs to millions of children, resulted in a prosecution by the New York State Office of Professional Medical Conduct (OPMC), at the behest of drug corporations and psychiatry trade organizations, in an administrative law setting.

Dr. Gant did absolutely nothing wrong in his medical practice, and only admitted to minor paper work violations, which even the New York State Office of Professional Medical Conduct (OPMC) admitted, did not result in any patient harm whatsoever. In fact, the cases that the court prosecuted him over were shown to have improved or gotten well with his treatments, despite the state’s attempts to block that evidence. The OPMC broke the law in many ways and some of these illegal maneuvers are summarized briefly below. Other discussions on this website will go into more depth on some of these issues.

  • First of all it should be noted that virtually all cases involving the state versus nonconventional or alternative medicine practicing physicians which are prosecuted in a civil court, are won by the physician. On the other hand, virtually all cases involving the state versus nonconventional or alternative medicine practicing physicians which are prosecuted in an administrative law court, are won by the state. As we will see, many basic protections of defendants, basic procedural codes of jurisprudence and basic legal ethics are ignored in the “free and footloose” administrative law setting, where Dr. Gant was tried.
  • Changes in NY State law were passed prior to Dr. Gant’s case that were designed to protect alternative (AKA unconventional) medicine doctors from prosecution, simply because the state is unfamiliar with the technologies being used. NY State law clearly states that the New York State Office of Professional Medical Conduct (OPMC) is prohibited from prosecuting such clinicians who could demonstrate that their treatments actually worked. When Dr. Gant’s office was invaded by OPMC agents, only charts of patients who had not been seen long enough for them to get well (one or 2 visits) were looted, in order to skirt the new law.
  • The state knew that Dr. Gant’s treatments were likely to get patients well, so the charges against Dr. Gant were circumscribed to an early time in the patient’s treatment by using the legal phrase “on or about these dates” (the early treatment period) to avoid subsequent clinical information from being presented which would show that the patients got well. Of note is that the NY State Health Department is supposed to be dedicated to the health of NY State citizens, so why would they seek to attack a practitioner who provided treatments which they suspected would actually work?
  • Unfortunately for the OPMC, another legal phrase, “and subsequently”, was mistakenly tacked on to the phrase “on or about these dates” which should have allowed Dr. Gant to submit subsequent information about later visits, which would have demonstrated that all of the patients either got well or improved dramatically. This would have completely undermined the state’s case, since the new laws intended to protect non-conventional or alternative doctors stated clearly that the Office of Professional Medical Conduct (OPMC) is prohibited from prosecuting such clinicians who could demonstrate that their treatments actually worked.
  • After lengthy closed-door (2 lawyers and a judge) and heated discussions, and OPMC lawyers screaming at each other in the hallways trying to find out who added the phrase “and subsequently” to the charges, the judge finally ordered that the phrase “and subsequently” be stricken from the record! Recognizing that the state’s prosecution of Dr. Gant would unravel completely – since the “and subsequently” clause would have allowed his attorney to introduce evidence that the patients got well – the judge instructed the court to eliminate the “and subsequently” clause and therefore changed the charges midway through the trial, which is a violation of fundamental rights and jurisprudence. This allowed the court to ignore the fact that the patients in question actually got well, and to then frame their charges around only the first few weeks of treatment. Gant’s lawyer suggested that this could not even happen in China and referred to this case in the proceedings as an “Alice in Wonderland” case.
  • During the trial, segments were taken out of context from Dr. Gant’s book, ADD and AD/HD; Complementary and Alternative Medicine Solutions, and these were introduced by the prosecution into the court record to substantiate a case against him. Dr. Gant was denied the right to put such statements into context or to introduce other text from his book to either put such evidence into a proper context or to introduce text from his book to refute the State’s ridiculous charges. How does the OPMC justify the use of a document against a defendant and then not allow the defendant to use the same document to defend himself? This and the above illegal actions could only happen in an “Alice in Wonderland” administrative law proceeding and could never happen in any civil or criminal court setting.
  • In an attempt to make the administrative law (not civil or criminal law) prosecutions seem fair, a jury of 3 individuals is chosen. Originally, in the framing of the law, the NY State Education Department wanted the jury to be 3 lay persons, as they had suspicions about the fairness of New York State Office of Professional Medical Conduct (OPMC) to conduct a fair hearing. In the framing of the law, the OPMC lobbied the legislature to populate the jury in these disciplinary proceedings with 3 physicians, arguing that complex scientific material presented in these cases would be incomprehensible to lay people. The legislature framed a compromise that the jury must consist of 1 lay person and 2 physicians. In Dr. Gant’s case, the jury was chosen to be 2 physicians and a nurse practitioner, a highly trained healthcare practitioner who is licensed by NY State to diagnose and treat medical conditions! The state worried that a lay person would see through the ideologically-obsessed OPMC charges and side with Gant, who was simply providing mostly drug-free, safer, natural and very effective treatments for his patients.
  • The OPMC argued absurdly that a nurse practitioner was tantamount to a lay person because they were not a physician – a clear violation of the law – thus in Orwellian fashion changing the dictionary definition of the term “lay person”. On appeal to the NY Supreme Court, the OPMC twisted the political arms of the justices and their outright lie was allowed to stand. The law which clearly states that a lay person must be one of the 3 members of the “jury” was dismissed with depraved indifference, and the nurse practitioner was allowed to be a member of the jury. The nurse practitioner actually worked for NY State and was chosen to “stack the deck,” thus certifying that the prosecution against Dr. Gant would be “successful.”
  • Sometime around the 14th of nearly twenty full days of proceedings, costing the state millions of dollars, Dr. Gant received an interesting call one evening from his lawyer. A law school buddy had contacted Dr. Gant’s lawyer about a peculiar incident that occurred while he had been at an all-day, legal, continuing education seminar. During a break he had decided to remain seated in the back of the room. Everyone in the education seminar had left except for 3 lawyers in the front of the room who were arguing vehemently. He ignored their heated discussion until Dr. Gant’s lawyer’s name was mentioned, at which point he proceeded to eavesdrop. The 2 junior lawyers were arguing passionately that someone named Dr. Gant had done nothing wrong, and that they were wasting their time, especially when they had many authentic physician violations to prosecute. The senior lawyer sitting in the front of the room was arguing that he and they were being ordered from the highest levels of NY State government to destroy Gant at any cost. After hearing Dr. Gant’s lawyer’s name mentioned, he then approached them, asking if they were referring to Dr. Gant’s lawyer, and they became very defensive and queried how much of their conversation he had overheard. He contacted Dr. Gant’s lawyer that evening after the seminar to relate this incident, and suggested that whoever this Gant guy is, he has surely pissed off some very important people. Gant’s lawyer passed on this event to him, but since it was “hearsay” it was not considered by him to be important for his case.
  • Eliot Spitzer, the attorney general of NY State at that time, may have been involved in the conspiracy to destroy Dr. Gant but that was never confirmed.  Spitzer was having his own problems and involved in a personal legal scandal: (
  • During the prosecution, as legal bills were mounting into the hundreds of thousands of dollars, Dr. Gant was thankfully hired and handsomely paid by Nature’s Plus, a large nutrition company, to be an expert witness and write scientific papers to defend them in a case prosecuted by the FTC (Federal Trade Commission) in their use of the ingredient DMAE, an effective ingredient in the AD/HD natural supplement Pedi-Active. During the discovery phase, the senior lawyer at the firm defending Nature’s Plus informed Dr. Gant that he had received from the FTC a box full of papers approximately 1 foot high suggesting that he was a transvestite and had had a sex change operation! Apparently this fabricated information was going to be used by the FTC to discredit Dr. Gant’s during the trial. That lawyer died from an automobile accident under suspicious circumstances and the case was transferred to another law firm. The FTC records were never located.
  • Gant was prosecuted by the NY State OPMC for inventing certain diagnoses which the state claimed did not exist, such as heavy metal toxicity and candida (yeast) infections, that were nevertheless based on irrefutable evidence from CLIA certified laboratories and were major risk factors in causing AD/HD and the other illnesses that were resolved by Dr. Gant’s treatment. By addressing the root causes of AD/HD and other illnesses, the state knew that Gant was being successful, so they sought to discredit the very diagnoses that were being made.
  • On approximately the 15th day of the proceedings, Dr. Gant was ordered by the judge to stop presenting such excessive amounts of scientific data to back up his, as neither the state’s attorneys nor the jury panel (2 doctors and a nurse practitioner) understood the complexities of biochemistry, toxicology, immunology, allergy medicine or nutritional science. What the judge actually implied was that the trial does not really matter, and that Dr. Gant had already been convicted under the fixed, free-for-all administrative law system. The presentation of scientific facts was therefore making everyone bored, was irrelevant to the “jury’s” already cooked-up decision, and was a waste of everyone’s time.
  • The state was represented by a judge, a 3 person “jury” and several prosecutors, all of whom knew each other well and affiliated freely outside of the courtroom, which in civil and criminal cases would be illegal. These entities are supposed to be sequestered from each other so that an objective ruling is possible, but in the fancy and footloose world of administrative law, anything goes.
  • Most of these individuals were middle-aged and older males who will likely face prostate problems of one kind or another, and they generally appeared bored throughout the trial as discussed. But when a 55 yo patient with biopsy-proven prostate cancer was apparently “cured” with Dr. Gant’s treatment, these males generally changed their body language, and suddenly sat up and expressed some interest. Out of personally-motivated interest, they even allowed the prostate cancer cured patient to testify so that they could hear it for themselves, and explain how his prostate cancer was cured primarily with herbal treatments. These middle-aged and older males naturally had little interest in how the other patients were “cured” of AD/HD, autism, migraines, colitis, autoimmune disorders or depression.
  • The New York State Office of Professional Medical Conduct (OPMC), which is a division of the NY State Department of Health, and which has a mission to protect the health of NY State citizens, was so ideologically obsessed in their rabid attempts to prosecute Dr. Charles Gant, that they were willing to break the law in these and other separate instances not listed here. They displayed a depraved indifference to science-backed, natural treatments that reversed a wide array of common medical and psychiatric disorders, which if accepted and widely promoted, would support their mission to promote the health of NY State citizens.
  • The illegalities, deceit and lies about Dr. Charles Gant, initiated by the New York State Office of Professional Medical Conduct (OPMC), and all perpetrated to protect the drug profits of Ritalin and similar brain-injurious, addictive amphetamine- and cocaine-like drugs, has been extended and perpetrated over the years by a discredited, Big-Pharma-financed group called the Quackwatch, AKA the Quackpots. See to learn more about the Quackpots. Here is a summary of the Quackwatch organization provided by one of Dr. Gant’s supporters. is a website devoted to undermining any medical doctor who has the courage to apply proven new diagnosis and treatment methods that go against what the medical establishment regards as established science. In other words, if you successfully use new diagnosis and treatment methods that go against what the establishment insists is the “right way” to practice medicine, then Quackwatch will make sure you don’t go unattacked. was established by Stephen Barrett, a de-licensed medical doctor who went to medical school but was unable to pass his medical board exam. Even though he is not permitted to practice medicine, Barrett still fraudulently adds the initials M.D. after his name. In one of the lawsuits against him, Barrett admitted in court that the only purpose of his company, Barrett & Baratz, is “to discredit and cause damage and harm to health care practitioners, businesses that make alternative health therapies or products available, and advocates of [unconventional] therapies and health freedom.” Barrett’s work was found “biased and unworthy of credibility” in a 2007 court hearing. Although he has filed defamation lawsuits against some 40 people, he has not won a single case that has come to trial. In addition to publishing libelous material, Barrett has come out against genetic testing as unnecessary and ineffective, despite the fact that Dr. Gant and other forward-looking physicians have demonstrated that this new approach to medicine greatly improves the accuracy and effectiveness of physicians’ ability to diagnose illnesses and predict the likelihood of future illnesses in their patients. Being attacked by is nothing less than a badge of honor for physicians who are opening the way for improving the quality and effectiveness of medical care for Americans.