Authoradmin
Posted on by adminLast updated

PIC Releases Educational Documents; States ‘DTaP Vaccine Is Not Proven Safer Than Diphtheria, Tetanus and Pertussis’


New reader-friendly materials help parents compare disease risks to vaccine risks 

NEWPORT BEACH, Calif., Nov. 21, 2023 (Newswire.com) – Physicians for Informed Consent (PIC) has introduced three new educational documents to assist parents in comparing the risks of diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis (whooping cough) to the risks of the DTaP (diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis) vaccine. The documents provide important data compiled from sources such as the National Center for Health Statistics and add to the organization’s growing collection of infectious disease and vaccine resources.

New documents in the collection include:

  • “Diphtheria – Disease Information Statement (DIS)”
  • “Tetanus – Disease Information Statement (DIS)”
  • “DTaP – Vaccine Risk Statement (VRS)”

The “Pertussis (Whooping Cough) – Disease Information Statement (DIS)” was published earlier this year.

“I remember being a new mom and worrying about childhood infections and SIDS,” said Dr. Shira Miller, founder and president of Physicians for Informed Consent. “Back then it took so long to dig up the relevant scientific data to weigh the risk of the infection versus the risk of the vaccine. Today we’re pleased to again provide more educational resources that make it a lot easier for parents to do the math.”

Key facts from the documents include the following:

  • In the modern era, it is rare to contract a fatal case of diphtheria, tetanus or pertussis in the United States. Between 1900 and 1945, before widespread use of the DTP vaccine, the mortality rate of diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis dropped significantly (by 97%, 79% and 92% respectively) due to advancements in living conditions, sanitation, nutrition, and health care.
  • In the absence of mass vaccination, for children under age 10, the annual risk of fatal diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis respectively is 1 in 1.7 million (or 0.00006%), 1 in 784,000 (or 0.0001%), and 1 in 323,000 (or 0.0003%) — and the cumulative annual risk of a fatal case of any of those diseases is about 1 in 200,000 (or 0.0005%).
  • DTaP is a descendant of the DTP vaccine, which was introduced in 1948; it contains aluminum, a neurotoxin. The DTaP vaccine does not prevent asymptomatic infection or the spread of diphtheria or pertussis, and it has no effect on the transmission of tetanus because tetanus is not contagious.
  • The Institute of Medicine has not ruled out the possibility that DTaP vaccination can lead to neurological disorders (e.g., encephalitis, infantile spasms, ataxia, autism, transverse myelitis, optic neuritis, multiple sclerosis, Guillain-Barré syndrome, and Bell’s palsy), autoimmune diseases (e.g., chronic urticaria, serum sickness, and arthropathy), myocarditis, and sudden infant death syndrome.
  • The manufacturer’s package insert states that the DTaP vaccine has “not been evaluated for carcinogenic or mutagenic potential or impairment of fertility.”
  • The DTaP vaccine has not been proven safer than diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis.

To read the new educational materials on diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, and the DTaP vaccine, visit physiciansforinformedconsent.org/dtap.

###

Press Contact:
info@picphysicians.org
925-642-6651

CLICK HERE to view press release on Newswire.
CLICK HERE to view on X.
CLICK HERE to view on Facebook.
CLICK HERE to view on LinkedIn.
CLICK HERE to view on Instagram.

Posted on by adminLast updated

PIC Releases Educational Documents Showing Chicken Pox (Varicella) Vaccine Has Not Been Proven Safer Than Chicken Pox

Free educational materials help parents make better informed vaccination decisions

NEWPORT BEACH, Calif., October 24, 2023 – Physicians for Informed Consent (PIC) has introduced two new educational documents, “Varicella (Chicken Pox): What Parents Need to Know” and “Varicella Vaccine: Is It Safer Than Chicken Pox?” The educational materials include key scientific data on the risks of chicken pox as well as the risks of the varicella vaccine, assisting parents in making a more informed risk-benefit calculation for vaccination.

“Now more than ever, parents are motivated to learn more about the risks of childhood infections and their respective vaccines — and they want to know the numbers,” said Dr. Shira Miller, founder and president of Physicians for Informed Consent. “Although many parents remember from experience that chicken pox is generally benign, as the chicken pox vaccine is required for childcare and school attendance in all states, and with no religious or personal belief exemption in five states including California, we’re pleased to now make available for free a Disease Information Statement and Vaccine Risk Statement for chicken pox.”

Important facts from the Varicella (Chicken Pox) Disease Information Statement (DIS) are as follows:

  • More than 96% of new varicella infections are benign and not reported to public health departments.
  • Fatal cases of varicella are rare in the United States. Before the introduction of the varicella vaccination program, 1 in 40,000 or 0.003% of varicella cases were fatal.
  • Because varicella resolves on its own in almost all cases, usually only rest and hydration are necessary.
  • Immune globulin is available to treat immunocompromised patients who are exposed to chicken pox, such as those on chemotherapy.

Key facts from the Varicella (Chicken Pox) Vaccine Risk Statement (VRS) are as follows:

  • The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) states, “It is not known how long a vaccinated person is protected against varicella.”
  • The Institute of Medicine has not ruled out the possibility that varicella vaccination can lead to stroke as well as several neurological and autoimmune disorders, including encephalopathy, cerebellar ataxia, transverse myelitis, Guillain-Barré syndrome, small fiber neuropathy, arthropathy, and thrombocytopenia.
  • Seizures may occur in about 1 in 940 children vaccinated with the varicella vaccine.
  • A study published in The Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal shows the varicella vaccine may cause permanent injury 44 times more often than fatal varicella.
  • The chicken pox (varicella) vaccine has not been proven safer than chicken pox.

To safeguard children’s health, parents need access to balanced educational information on infectious diseases and vaccines. PIC makes scientific data freely available through its education program, a growing collection of concise, reader-friendly educational materials that support parents, physicians, and policymakers in calculating the risk-benefit ratio of vaccination. To read the newest DIS and VRS documents on chicken pox and the varicella vaccine, visit physiciansforinformedconsent.org/varicella.

Press Contact:
info@picphysicians.org
925-642-6651

CLICK HERE to view on NEWSWIRE.
CLICK HERE to view on LinkedIn.
CLICK HERE to view on Facebook.
CLICK HERE to view on X.
CLICK HERE to view on Instagram.

Posted on by adminLast updated

Physicians for Informed Consent Shares Win for Freedom of Speech and Health Freedom, as Legislature and Governor Repeal Controversial AB 2098 COVID-19 Law

Now PIC and allies file motion to directly challenge medical board’s claimed authority to censor California doctors’ recommendations

Newport Beach, Calif., October 7, 2023 (Newswire) –

Physicians for Informed Consent (PIC), a nonprofit educational organization focused on science and statistics, has been advocating for physicians’ right to free speech and protecting its physician members from being investigated for so-called “COVID-19 misinformation” since early 2022. In a letter to the California legislature, PIC founder and president Dr. Shira Miller wrote, “Without California doctors being free to speak their mind and educate the public, regarding COVID-19 or vaccination or any other controversial topic, no other public health laws will matter as legislators will not be able to obtain knowledge from a breadth of physician and surgeon opinions, and the public will not be able to obtain their doctors’ honest opinion—because doctors who think and act differently from the contemporary ‘applicable standard of care’ will fear losing their medical license. Section 2234.1 of the Business and Professions Code respects and protects doctors who think outside the box.”

Per PIC general counsel, Greg Glaser, Esq., when one of PIC’s members was investigated by the medical board for speaking out (at a Zoom schoolboard meeting) against the government’s response to the pandemic, the organization helped organize and fund a lawsuit challenging the investigation on First Amendment grounds; Shortly after the case was filed, the medical board dropped the investigation.

After AB 2098 passed, PIC was one of several plaintiffs that filed a First Amendment free speech lawsuit. The PIC case, Hoang v. Bonta—primarily funded by Children’s Health Defense—was led by health care attorney Rick Jaffe, Esq. and Robert F. Kennedy Jr.; and on January 25, 2023, the PIC case and the related Hoeg v. Newsom case together secured a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of the law against each plaintiff.

Last week the California legislature discretely repealed AB 2098/B&P §2270 by passing SB 815—which Governor Newsom then promptly signed. In response, Dr. Miller said, “This is a pivotal win and indirect indication that AB 2098 was unconstitutional; however, as our original First Amendment lawsuit may now be moot, and AB 2098’s original author Assemblyman Evan Low has publicized his belief that ‘the Medical Board of California will continue to maintain the authority to hold medical licensees accountable for deviating from the standard of care and misinforming their patients about COVID-19 treatments,’ and we know of at least one physician who currently is still being investigated, we are continuing the effort to safeguard California’s physicians’ right to free speech.” In turn, PIC filed a first amended complaint (2:22-cv-02147-WBS-AC) to directly challenge the medical boards’ claimed authority “to censor, investigate or prosecute or sanction physicians for their protected speech under the general standard of care statutes.” COVID-19 alternative treatment heroes Dr. Pierre Kory and Dr. Brian Tyson have been added as plaintiffs.

Help our ongoing effort to safeguard free speech and informed consent, donate here: physiciansforinformedconsent.org/donate

###

Press Contact:
info@picphysicians.org
925-642-6651

CLICK HERE to view on Newswire.
CLICK HERE to view on X.
CLICK HERE to view on Facebook.
CLICK HERE to view on Linkedin.
CLICK HERE to view on Instagram.

Posted on by adminLast updated

Physicians for Informed Consent States, 'For Normal-Risk Children, the Polio Vaccine is Not Proven Safer Than Polio Infection'


New Educational Materials Provide Important Data on Polio and the Polio Vaccine

NEWPORT BEACH, Calif., September 7, 2023 (Newswire.com) – Physicians for Informed Consent (PIC) has introduced two new educational documents, “Polio: What Parents Need to Know” and “IPV Vaccine: Is It Safer Than Polio?” Packed with key statistical data on the risk of polio as well as the risk of the IPV (inactivated poliovirus) vaccine, the documents assist parents in making a more informed risk-benefit calculation for vaccination.

“Now more than ever, people have concerns about vaccines on the childhood vaccination schedule, and a question we hear all the time is ‘What about polio?’” said Greg Glaser, general counsel and national coalition director for Physicians for Informed Consent. “These new documents scientifically address this question, so more parents can research the vaccine and decide what’s best for their children.”

The following is a summary of essential facts included in the documents.

Polio – Disease Information Statement (DIS):

  • About 95% of people who contract polio have no symptoms (asymptomatic).
  • The great majority of polio infections that are fatal or result in permanent paralysis occur in people who have had their tonsils surgically removed (tonsillectomy) or do not rest after feeling sick.
  • Before the introduction of the polio vaccine in 1955, paralytic poliomyelitis was a disease of low incidence, occurring in about 1 in 22,000 or 0.005% in the U.S. population.
  • Before the polio vaccine was introduced, about 0.0005% (1 in 190,000) of children at normal risk contracted polio that was fatal or led to permanent paralysis.

Polio – Vaccine Risk Statement (VRS):

  • The polio vaccine does not prevent asymptomatic infection or transmission.
  • The Institute of Medicine has not ruled out the possibility that IPV vaccination can lead to Guillain-Barré syndrome or sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS).
  • Seizures may occur in about 1 in 829 children vaccinated with IPV vaccine.
  • A study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) shows an IPV-containing vaccine may cause permanently injury 38 times more often than permanent injury from polio infection.
  • The polio vaccine has not been proven safer than polio infection for normal-risk children.

“As polio is so feared in our culture, the data we reveal is paradigm-shifting,” said Dr. Shira Miller, founder and president of Physicians for Informed Consent. “Our educational documents show that for normal-risk children the polio vaccine is not proven safer than polio infection — which has serious implications for both children’s health and vaccine mandates for school attendance.”

To protect and enhance children’s health, it’s necessary that parents have access to reliable infectious disease and vaccine educational information. PIC makes scientific data freely available through its education program, a growing collection of concise, reader-friendly educational materials that support parents, physicians, and policymakers in calculating the risk-benefit ratio of vaccination. To read the newest DIS and VRS documents on polio and the IPV vaccine, visit physiciansforinformedconsent.org/polio.

Press Contact:
info@picphysicians.org
925-642-6651

###

CLICK HERE to view on Newswire.com
CLICK HERE to view on LinkedIn
CLICK HERE to view on Facebook
CLICK HERE to view on Instagram
CILCK HERE To view on Twitter

Posted on by adminLast updated

Physicians for Informed Consent Releases New Documents on Risks of Whooping Cough and the Pertussis Vaccine

The One-Page Educational Documents Provide Answers to Important Questions About the Whooping Cough Vaccine

NEWPORT BEACH, Calif., May 5, 2023 (Newswire.com) – Physicians for Informed Consent (PIC) has released two new educational documents packed with critical statistical data on pertussis (whooping cough) and the pertussis vaccine (DTaP and Tdap). With information compiled from sources such as the National Center for Health Statistics, the PIC documents help parents compare disease risks to vaccine risks, in order to make more informed vaccination decisions.

Because six doses of the pertussis-containing vaccine are injected into infants and children, beginning at 2 months of age, it’s important to know the relevant statistical data concerning vaccination. Through the PIC documents “Pertussis (Whooping Cough) – Disease Information Statement (DIS)” and “Pertussis (Whooping Cough) – Vaccine Risk Statement (VRS),” readers will:

  • Learn what parents need to know about whooping cough infection
  • Understand the basics about the whooping cough vaccine (DTaP and Tdap)
  • Learn the risks of the whooping cough vaccine and the limitations of safety research
  • Assess whether the whooping cough vaccine is safer than whooping cough infection

“There are two very illuminating points about whooping cough and its vaccine that are explained in PIC’s Pertussis DIS and VRS,” said Dr. Shira Miller, founder and president of Physicians for Informed Consent. “One is that it’s estimated that even without mass vaccination the risk of an American infant dying of whooping cough is about 1 in 46,000 or 0.002%, and the other is that an FDA study indicates that the whooping cough vaccine doesn’t prevent asymptomatic infection or the spread of infection. This shows how unscientific it is to exclude kids who haven’t had the whooping cough vaccine from attending private or public schools — which is happening in California and a few other states; especially because all the whooping cough vaccines currently contain aluminum — a known neurotoxin.”

Many parents aren’t aware that in the 1980s, lawsuits against vaccine makers were mounting due to severe vaccine injuries in children, and vaccine manufacturers threatened to stop producing vaccines. In reaction to this threat, Congress established the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986. Through this law, manufacturers and healthcare professionals became exempt from liability for vaccine injuries and deaths. A no-fault compensation system was devised, and parents and taxpayers — instead of vaccine manufacturers and physicians — were made to carry the responsibility and burden of children’s vaccine injuries and deaths.

To protect children’s health, it’s essential that parents are able to access reliable infectious disease and vaccine education. PIC makes scientific data freely available with its education program, a growing collection of concise, reader-friendly one-page educational documents that support parents, physicians and policymakers in calculating the risk-benefit ratio of vaccination. To read the newest DIS and VRS documents on pertussis (whooping cough) and the pertussis vaccine (DTaP and Tdap), visit physiciansforinformedconsent.org/pertussis.

Press Contact:

info@picphysicians.org
925-642-6651

###

CLICK HERE to view on Newswire.
CLICK HERE to view on Instagram.
CLICK HERE to view on Facebook.
CLICK HERE to view on LinkedIn.
CLICK HERE to view on Twitter.

Posted on by adminLast updated

Physicians for Informed Consent Opposes Proposed HPV Vaccine Mandate in California Schools

3/22/23 Update: HPV Vaccine Mandate for Grades 8-12 Blocked in California. Legislative Debate Now Shifts to Colleges.

What can you do? Read the PIC position letter and TAKE ACTION below.

March 5, 2023

Re: AB 6591 (Aguiar-Curry, Weiner); HPV vaccine mandate for all public and private schools in California, with no religious or conscientious exemption

Position: Oppose

Dear California Legislators,

On behalf of Physicians for Informed Consent, a 501(c)(3) educational nonprofit organization, I am writing to oppose AB 659 because it has not been scientifically proven that the HPV vaccine poses less risks than HPV infection and because HPV is sexually transmitted.

Please consider the following:

  1. Human papillomavirus (HPV) is a virus, with over 200 different types, which is transmitted sexually, generally causes no symptoms, and 90% of the time resolves spontaneously within two years.2,3
  2. Cervical cancer, representing 0.7%4 of all cancers, is the most common HPV-related cancer and most frequently occurs in women aged 35–49 (average age of diagnosis is 50) — it is rarely diagnosed in women younger than 205,6 and is six times more common in women with HIV.7 Together, Pap and HPV testing can successfully screen 95% of potential cervical cancers.8
  3. In California, between 1999–2019, there have been about 400–500 cervical cancer deaths every year, which is a rate of about 2.1–2.9 per 100,000.9 Overall, 97% of deaths from HPV-related cancers are in high-risk populations (i.e., smoking, women not screened every three years, and risky sexual behavior),10 and the annual risk of an average-risk person dying from an HPV-related cancer is about 1 in 900,000.11
  4. The currently available HPV vaccine consists of proteins (virus-like particles) made from yeast through recombinant DNA technology for nine different types of HPV, and 500 mcg of aluminum,12 which are injected intramuscularly in three separate doses.13
  5. The HPV vaccine was first approved in 2006 after clinical trials; however, the placebo was not inert and contained aluminum,14 and serious adverse events have been reported,15 so its safety is controversial and currently being litigated in California.16
  6. The purpose of the HPV vaccine is to prevent HPV-related genital warts and cancers and its effectiveness up to 11 years has been demonstrated.17 However, as it takes 15–20 years18 to develop cervical cancer in most women, more time and research are needed before definitive effectiveness claims can be made.
  7. Since for most people the chance of dying from an HPV-related cancer is about 1 in 900,000, and safety studies of HPV vaccines include only about 25,000 subjects,19 there is not enough statistical power to conclude that the HPV vaccine is safer than the risk of HPV-related cancers.

We urge you to oppose AB 659 as the HPV vaccine has not been proven safer than HPV infection and schoolchildren are not at risk of developing HPV-related cancers.

Respectfully,

 

Shira Miller, M.D.
Founder and President
Physicians for Informed Consent

[1] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240AB659
[2] https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/hpv.html
[3] https://www.cdc.gov/hpv/parents/about-hpv.html
[4] https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/cervix.html
[5] https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cervical-cancer/about/key-statistics.html
[6] https://gis.cdc.gov/Cancer/USCS/#/Demographics/
[7] https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/cervical-cancer
[8] https://acsjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/cncy.21544
[9] https://gis.cdc.gov/Cancer/USCS/#/Trends/
[10] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33003480/
[11] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33003480/
[12] https://physiciansforinformedconsent.org/aluminum/
[13] https://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_circulars/g/gardasil_9/gardasil_9_pi.pdf
[14] https://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_circulars/g/gardasil_9/gardasil_9_pi.pdf
[15] https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/safety-availability-biologics/gardasil-vaccine-safety
[16] https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/judge-appoints-four-lawyers-to-lead-gardasil-mdl-multidistrict-litigation-301647703.html
[17] https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/infectious-agents/hpv-vaccine-fact-sheet#how-effective-are-hpv-vaccines
[18] https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/cervical-cancer
[19] https://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_circulars/g/gardasil_9/gardasil_9_pi.pdf

About Physicians for Informed Consent
Physicians for Informed Consent is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit educational organization focused on science and statistics. PIC delivers data on infectious diseases and vaccines, and unites doctors, scientists, healthcare professionals, attorneys, and families who support voluntary vaccination. In addition, the PIC Coalition for Informed Consent consists of over 300 U.S. and international organizations that represent millions of people. To learn more, please visit physiciansforinformedconsent.org.

TAKE ACTION!

Contact your legislators through tools offered by PIC’s
Coalition for Informed Consent Members and ask them to oppose AB 659:

Protection of the Educational Rights of Kids (PERK)

A Voice For Choice Advocacy (AVFC)

California Health Coalition Advocacy (CHCA)

National Vaccine Information Center Advocacy (NVIC)

Stand for Health Freedom (SHF)

STAY CONNECTED!

Join Physicians for Informed Consent to receive our latest updates.

Posted on by adminLast updated

Physicians for Informed Consent Successfully Obtains Federal Court Injunction Protecting Freedom of Speech Regarding COVID-19

Federal Judge bars enforcement of California’s COVID-19 “misinformation” law on grounds the new law is unconstitutionally vague 

NEWPORT BEACH, Calif., January 26, 2023 (Newswire.com) – With lead litigator Richard Jaffe, Esq., Physicians for Informed Consent (PIC), a nonprofit educational organization, succeeded this week in blocking the enforcement of AB 2098/Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 2270 (2:22-cv-01980-WBS-AC).

The doctor-censorship law targeted supposed COVID-19 “misinformation” spoken to patients. The judge criticized the new law for its vagueness and granted the multiple plaintiffs’ requests for preliminary injunction, thereby protecting all PIC members from enforcement of AB 2098—at least until the case, Hoang et al. v. Bonta, is finally decided.

Senior Judge William B. Shubb of the Eastern District of California Court in Sacramento, in his preliminary injunction order, thoroughly dissected the meaning of AB 2098’s definition of “misinformation” (“false information that is contradicted by contemporary scientific consensus contrary to the standard of care”) and determined that it caused the statute to be “unconstitutionally vague.” He wrote:

  • “Put simply, this provision is grammatically incoherent.”
  • “The statute provides no means of understanding to what ‘scientific consensus’ refers.”
  • “By its very nature, the standard of care applies to care, not information.”
  • “The statute improperly conflates ‘information’ with ‘advice’ or ‘treatment.'”
  • “More importantly, defendants’ interpretation does nothing to address the chilling effect caused by the statute’s unclear phrasing and structure.”
  • “…drawing a line between what is true and what is settled by scientific consensus is difficult, if not impossible.”
  • “…because COVID-19 is such a new and evolving area of scientific study, it may be hard to determine which scientific conclusions are ‘false’ at a given point in time.”

Judge Shubb favorably referenced cardiologist, PIC member, and expert witness Dr. Sanjay Verma’s declaration frequently in his preliminary injunction order to underscore the vagueness of AB 2098. For example, Judge Shubb wrote, “Dr. Verma cites numerous examples of contrary guidance provided by the CDC on the issues of masking and vaccination.”

Dr. Shira Miller, PIC founder and president, was present at the hearing. After reading the Court’s order, Dr. Miller shared her optimism: “We are grateful for the Court’s decision and hopeful that soon all California physicians will be able to stop self-censoring and be able to communicate openly and honestly with their patients.”

The court has not ruled yet on the merits of PIC’s first amendment arguments, and until the case is decided only PIC members and Children’s Health Defense, California Chapter, members are protected by the preliminary injunction, as well as the physicians in the related Høeg et al. v. Newsom lawsuit, as the Court expressly stated, “Pending final resolution of this action, defendants, their agents and employees, all persons or entities in privity with them, and anyone acting in concert with them are hereby ENJOINED from enforcing Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 2270 as against plaintiffs, plaintiffs’ members, and all persons represented by plaintiffs.”

Physicians for Informed Consent is a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt nonprofit educational organization supported only by the generous contributions of our members and supporters. Click here to join today.

Press Contact:
info@picphysicians.org
925-642-6651

###

CLICK HERE to view on Newswire.
CLICK HERE to view on Facebook.
CLICK HERE to view on Instagram.
CLICK HERE to view on LinkedIn.
CLICK HERE to view on Twitter.

Posted on by adminLast updated

PIC Updates Its 'Aluminum - Vaccine Risk Statement': Document Includes Data on Association Between Aluminum in Vaccines and Childhood Asthma

Physicians for Informed Consent (PIC) Updates Its ‘Aluminum – Vaccine Risk Statement’: Document Includes Data on Association Between Aluminum in Vaccines and Childhood Asthma

According to PIC, adverse effects of aluminum may not be restricted to neurological conditions*

NEWPORT BEACH, Calif., December 29, 2022 (Newswire.com) – Physicians for Informed Consent (PIC) has released an update to its Aluminum  – Vaccine Risk Statement (VRS) titled “Aluminum in Vaccines: What Parents Need to Know.” The concise, two-page educational document — which serves to answer important questions about the risks of aluminum-containing vaccines — now includes important data about a study’s link between aluminum in vaccines and asthma. Asthma is a disease that affects the lungs. It causes repeated episodes of wheezing, breathlessness, chest tightness, and nighttime or early morning coughing.

Developed from data compiled by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), the PIC document provides reader-friendly Q&As on topics such as:

  • Why is aluminum in vaccines?
  • Which vaccines contain aluminum?
  • How much aluminum is in vaccines?
  • Is exposure to aluminum from vaccines safe?

The document explains that both the FDA and ATSDR have raised concerns about the negative effects of aluminum exposure in humans. Scientific studies have shown that small amounts of aluminum can interfere with cellular and metabolic processes in the nervous system. Some of the most damaging effects of aluminum range from motor skill impairment to encephalopathy (altered mental state, personality changes, difficulty thinking, loss of memory, seizures, coma, and more).

Studies have also shown that adverse effects of aluminum may not be restricted to neurological conditions.* A study referenced in the PIC document and published in Academic Pediatrics found that asthma occurred in 1 in 183 vaccinated children for every 1 mg (1,000 mcg) increase in aluminum exposure. In the United States, up to 22 doses of aluminum-containing vaccines are administered to children, with 11 doses administered from birth to 6 months of age.

“Overexposure to aluminum may lead to significant harm,” said Dr. Shira Miller, founder and president of Physicians for Informed Consent. “In California, where PIC is headquartered, since Senate Bill 277 (SB 277) was enacted in 2015, numerous doses of aluminum-containing vaccines are mandated for public and private K-12 school attendance — with no exceptions for religious or personal belief exemptions. PIC asserts that vaccine mandates are unscientific and unethical and a threat to public health. SB 277, and any other law that coerces vaccination, needs to be repealed.”

To read or download the educational document “Aluminum in Vaccines: What Parents Need to Know,” please visit physiciansforinformedconsent.org/aluminum.

* In 2008, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), a division of HHS, used studies of the neurotoxic effects of aluminum to determine that no more than 1 milligram (mg) (1,000 micrograms [mcg]) of aluminum per kilogram (kg) of body weight should be taken orally per day to avoid aluminum’s negative effects.

Physicians for Informed Consent is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit educational organization focused on science and statistics. PIC delivers data on infectious diseases and vaccines, and unites doctors, scientists, healthcare professionals, attorneys, and families who support voluntary vaccination. In addition, the PIC Coalition for Informed Consent consists of over 300 U.S. and international organizations. Click here to make a donation.

Press Contact:
info@picphysicians.org
925-642-6651

###

CLICK HERE to view on Newswire.
CLICK HERE to share on Twitter.
CLICK HERE to share on Facebook.
CLICK HERE to share on Instagram.
CLICK HERE to share on LinkedIn.

Posted on by adminLast updated

Physicians for Informed Consent Sues State of California, Argues That Doctor Censorship Bill AB 2098 Violates the U.S. Constitution

Physicians for Informed Consent Sues State of California, Argues That Doctor Censorship Bill AB 2098 Violates the U.S. Constitution

Federal Court to weigh controversial bill that PIC argues is an unlawful targeting of scientific dissent as ‘misinformation’

Newport Beach, CA — December 7, 2022 (Newswire)

Physicians for Informed Consent (PIC), an educational nonprofit organization focused on science and statistics, has filed a First Amendment free speech lawsuit (2:22-cv-02147) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, and request for preliminary injunction, against the State of California and Osteopathic Medical Board of California in order to protect the free speech of all physicians in California.

The Plaintiffs are PIC and one of its founding members, physician LeTrinh Hoang, D.O., together with Children’s Health Defense, California Chapter. The legal team managing the case are Rick Jaffe, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and Mary Holland.

The lawsuit argues that the State has weaponized the vague phrase “misinformation,” thereby unconstitutionally targeting physicians who publicly disagree with the government’s public health edicts on COVID-19.

Expert cardiologist and PIC member Sanjay Verma, M.D., has been tracking and cataloging CDC errors in real time. For the case, he has provided what he calls “a detailed declaration exposing the government’s scientific errors and the constitutional dangers of censoring dissent”:

“To demonstrate these points of vagueness and the general unsuitability of using ‘contemporary scientific consensus’ as a disciplinary criterion, I have prepared a detailed overview of public health response to the pandemic broken down into categories such as Masks and Vaccines (transmission, safety, efficacy of natural immunity). I have also included evidence of what [I testify] would be considered misinformation promulgated by the CDC as well as its withholding of information which led to the then ‘contemporary scientific consensus’ eventually being proven wrong.”

PIC President Shira Miller, M.D., was active in opposing AB 2098 while it was navigating the California legislative process, and has led the effort to bring the instant lawsuit. Opposing the bill, she wrote, “Public health is not achieved, and scientific knowledge does not progress, by censoring dissenting physicians and surgeons or anyone else. AB 2098 is anti-doctor, anti-public health, anti-science, and anti-free speech.”

The scheduled hearing on PIC’s motion for preliminary injunction is Jan. 17, 2023. PIC has requested the District Court issue a preliminary injunction that “AB 2098 is unconstitutional on its face.” The Complaint also requests the Court “issue a declaratory judgement that PIC and CHD patient members have a privacy right in their prescriptions for any off-label FDA approved medication” such as ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine.

Physicians for Informed Consent is a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt nonprofit educational organization supported only by the generous contributions of our members and supporters. Click here to make a contribution.

Press Contact:
info@picphysicians.org
925-642-6651

###

CLICK HERE to view on Newswire.
CLICK HERE to share on Twitter.
CLICK HERE to share on Facebook.
CLICK HERE to share on Instagram.
CLICK HERE to share on LinkedIn.

Posted on by adminLast updated

Physicians for Informed Consent Challenges the Basis for COVID-19 Vaccine Mandates

According to Physicians for Informed Consent, new data raise serious concerns over the risks of hospitalization in people vaccinated with the COVID-19 vaccine.

NEWPORT BEACH, Calif., November 11, 2022 (Newswire.com) – Physicians for Informed Consent (PIC) has released an update to its educational document “COVID-19 Vaccine Mandates: 21 Scientific Facts That Challenge the Assumptions.” Developed from data compiled by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, National Library of Medicine, and other established sources, the PIC document covers issues of critical importance to both the medical community and the public. Reflecting key scientific research, the document refutes the basis for COVID-19 vaccine mandates. For example, according to Physicians for Informed Consent, studies (referenced here) show:

  • COVID-19 vaccines may increase the risk of hospitalizations in vaccinated people.
    A study published in Vaccine found that the number of serious adverse events in people vaccinated with the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine is higher than the number of COVID-19 hospitalizations prevented. For every two COVID-19 hospitalizations prevented in vaccinated people, there are 10 COVID-19 vaccine serious adverse events.
  • COVID-19 vaccines increase the risk of myocarditis in young men.
    A study published in Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety shows that in males aged 18 to 24 years, the risk of myocarditis is 1 in 1,862 after the second dose of a COVID-19 mRNA vaccine.
  • COVID-19 vaccines increase the risk of cardiac-related deaths in men.
    A study by the Florida Department of Health found there is a 97% increased risk of cardiac-related deaths in males aged 18–39 within 28 days of being vaccinated with a COVID-19 vaccine.
  • COVID-19 vaccines increase the length of menstrual cycles in women.
    A study published in BMJ found that in women, vaccination with two doses within the same menstrual cycle leads to a 3.7-day increase in that cycle’s length. The consequences of this phenomenon are not known.

It can take months or even years for new data to reach the general medical community. As such, some healthcare providers may be unaware of COVID-19 vaccine facts and figures. In providing this document, PIC highlights important statistics to help medical professionals and their patients more easily assess the risks of the vaccine compared to the risks of COVID-19. In addition, as a nonprofit organization with headquarters in California — where AB 2098, a doctor-censorship bill, was recently signed into law — PIC asserts that it is now more important than ever for the general public to be able to access science-based COVID-19 analyses.

“AB 2098 is immoral and anti-science,” said Dr. Shira Miller, founder and president of Physicians for Informed Consent. “PIC as an organization will continue speaking out and educating the public about COVID-19, COVID-19 vaccines, and the need to have doctors whose professional opinion hasn’t been censored — because without free speech informed consent is not possible.”

To read all 21 scientific facts in PIC’s newly released document, visit physiciansforinformedconsent.org/covid-19-vaccines.

Press Contact:
info@picphysicians.org
925-642-6651

###

CLICK HERE to view on Newswire
CLICK HERE to view on Instagram
CLICK HERE to view on Facebook
CLICK HERE to view on Twitter
CLICK HERE to view on LinkedIn