Posted on March 10, 2023 by ITadmin

Formal Request for CDPH to Review Mask Mandate following California Public Records Request

February 13, 2023

SENT BY U.S. MAIL AND EMAIL

Tomás J. Aragón, MD, Dr.P.H.
California Department of Public Health
PO Box 997377, MS 0500
Sacramento, CA 95899-7377
cdph.internetadmin@cdph.ca.gov

Re: Formal Request for CDPH to Review Mask Mandate following California Public

Records Request :: P017017-101922

Request

I represent Physicians for Informed Consent (PIC), a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit educational organization based in California.

This letter is PIC’s formal request that your office please immediately review the mask mandate in the State Public Health Officer Order (“Order”) of September 13, 2022 by Tomás J. Aragón, MD, Dr.P.H. See https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DCDC/Pages/COVID-19/Order-of-the-State-Public-Health-Officer-Health-Care-Worker-Vaccine-Requirement.aspx (section 3b, ” Exempt workers must wear a respirator approved by the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), such as an N95 filtering facepiece respirator, or surgical mask, at all times while in the facility.”)

Based on public records produced by CDPH, it has become apparent that CDPH does not have an objective reason for continuing the mask mandate in California healthcare facilities, especially private medical clinics.

This request is made prior to PIC submitting any appropriate filings regarding procedural irregularities in the Order, or a Petition to the Office of Administrative Law to determine whether CDPH has issued a regulation without express statutory exemption from APA procedural requirements. See https://oal.ca.gov/underground_regulations/ (“If you believe a state agency has issued an alleged underground regulation, you can challenge the alleged underground regulation by filing a petition with the Office of Administrative Law (OAL). If your petition is accepted, OAL may issue a determination. This program is informally known as the “Chapter Two Unit,” or “CTU,” because OAL’s regulations regarding underground regulations are found in California Code of Regulations, title 1, chapter 2.”)

Factual Background

On October 19, 2022, CDPH received the request for records by my client Physicians for Informed Consent (PIC) under the Public Records Act (PRA) wherein PIC requested the following:

Please provide all documents relied upon by Tomás J. Aragón, MD, Dr.P.H. that verify the accuracy of the following statements he made in the State Public Health Officer Order of September 13, 2022:
“Covered workers must continue to comply with all required primary series and vaccine booster doses pursuant to Table A below.”“CDPH recommends that all workers stay up to date on COVID-19 and other vaccinations.”https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DCDC/Pages/COVID-19/Order-of-the-State-Public-Health-Officer-Health-Care-Worker-Vaccine-Requirement.aspx2. Please provide all the GovQA documents from the HAI program on COVID-19 outbreaks and vaccination status in long-term residential care facilities, used previously on the August 5, 2021, State Public Health Office Order to state that “Recent outbreaks in healthcare settings have frequently been traced to unvaccinated staff members.”3. Please provide all communications regarding updated facemask requirements in healthcare settings, since CDC’s updated guidance on September 23, 2022 indicates, “When SARS-CoV-2 Community Transmission levels are not high, healthcare facilities could choose not to require universal source control.”https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/infection-control-recommendations.html

On January 3, 2023, CDPH produced all responsive records via four pdf files:

PRA17017_Batch1_Redacted
PRA17017_Batch2_Redacted
PRA17017_Batch3_Redacted
PRA17017_Batch4_Redacted

Attached as Exhibit A are the only references in said documents to masks or face coverings.

Legal Analysis

A. CDPH’s own CPRA documents referenced above show CDPH’s incomplete analysis. CDPH is currently operating inconsistently with federal mask guidance.

CDPH’s own CPRA documents referenced above show CDPH’s incomplete analysis on the mask mandate issue. Exhibit A hereto reproduces the only three references in said documents to masks or face coverings.

CDPH acknowledges CDC’s updated guidelines regarding masks as it pertains to transmission rates. See internal letter from Dan Steckline dated Oct. 10, 2022.^[1] Yet CDPH guidance on the CDPH website has not adopted these recommendations thus far, stating that the new recommendations do not apply to health care facilities. Therefore, CDPH’s position is currently inconsistent with CDC guidelines.^[2] CDPH has yet to acknowledge CDC’s assessment that health care facilities indeed are included in the new recommendation.^[3] Nor has CDPH provided PIC with any evidence it has conducted any analysis that would justify this divergence.

B. Additionally, it is unclear whether CDPH and CAL OSHA are in compliance with state and federal regulations regarding the use of N95 respirators.

The CDC acknowledged in September 2021 the limited effectiveness of surgical and cloth masking and currently recommends N95 respirators in the issued Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) guidelines for their use. These guidelines specifically state that the use of N95 respirators must be in compliance with the federal or state OSHA respiratory programs outlined in Title 8 Section 5144 of the California Code of Regulations^[4] and 29 CFR 1910.1.^[5] It is unclear whether CDPH’s current respirator policies are in compliance with state regulations and whether CDPH, CalOSHA or the CA Department of Industrial Relations^[6] is monitoring compliance in healthcare and other facilities. State and federal OSHA standards were created to protect the wearer not only from toxic and infectious environmental hazards, but also to protect the wearer from the negative and potentially hazardous effects of the respirator itself. The employer must provide a comprehensive written respiratory program covering medical evaluations, training and fit testing.^[7] Employers not in compliance can face fines of over $13,000 per incidence.^[8]

Regards,

Gregory J. Glaser

cc: Amber.Christiansen@cdph.ca.gov
cdph@govqa.us
staff@oal.ca.gov

Exhibit A

The Three References to Masks or Face Coverings in CDPH Provided CPRA Documents

Reference 1: from PRA17017_Batch1_Redacted

Reference 2: from PRA17017_Batch3_Redacted

Reference 3: from PRA17017_Batch4_Redacted

^[1] PRA17017_Batch1_Redacted
^[2] CDPH “Guidance for the Use of Facemasks” Sept 22, 2022 https://www.cdph.ca.gov/programs/CID/DCDC/Pages/COVID-19/guidance-for-face-coverings.aspx
^[3] Center for Disease Control Interim Infection Prevention and Control Recommendations for Healthcare Personnel During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Pandemic Updated Sept. 23, 2022 https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/infection-control-recommendations.html
^[4] California Code of Regulations Title8 Section 5144 “Respiratory Protection” https://www.dir.ca.gov/title8/5144.htm
^[5] Center for Disease Control and Prevention guidance “Strategies for Optimizing the Supply of N95 Respirators” September 16, 2021
^[6] State of California Department of Industrial Relations guidance “N95 Masks Commonly Asked Questions” February 2021 https://www.dir.ca.gov/dosh/dosh_publications/N95-mask-questions.html
^[7] CAL OSHA Respirtaory Protection Standard https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CCDPHP/DEODC/OHB/Pages/RespStd.aspx
^[8] USDOL OSHA violation detail https://www.osha.gov/ords/imis/establishment.violation_detail?id=1472885.015&citation_id=01001A

Posted on September 27, 2022 by ITadmin

Physicians for Informed Consent Files Amicus Curiae Brief with Supreme Court of the United States Supporting Workers’ Rights to Refuse COVID-19 Vaccination

Amicus Supports New York Police Department Detective Challenging Mayor’s Vaccine Mandate

Newport Beach, CA – September 27, 2022

Physicians for Informed Consent (PIC), an educational 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization focused on science and statistics, has filed an amicus curiae brief in support of the right of municipal workers to informed consent, and its corollary informed refusal, in vaccination. The case of Marciano v. Adams (United States Supreme Court Case Number 22A178) was submitted to Justice Clarence Thomas and is scheduled for Supreme Court conference on Oct. 7, 2022. If a total of four Justices agree to hear the case at that time, then further briefing will be scheduled this fall 2022.

Physicians for Informed Consent’s amicus brief supports the plaintiff in the case — New York Police Department (NYPD) officer Anthony Marciano who declined the COVID-19 vaccine and was fired from his career as a city police detective.

Physicians for Informed Consent’s brief highlighted four key points for the Court:

Informed consent/refusal in vaccination is a fundamental right.
There is no evidence that COVID-19 vaccines prevent the spread of COVID-19, and in fact, there is evidence to the contrary (that vaccination has a negative effect on immunity).
People with natural immunity should not have less rights than vaccinated people.
Findings provided by PIC show that COVID-19 vaccines have had no measurable impact to lessen the COVID-19 mortality rate.

“Upholding Physicians for Informed Consent’s mission to deliver data on infectious diseases and vaccines, the PIC amicus brief advises the Supreme Court of key scientific facts supporting anyone’s decision to decline a COVID-19 vaccine,” said Greg Glaser, general counsel for Physicians for Informed Consent. “PIC also cites legal and ethical authorities supporting informed consent/refusal as a fundamental right. For too long, mandatory vaccination has received a free pass by courts since Jacobson v. Massachusetts. But COVID-19 has awakened the American people to the unjustness of mandates. Our nation needs the Supreme Court more than ever to uphold the fundamental right to decline mandatory vaccination.”

About Physicians for Informed Consent

Physicians for Informed Consent is a 501(c)(3) educational nonprofit 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. To learn more or to become a member, please visit physiciansforinformedconsent.org.

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

Posted on September 14, 2022 by ITadmin

Physicians for Informed Consent (PIC) Releases New Educational Documents Assessing Risks of Hepatitis B Compared to Risks of the Hepatitis B Vaccine

Documents show hepatitis B vaccine is not proven safer than hepatitis B for normal-risk children

NEWPORT BEACH, Calif., September 13, 2022 (Newswire.com) – Physicians for Informed Consent (PIC) has released two new educational documents: Hepatitis B – Disease Information Statement (DIS) “Hepatitis B: What Parents Need to Know” and Hepatitis B – Vaccine Risk Statement (VRS) “Hepatitis B Vaccine: Is It Safer Than Hepatitis B?” Developed from data compiled by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the National Center for Health Statistics, the documents assist readers in assessing the risks of hepatitis B compared to the risks of the hepatitis B vaccine, so they can engage in making an informed vaccine decision.

“New parents need to know that if their infants are normal-risk, which 99% of newborns are, then the chance of them getting fatal hepatitis B is 0.00001% or one in seven million — a prevaccine statistic,” said PIC founder and President Dr. Shira Miller. “They also need to know that all hepatitis B vaccines include the neurotoxin aluminum — which means there’s a 100% guarantee their infant will be exposed to aluminum if they get injected with a hepatitis B vaccine. And finally, they need to know that for newborns specifically, because of their low body weight, it appears that the amount of aluminum in hepatitis B vaccines exceeds the maximum safety levels established by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, a division of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.”

Packed with relevant scientific information, the documents answer numerous important questions, including:

What is hepatitis B?
What are side effects of the hepatitis B vaccine?
Is the hepatitis B vaccine safer than hepatitis B?

The documents present key facts and figures that are essential for informed decision-making. For example:

An unvaccinated normal-risk child has a 1 in 7,000,000 (or 0.00001%) chance of contracting fatal hepatitis B annually.
About 50% of hepatitis B-vaccinated children lose their immunity by age 5, and the vaccine has not made a measurable impact on the prevalence of chronic hepatitis B infection.
Seizures may occur in about 1 in 1,300 children vaccinated with the hepatitis B vaccine.
The hepatitis B vaccine contains an amount of aluminum that’s 75 times greater than the maximum safe level of aluminum in the bloodstream per day for a 7.3-pound infant.
The Institute of Medicine (IOM) found that evidence is inadequate to rule out the possibility that hepatitis B vaccination leads to more than two dozen neurological and autoimmune disorders.

The Physicians for Informed Consent documents demonstrate that the hepatitis B vaccine is not proven to be safer than hepatitis B for normal-risk children. Parents and healthcare providers are encouraged to read these new documents to make an informed risk-benefit calculation.

To read the documents, visit physiciansforinformedconsent.org/hepatitis-b.

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

Posted on August 16, 2022 by ITadmin

Physicians for Informed Consent Sues Medical Board of California, Argues Board is Violating the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution

Federal Court hearing will determine if Medical Board of California can continue what PIC calls “prosecuting scientific dissent as so-called ‘misinformation’”

NEWPORT BEACH, CALIF. August 16, 2022

Physicians for Informed Consent (PIC), an educational nonprofit organization focused on science and statistics, has filed a First Amendment free speech lawsuit (No. 2:22-cv-01203-JAM-KJN) and a motion for a preliminary injunction against the Medical Board of California in order to protect the free speech of all physicians in California.

The Physicians for Informed Consent lawsuit argues that the Medical Board has weaponized the phrase “misinformation” to unconstitutionally target dissenting physicians, including by “attempting to intimidate by investigation, censor and sanction physicians who publicly disagree with the government’s ever-evolving, erratic, and contradictory public health Covid-19 edicts.”

Mr. Rick Jaffe, the litigator for this Physicians for Informed Consent lawsuit, structured the legal arguments to emphasize that 75 years of judicial precedent have established that licensing agencies cannot sanction, prosecute or even investigate physicians for speaking out in public about a matter of public concern, regardless of the content, the expressed viewpoint, and even if those views are contrary to the opinions of the “medical establishment.”

As an example of the Medical Board’s alleged targeting of scientific dissent, the First Amended Complaint refers to the following statement in the Medical Board’s February 10-11 Meeting minutes:

“Ms. Lawson stated it is the duty of the board to protect the public from misinformation and disinformation by physicians, noting the increase in the dissemination of healthcare related misinformation and disinformation on social media platforms, in the media, and online, putting patient lives at risk in causing unnecessary strain on the healthcare system.”

This Physicians for Informed Consent lawsuit also examines California Assembly Bill 2098 (AB 2098), which aims to censor so-called “misinformation” spoken by physicians to their patients, to the extent that the bill is irreparably vague. As PIC General Counsel Greg Glaser explained in his declaration filed in court on Aug. 9, 2022:

“From my perspective, the Board’s standard for misinformation is so hopelessly vague, it is impossible for me to advise my client PIC whether the Board will arbitrarily prosecute PIC for content on the attachment (‘COVID-19 VACCINE MANDATES: 20 Scientific Facts That Challenge the Assumptions’) even though such PIC content is factual and meticulously cited.”

The scheduled hearing on PIC’s motion for preliminary injunction is Sept. 27, 2022. The judge assigned to the case is the Honorable John A. Mendez. PIC has requested Judge Mendez issue a preliminary injunction that “the Board be ordered to stop all its investigations of physicians for protected free speech, including but not limited to the public expression of views about the pandemic, the mandates, vaccines, treatments or any other content relating to the pandemic.”

Make a contribution to Physicians for Informed Consent here: physiciansforinformedconsent.org/donate.

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 Twitter
CLICK HERE to view on LinkedIn

Posted on March 3, 2022 by ITadmin

Physicians for Informed Consent General Counsel Disqualifies Federal Judge from Ruling in Vaccine Mandates Court Case

Family photo of The Garners - Lead Plaintiffs in Garner v. Biden — The Garners – Lead Plaintiffs in Garner v. Biden

Judge recuses herself due to potential financial conflict of interest with vaccine manufacturers

NEWPORT BEACH, CALIF. March 9, 2022

Physicians for Informed Consent (PIC) General Counsel, Greg Glaser, through his private law practice, is also lead litigator in Garner v. Biden, No. 2:20-cv-02470-WBS-JDP (Eastern District of California), a federal vaccine mandates lawsuit against the President of the United States. The lawsuit argues that vaccine mandates must be repealed not only because they are unethical and unscientific but because our country would not be able to perform scientific vaccine research without the existence of unvaccinated persons who would be able to participate as controls. Thus, the case is known as, The Control Group litigation.

Recently, Glaser filed a motion to disqualify Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw, due to her ownership of substantial stocks of vaccine manufacturers. The judge quickly recused herself to avoid the appearance of any impropriety. See court order Garner v. Biden, No. 21-15587, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 3255, at *1 (9th Cir. Feb. 4, 2022).

“All judges have an affirmative duty as part of their work requirements to disclose their financial holdings annually on a standard government form (AO 10A),” said Glaser, “and we hope more attorneys handling vaccine mandate cases make sure their presiding judges do not have a similar potential financial conflict of interest.” Federal law (28 U.S.C.S. § 455) states that recusal is necessary where a judge holds any amount of stock directly in a company that is substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding.

Physicians for Informed Consent congratulates Greg Glaser for his diligence to ensure The Control Group receives a fair trial. PIC also thanks members Dr. Rachel West, Dr. Douglas Hulstedt, and Dr. LeTrinh Hoang for assisting The Control Group case by serving as expert witnesses, and for sharing with the court Physicians for Informed Consent educational documents on infectious diseases and vaccines.

About Physicians for Informed Consent

Posted on March 1, 2022 by ITadmin

Physicians for Informed Consent Files Amicus Curiae Brief in Crucial Parental Rights and Informed Consent Lawsuit

Amicus Supports Parents Challenging New Law That Allows 11-Year-Old Children to Consent to Vaccination Without Parental Knowledge

NEWPORT BEACH, CALIF. (PRWEB) MARCH 01, 2022

Physicians for Informed Consent (PIC), an educational nonprofit organization focused on science and statistics, filed an Amicus Curiae brief this month in order to support parental rights and informed consent in vaccination in the case Booth v. Bowser (United States District Court, District of Columbia), Case Number 1:21-cv-01857-TNM.

PIC’s Amicus brief supports the plaintiffs in the case — parents challenging the constitutionality of a recently enacted law, the District of Columbia’s Minor Consent for Vaccinations Amendment Act of 2020, 2019 D.C. Adv. Leg. Serv. 532 (Dec. 23, 2020) (the “Minor Consent Act”). The Plaintiffs’ Verified Amended Complaint describes the essence of the case:

“The Minor Consent Act eviscerates parents’ rights to make informed decisions and foolishly allows children as young as 11 to make their own consequential vaccination decisions, which can result in injury or death, as well as vaccine-induced immunity. Under this law, Defendants must conceal from parents that their children have been vaccinated, depriving them of the most rudimentary knowledge that they require to properly care for their children. Shockingly, Defendants shroud the process in secrecy by instructing insurers to conceal children’s vaccination information from parents as payors. Defendants have covered all bases to deceitfully hide this vital information from parents and to obstruct their ability to serve as dutiful and effective caregivers.” Document 31, filed 11/15/21, page 11.

The current procedural posture of the case is that plaintiffs requested a preliminary injunction, and the defendants have moved to dismiss the case. Therefore, the District Court is presented with questions relating to the sufficiency of the allegations, and the plaintiffs’ likelihood of success on the merits.

Several doctors’ groups have provided Amici briefs in the case. Physicians for Informed Consent provided an Amicus brief to address the following key points:

1. “The Minor Consent Act fails every level of judicial scrutiny because it is arbitrary and irrational that the government would (1) completely override parental rights guaranteed by constitutional precedent, whilst (2) legalizing the worst-case scenario: behind closed doors an adult stranger asks an 11-year-old girl to ‘consent’ to his medical injection, which the child does not medically understand even after this stranger shares his information privately with her; she gets injured and her parents are ignorant because of the law. The Bill of Rights is surely present to protect against this ill-conceived legislation.”

2. “Physicians who are fluent in obtaining informed consent would confirm that the Minor Consent Act would violate every level of judicial scrutiny. Physicians experienced in obtaining informed consent know it is not possible for 11-year-old children as a group to understand the risks of Covid-19, the relative durability of natural immunity, the risks and benefits of Covid-19 vaccination, the ingredients in vaccination, or the risks and benefits of Covid-19 therapies—all in the applied context of patient personal and family history, and all in the short time (if any) allotted for a Covid-19 vaccination during a medical appointment.” Document 45-1, filed 2/16/21, pages 7-8.

Additionally, although there is a COVID-19 vaccine authorized for emergency use in children, there is not a COVID-19 vaccine that has been approved or licensed by the FDA for use in children under age 16, a distinction that may not be clear even for adults.

The PIC Amicus brief provides additional details specific to children in Washington, D.C., such as “the DC science and health curriculum for fifth graders [] contains zero references to vaccination or the immune system… Only in ninth grade do DC public school students begin their basic and highly simplified education about infectious disease and the immune system.” Id. at page 11.

“Physicians for Informed Consent will continue to monitor this important case with far-reaching implications for constitutional rights, namely, the right of parents to decline a vaccination for their child,” said Greg Glaser, general counsel for Physicians for Informed Consent.

About Physicians for Informed Consent

###

VIEW the press release on PRWeb.
SHARE the press release on Facebook.
SHARE the press release on Instagram.
SHARE the press release on Twitter.
SHARE the press release on LinkedIn.

Posted on February 22, 2022 by ITadmin

Physicians for Informed Consent: CDC Data Show COVID-19 Mass Vaccination Has Had No Measurable Impact on COVID-19 Mortality in the U.S.

Newly released document highlights 20 scientific facts that challenge the assumptions underlying COVID-19 vaccine mandates.

NEWPORT BEACH, CALIF. (PRWEB) FEBRUARY 22, 2022

Physicians for Informed Consent (PIC), an educational nonprofit organization focused on science and statistics, has released a new educational document entitled, “COVID-19 Vaccine Mandates: 20 Scientific Facts That Challenge the Assumptions.” The document helps readers become more familiarized with the scientific facts regarding COVID-19, its treatment options, and the COVID-19 vaccines.

Developed in a reader-friendly format, the document highlights available scientific data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, and it addresses the assumptions underlying COVID-19 vaccine mandates. Twenty scientific facts are provided on key public health topics, including:

The lack of a long-term benefit of the COVID-19 vaccines on the spread of COVID-19
The lack of a proven benefit of the COVID-19 vaccines on COVID-19 deaths
The risks of COVID-19 vaccine injections versus the safety of SARS-CoV-2 infection in children
Waning vaccine immunity and booster shot efficacy
COVID-19 early-treatment and prevention options

“Vaccine mandates are unethical because they attempt to coerce people to act against their own judgment, and because they are unscientific,” said Dr. Shira Miller, founder and president of PIC. “Our focus is on delivering scientific data about infectious diseases and vaccines which are often overlooked in the mainstream. We developed this new document to help physicians, policymakers and the public better understand and communicate about the scientific facts that challenge the assumptions underlying COVID-19 vaccine mandates.”

The document (referenced here) reveals CDC data — from April 2020 through January 2022 — which show that mass vaccination with the COVID-19 vaccine has had no measurable impact on COVID-19 mortality in the U.S. In addition, short-term clinical trial data indicate that 1 in 6 to 1 in 9 people 12–55 years of age who receive mRNA COVID-19 vaccines suffer severe (grade 3) systemic reactions, and long-term safety studies have not been conducted. And finally, more than 53% of Americans have already had COVID-19 and may have greater protection against reinfection than vaccinated people.

To download your copy of “COVID-19 Vaccine Mandates: 20 Scientific Facts That Challenge the Assumptions,” visit physiciansforinformedconsent.org/covid-19-vaccines. Readers are encouraged to share the document with their physicians, family and community.

VIEW the press release on PRWeb.
SHARE the press release on Facebook.
SHARE the press release on Twitter.
SHARE the press release on Instagram.
SHARE the press release on LinkedIn.

About Physicians for Informed Consent
Physicians for Informed Consent is a 501(c)(3) educational nonprofit 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 or to become a member, please visit physiciansforinformedconsent.org.

Posted on January 12, 2022 by ITadmin

Physicians for Informed Consent Letter to Congressman Gohmert: Doctors and Scientists Support for H.R. 5816, National Informed Consent Exemption (NICE) Act

January 10, 2022

Honorable Louie Gohmert
United States Congressman
2269 Rayburn HOB
Washington, DC 20515
Via email: louie.gohmert@mail.house.gov

Re: Doctors and Scientists Support for H.R. 5816, National Informed Consent Exemption (NICE) Act

Dear Congressman Gohmert,

Thank you for your leadership in sponsoring the National Informed Consent Exemption (NICE) Act. We at Physicians for Informed Consent (PIC) have been safeguarding informed consent in vaccination since 2015 and believe that the abolishment of mandatory vaccination laws is long overdue.

In support of NICE, we have numerous educational documents. And, especially as our nation’s children most urgently require protection from COVID-19 vaccine mandates, we’ll share with you here important information from our recent public service announcement (enclosed) about the COVID-19 vaccine for children.

In the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine clinical trial, zero unvaccinated adolescents 12 to 15 years of age suffered a severe case of COVID-19. In contrast, for every 1 case of non-severe COVID-19 in the unvaccinated group, there were 7 cases of severe (grade 3) systemic reactions in the vaccinated group. The clinical trial also found that 1 in about 1,100 vaccinated children 12 to 15 years of age had a grade 4 systemic reaction (fever greater than 104.0° F) that required an emergency room (ER) visit. The reaction occurred within one week of vaccination and led to withdrawal from the clinical trial. Thus, as numerous severe systemic reactions occurred in the vaccine group and yet zero severe symptoms occurred in those children who became infected with COVID-19, there is clearly no scientific justification for mandating the vaccine in this age group.

Please let us know if there are any specific infectious diseases or vaccines for which you need scientific data, such as the MMR vaccine. We applaud and support NICE, so please call on us should you require any assistance.

Sincerely,

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

Physicians for Informed Consent (PIC) is a nationally recognized 501(c)(3) nonprofit educational organization representing hundreds of doctors, as well as scientists and attorneys, whose mission is to deliver data on infectious diseases and vaccines. In addition, our Coalition for Informed Consent consists of over 300 member organizations that represent millions of Americans.

Enclosed: COVID-19 – Pfizer Vaccine Risk Statement (VRS) Public Service Announcement
Cc: Congressman Jeff Duncan, Congressman Bob Good, Congressman Randy Weber, Congressman Doug LaMalfa, Congressman Brian Babin, Congressman Andy Biggs, Congressman Ralph Norman, Congressman Brian Mast, Congressman Matt Gaetz

Are Vaccine Mandates Science-Based?

This is a public service announcement from Physicians for Informed Consent, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit educational organization. Learn more here: physiciansforinformedconsent.org/Pfizer-COVID-19-vaccine

Download PDF

Posted on December 22, 2021 by ITadmin

Physicians for Informed Consent Updates Its Pfizer COVID-19 Vaccine Risk Statement, Analyzes New Safety Data for Children

Educational document highlights risk of severe side effects in children 5 to 11 years of age, and provides data on COVID-19 transmission and the significant decline of vaccine efficacy in people aged 16 or older.

NEWPORT BEACH, CALIF. (PRWeb) – DEC. 22, 2021

Physicians for Informed Consent (PIC), an educational nonprofit organization focused on science and statistics, has published an update of its Pfizer COVID-19 Vaccine Risk Statement (VRS), which includes important questions and answers about the vaccine. The Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine received expanded emergency use authorization (EUA) for children 5 to 11 years of age; however, the vaccine has not been approved or licensed for children 15 years or younger.

The Pfizer COVID-19 VRS highlights essential data from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and Pfizer clinical trial to help patients and caregivers engage in informed decision-making. Some key points include the following:

The clinical trial found there were zero cases of severe COVID-19 in children of any age who did not receive the vaccine. In contrast, the trial found that the vaccine causes severe (grade 3) and grade 4 systemic reactions in children.
The clinical trial indicates that vaccine efficacy declines significantly in less than six months. Although a booster dose of the vaccine is authorized for individuals 16 years of age or older, the clinical trial states that efficacy was not evaluated for Phase 3 BNT162b2 booster group participants. Instead, vaccine efficacy was inferred based on antibody levels observed in only about 300 vaccinated subjects over a one-month time period.
The clinical trial provided no evidence that the vaccine prevents asymptomatic infection or transmission of SARS-CoV-2 or COVID-19. In addition, recent studies have observed that a significant proportion of severe, critical, and fatal cases of COVID-19 occurred in vaccinated individuals.

“PIC was founded in 2015 to safeguard informed consent in vaccination,” said Dr. Shira Miller, PIC founder and president. “Today, more people than ever before are interested in analyzing infectious disease data and researching vaccines. We are pleased to provide a concise, reader-friendly document that emphasizes important statistics that further assist the public to engage in informed decision-making.”

Earlier this year, PIC introduced its “Do your research” education initiative for COVID-19 vaccines, providing scientific information that reflects the necessity for choice — rather than coercion — in vaccine administration. The newly released VRS helps expand public knowledge. Used together with PIC’s COVID-19 Disease Information Statement (DIS), which discusses effects of COVID-19 in different age groups, the document serves to further aid readers in comparing the risk of COVID-19 infection versus the risk of a severe side effect from a COVID-19 vaccine.

To download your copy of the VRS “Pfizer COVID-19 Vaccine: Short-Term Efficacy & Safety Data,” visit physiciansforinformedconsent.org/COVID-19-vaccines.

VIEW the press release on PRWeb.
SHARE the press release on Facebook.
SHARE the press release on Twitter.
SHARE the press release on Instagram.
SHARE the press release on LinkedIn.

About Physicians for Informed Consent

Physicians for Informed Consent is a 501(c)(3) educational nonprofit 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 more than 300 U.S. and international organizations.

Posted on August 11, 2021 by ITadmin

Physicians for Informed Consent Submits Amicus Brief to U.S. Supreme Court in Pivotal Vaccine Mandates Case

NEWPORT BEACH, CALIF. (PRWEB) AUGUST 11, 2021

Amicus presents scientific evidence supporting plaintiff college students declining COVID-19 vaccination at Indiana University.

Physicians for Informed Consent (PIC), an educational nonprofit organization focused on science and statistics, filed an amicus brief in support of plaintiff college students who are declining COVID-19 vaccination at Indiana University (i.e., the case of Ryan Klaassen, et al. v. Trustees of Indiana University).

Indiana University recently mandated COVID-19 vaccination for college students. While the college does offer a religious exemption, the college is still requiring unvaccinated students to wear masks and engage in frequent SARS-CoV-2 testing, even if the student proves natural immunity. The plaintiff students brought suit in Federal Court in Indiana (1:21-CV-238 DRL) requesting an emergency injunction because they claim the mandate is unscientific and unconstitutional, and believe government-funded institutions should not be discriminating between citizens based on vaccination status. The trial court denied the request for emergency relief. The plaintiffs then appealed to the 7th Circuit Federal Appeals Court (Case No. 21-2326), which denied the appeal. Plaintiffs have now appealed further to the US Supreme Court (Case Number: 21A15). Per Greg Glaser, PIC General Counsel, “If the Supreme Court is willing to hear the case, it will be particularly significant to instruct courts on how to analyze vaccine cases in the modern day. If the Supreme Court applies ‘strict scrutiny,’ the likely outcome is that unvaccinated students cannot be segregated and discriminated against. But if the Supreme Court applies ‘rational basis scrutiny,’ then the likely outcome is that Indiana University will be allowed to continue its segregation policy. PIC advocates for informed consent as a fundamental right, and therefore strict scrutiny.”

The amicus highlights a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) report from a July 2021 outbreak in Cape Cod, Massachusetts, where 469 COVID-19 cases were identified among residents who had traveled to the town and 346 (74%) occurred in fully vaccinated persons. Of the five hospitalized cases, four were fully vaccinated. The CDC stated, “Cycle threshold values were similar among specimens from patients who were fully vaccinated and those who were not,” which means both vaccinated and unvaccinated persons can equally spread SARS-CoV-2 if infected, and there is no scientific basis for discrimination based on vaccination status. Per the CDC, “…preliminary evidence suggests that fully vaccinated people who do become infected with the Delta variant can spread the virus to others.”

FIGURE 1 Cape Cod July 2021 COVID-19 Outbreak — Figure 1. Number of Fully Vaccinated Persons with COVID-19 in Cape Cod July 2021 Outbreak

“Additional data in the amicus brief illustrates that unvaccinated persons previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 are 99.9% protected from reinfection, and approximately 180 million Americans have already been infected. Restricting people’s life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness based on vaccination status is both unscientific and unethical, and should not be possible for government-funded institutions in the United States,” said Dr. Shira Miller, PIC founder and president.

Physicians for Informed Consent’s body of physicians, scientists, statisticians, and healthcare workers is trusted by both patients and practitioners for providing scientific data on infectious diseases and vaccines. To learn more, read PIC’s amicus brief.

About Physicians for Informed Consent

Physicians for Informed Consent is a 501(c)(3) educational nonprofit 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 approximately 300 U.S. and international organizations. To learn more or to become a member, please visit physiciansforinformedconsent.org.

###

VIEW the press release on PRWeb.
SHARE the press release on Facebook.
SHARE the press release on Instagram.
SHARE the press release on Twitter.
SHARE the press release on LinkedIn.