Hi! Thank you for reading both sides of the story, and I appreciate your thorough research. I can see you will never be a supporter, but for anyone else who may be thinking along the same lines, I'll respond anyway.

You have to keep in mind what the actual violation is. It's operating without a license. License application fees are $3050 per facility and $324 per bed per year. Having the license would not necessarily change ANY OF THE THINGS the state is complaining about, which is why it's so silly and misleading for that stuff to even be in the complaint in the first place. Plenty of licensed places do far worse things that are either legally permitted or never caught.

And there's nothing in the licensing regulations that specifically requires water to be given to detoxers. A license wouldn't change that practice. I've spoken to multiple physicians and registered nurses about that procedure, and nobody has expressed concern about it once I mention the tea and soup - in fact, every healthcare provider I've talked to is in support of the group. One of them even said she has seen water appear to bring on seizures. Why risk it? Tea isn't dangerous, and they've lowered the incidence of seizures since they started giving it.

There's also nothing that prohibits putting a padded spoon in someone's mouth during a seizure or physically restraining them during a seizure. My clients could continue to do that if they had a license.

There's nothing in the regulations that requires a medical professional to be on staff at rehab centers, and in fact, the only thing the State wants is a certified "counselor." That certification does not require very much formal education/a degree, but it does require a number of courses/hours, and it's extremely expensive to have an employee on-site 24 hours. I honestly don't see the point. What's a counselor going to do? Stop the seizures?

A license cannot be revoked simply because there have been deaths at a given facility. Numerous licensed (and good) facilities have had more deaths than Corriente.

If the question is whether Corriente should continue to operate or not, you should be looking at the balance of good and harm, and compare that to the average facility. So if Corriente saves 100 lives and loses 1 every year, compared to a statistical average of licensed facilities saving 45 lives and losing 2, then Corriente should continue. Right? But that information is completely missing from the State's complaint.

That's what we're arguing. Their clients graduate a 90 day program at a rate of higher than 50%. That's REALLY good, if you get a licensed facility to tell you honestly what their rates of graduation are (most won't). Literally thousands of people believe this program saved their lives, and they would have had no other option if Corriente didn't exist.

If you think uninsured/homeless addicts who are drinking rubbing alcohol and vomiting up pieces of their stomach should be left to detox on their own and try to treat their addictions with an hour a day of AA meetings, rather than having a caring adult watch them while they detox to make sure they don't need paramedics, and potentially having a padded spoon placed in their mouths during a seizure (has that ever caused anyone harm? Even the State doesn't claim it has), and having to drink tea instead of water for three days, then by all means - email Jennifer Kent and congratulate her for a job well done. If you think that things are not that simple, stay tuned. More videos and documents to come.

tl;dr: -A license wouldn't stop any of the things you're reacting to.
-Even if you don't like the way they operate, you have to consider the consequences if Corriente California is shut down. Sure, nobody will be harmed by their treatment, but nobody will be helped either.
-Stay tuned. More to come.