What specific disciplinary sanctions, if any, did the Virginia Board of Medicine impose on Dr. Eric Berg after 2007?

1. The official procedure that produced the sanction

State documents and contemporary summaries report that the Board noticed Dr. Berg for an informal conference on August 7, 2007, to inquire into alleged violations of Virginia chiropractic practice rules, and that, rather than proceed to hearing, the Board and Dr. Berg entered into a consent order resolving the matter ^[1]. The consent‑order pathway is a common administrative resolution that leaves a disciplinary record but avoids protracted contested proceedings; Quackwatch’s compilation cites the signed consent order dated September 13, 2007 ^[2].

2. The sanctions specified in the consent order

The consent order disciplined Dr. Berg with three primary measures: a formal reprimand, an administrative fine of $1,500, and a directive that he cease using and advertising several named techniques—BRT (Body Restoration Technique), NAET (Nambudripad’s Allergy Elimination Technique), CRA (Contact Reflex Analysis), and testing with an Acoustic CardioGraph (ACG) ^{[1] [2]}. Summaries of the order note the Board’s basis included therapeutic claims that were not supportable by reasonable scientific or medical evidence, language used in secondary reporting of the consent agreement ^[2].

3. How contemporary and later sources framed the 2007 action

Consumer‑watchdog and skeptical medicine sites that collected the Board’s materials presented the action as a rebuke of “bogus” muscle‑testing and unsupported therapeutic claims, and repeated the core disciplinary facts—reprimand, $1,500 fine, and prohibition on promotion/use of the listed techniques ^{[2] [3]}. Community and complaint sites likewise reference the same 2007 consent decree when raising questions about Dr. Berg’s practices and public claims ^{[4] [5]}. Those sources are explicitly advocacy or watchdog outlets and frame the Board’s language in critical terms ^[2].

4. What the official Virginia Board resources indicate and what remains unconfirmed

The Department of Health Professions and the Virginia Board of Medicine maintain web pages and enforcement databases for board results and disciplinary decisions; these institutional resources are pointed to in public reporting as the authoritative place to confirm actions ^{[6] [7]}. The materials compiled in the available reporting, however, are summaries and third‑party reproductions of the consent order (Quackwatch and similar sites) rather than a direct copy posted on the state site in the snippets provided here ^{[1] [2]}. Review of the Board’s public guidance shows how to search for disciplinary histories but the specific state‑hosted decision text was not among the provided source snippets ^{[6] [8]}.

5. Balance, context and limitations of available reporting

All examined sources converge on the same concrete post‑2007 sanctions: a reprimand, a $1,500 fine, and prohibition on use/advertising of BRT, NAET, CRA and ACG, issued via a 2007 consent order entered in lieu of an informal conference ^{[1] [2]}. Alternative viewpoints within the record are limited: reporting primarily consists of watchdog summaries rather than defense statements from Dr. Berg or a contemporaneous, full state‑hosted order in the provided snippets; therefore, assertions about intent, mitigating explanation, or any subsequent appeals or additional discipline after 2007 are not supported by the supplied sources ^{[1] [2] [4]}. The Board’s public enforcement database and homepage are cited as the authoritative follow‑up avenue for anyone seeking official scanned records or any disciplinary actions after 2007 ^{[6] [7]}.