CategoryArticle
Posted on by ITadminLast updated

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:

  1. Informed consent/refusal in vaccination is a fundamental right.
  2. 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).
  3. People with natural immunity should not have less rights than vaccinated people.
  4. 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 by ITadminLast updated

Physicians for Informed Consent Sends Cautionary Letter to UC Board of Regents Regarding Its New Flu Shot Mandate, Emphasizes Lack of Scientific Basis

Flu vaccine doesn’t reduce hospital demand.

NEWPORT BEACH, CALIF. — September 22, 2020, Physicians for Informed Consent (PIC), an educational nonprofit organization focused on delivering data on infectious diseases and vaccines, today sent a letter to the University of California Board of Regents  urging university leadership to reconsider the recent flu vaccine mandate on behalf of hundreds of doctors and scientists and in the interest of preserving the health of UC students, faculty and staff. This letter presents a robust body of data indicating that this mandate will not only fail to address concerns about hospital capacity as related to COVID-19 but also may increase the risk of respiratory illnesses.

“There’s data showing that the flu shot increases one’s chances of non-flu illness by 65%—meaning that not only does this mandate lack scientific justification, but it puts UC students, faculty and staff at a greater risk of other respiratory illnesses,” said Dr. Shira Miller, founder and president of PIC. “The studies referenced in the UC Regents’ flu vaccine mandate suggest positive effects of the flu vaccine on the incidence of illness caused by flu viruses; however, that benefit may be outweighed by an increase in non-flu respiratory illnesses. And, although the possibility has been studied, there is no evidence that the vaccine prevents the spread of influenza.”

On July 31, 2020, the University of California issued an executive order, mandating that all members of the UC community including students, faculty, and staff receive the influenza vaccine prior to Nov. 1, 2020. This mandate was issued under the premise that the vaccine will decrease flu hospitalizations, thereby freeing hospital beds for COVID-19 patients. However, Physicians for Informed Consent points out the lack of scientific justification for this requirement.

On Sept. 17, 2020, attorneys Rick Jaffe and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. filed a motion for a preliminary injunction in order to stop the enforcement of the UC Regents’ new flu vaccine mandate.  Their plaintiffs are Cindy Kiel, J.D., Executive Associate Vice Chancellor, UC Davis; Mckenna Hendricks, UC Santa Barbara Student; Edgar de Gracia, UCLA Student; Leland Vanderpoel, Employee, UCSF Medical Education Program; and Frances Olsen, Professor of Law, UCLA. Expert witnesses include Dr. Peter Gotzsche, M.D., Co-founder, Cochrane Collaboration; Dr. Thomas Jefferson, M.D., Fellow, Faculty of Public Health, United Kingdom; Peter Doshi, Ph.D., Associate Editor BMJ; Andrew Noymer, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Department of Population Health and Disease Prevention, UC Irvine; and Professor Laszlo Boros, M.D., Professor of Pediatrics, UCLA.

“In this lawsuit against the UC Board of Regents over their new flu vaccine mandate, some of the world’s top experts have provided declarations opposing the flu shot mandate,” said Greg Glaser, Esq., general counsel at PIC. “Their declarations will have a significant impact on decisions made regarding public health.”

PIC’s letter points the UC Board of Regents to the following seven facts:

  1. People who receive the flu vaccine are 65% more likely to contract non-flu viruses and bacteria than people who do not receive the flu vaccine.
  2. There is evidence that the flu vaccine doesn’t reduce demand on hospitals.
  3. There is no evidence that the flu vaccine prevents the spread of influenza viruses.
  4. The flu vaccine has not reduced pneumonia and influenza mortality.
  5. The flu vaccine fails to prevent the flu about 65% of the time.
  6. Repeat flu vaccination has been shown to increase the likelihood of flu vaccine failure.
  7. The overall benefits of flu vaccination and flu vaccine policies are not clear.

To read the entire PIC letter to the UC Board of Regents, click here.

###

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.

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, its Coalition for Informed Consent consists of more than 200 U.S. and international organizations. To learn more or to become a member, please visit physiciansforinformedconsent.org.

Posted on by ITadminLast updated

Physicians for Informed Consent Letter Opposing UC Regents’ Flu Vaccine Mandate

September 22, 2020

Michael V. Drake, M.D.
President, University of California Board of Regents, president@ucop.edu
Cc: Vice President for Human Resources, Executive Vice President for UC Health, University of California Regents Office, regentsoffice@ucop.edu
Anne Shaw, Secretary and Chief of Staff to the Regents, anne.shaw@ucop.edu

RE: University of California Executive Order July 31, 2020 (flu vaccine mandate)

Dear Professor Drake,

On behalf of hundreds of physician and scientist members of Physicians for Informed Consent, I am writing out of our concern that the bodily integrity of UC students, faculty, and staff is being potentially sacrificed by the recent UC Regents’ flu vaccine mandate,1 with no robust scientific justification. The data currently available shows the following:

1. People who receive the flu vaccine are 65% more likely to contract non-flu viruses and bacteria than people who do not receive the flu vaccine.

Patients have reported becoming ill following flu vaccination. To address the concern among patients that the flu vaccine causes illness (i.e., acute respiratory illness), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) conducted a three-year study, published in Vaccine in 2017, to analyze the risk of illness during a time period after flu vaccination compared to the risk of illness in unvaccinated individuals during the same time period.2 The study found there is a 65% increased risk of suffering from a non-flu acute respiratory illness within 14 days of receiving the flu vaccine. The authors state, “Patients’ experiences of illness after vaccination may be validated by these results.”

This is important because although flu vaccines typically target at most four strains of flu virus,3 over 200 different viruses cause illnesses that produce the same symptoms—fever, headache, aches, pains, cough, and runny nose—as influenza,4 and more than 85% of acute respiratory illnesses do not involve the flu.

2. There is evidence that the flu vaccine doesn’t reduce demand on hospitals.

The studies referenced in the UC Regents’ flu vaccine mandate suggest positive effects of the flu vaccine on the incidence of illness caused by flu viruses; however, that benefit may be outweighed by the negative effects of the flu vaccine on the incidence of non-flu respiratory illness. A 2018 Cochrane review of 52 clinical trials assessing the effectiveness of influenza vaccines did not find a significant difference in hospitalizations between vaccinated and unvaccinated adults. Instead, the reviewers found “low-certainty evidence that hospitalization rates and time off work may be comparable between vaccinated and unvaccinated adults.”6

Furthermore, a Mayo Clinic study published in 2012 found “a threefold increased risk of hospitalization in subjects who did get the TIV [trivalent inactivated influenza] vaccine.”7

3. There is no evidence that the flu vaccine prevents the spread of influenza viruses.

Households are thought to play a major role in community spread of influenza, and there has been a long history of analyzing family households to study the incidence and transmission of respiratory illnesses of all severities. As such, the CDC funded a study of 1,441 participants, both vaccinated and unvaccinated, in 328 households. The study, published in Clinical Infectious Diseases, evaluated the flu vaccine’s ability to prevent community-acquired influenza (household index cases) and influenza acquired in people with confirmed household exposure to the flu (secondary cases). Transmission risks were determined and characterized. In conclusion, the authors state: “There was no evidence that vaccination prevented household transmission once influenza was introduced.”8,9

Furthermore, a systematic review of 50 influenza vaccine studies conducted for the Cochrane Library states: “Influenza vaccines have a modest effect in reducing influenza symptoms and working days lost. There is no evidence that they affect complications, such as pneumonia, or transmission.”5

4. The flu vaccine has not reduced pneumonia and influenza mortality.

The National Vaccine Program Office, a division of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), funded a study to examine flu mortality over the period of 33 years (1968–2001). The study found that there has been no decrease in flu mortality since the widespread use of the influenza vaccine. The authors state: “We could not correlate increasing vaccination coverage after 1980 with declining mortality rates in any age group… [W]e conclude that observational studies substantially overestimate vaccination benefit.”10

5. The flu vaccine fails to prevent the flu about 65% of the time.

The CDC conducts studies to assess the effects of flu vaccination each flu season to help determine if flu vaccines are working as intended.11,12 As the flu viruses that are circulating are constantly changing (primarily due to antigenic drift mutations),13 flu vaccines are reformulated regularly based on a “best guess” of which viruses might circulate during the coming flu season.14 The CDC states: “CDC monitors vaccine effectiveness annually through the Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness (VE) Network, a collaboration with participating institutions in five geographic locations… [A]nnual estimates of vaccine effectiveness give a real-world look at how well the vaccine protects against influenza caused by circulating viruses each season.”12

Data from the CDC’s Influenza VE Network indicate a 65% vaccine failure rate between 2014 and 2018 (Fig. 1).11

6. Repeat flu vaccination has been shown to increase the likelihood of flu vaccine failure.

Studies have observed that influenza vaccines have a high failure rate in individuals who are vaccinated in two consecutive years.8 A review of 17 influenza vaccine studies published in Expert Review of Vaccines states, “The effects of repeated annual vaccination on individual long-term protection, population immunity, and virus evolution remain largely unknown.”15

7. The overall benefits of flu vaccination and flu vaccine policies are not clear.

A Cochrane Vaccines Field analysis evaluated studies measuring the benefits of flu vaccination. The analysis, published in the BMJ, concludes: “The large gap between policy and what the data tell us (when rigorously assembled and evaluated) is surprising… Evidence from systematic reviews shows that inactivated vaccines have little or no effect on the effects measured… Reasons for the current gap between policy and evidence are unclear, but given the huge resources involved, a re-evaluation should be urgently undertaken.”

Finally, it’s important to remember that since the enactment of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986,17 which has shielded both vaccine manufacturers and physicians from vaccine injury lawsuits, the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program has awarded over $4 billion to people who incurred vaccine injuries and deaths.18 These individuals and their families have a heightened awareness of their risk of vaccine injury, whether or not their injuries fall under the CDC list of contraindications or precautions; and flu vaccine injury claims are the most common.

We urge you to rescind the UC Regents’ flu vaccine mandate as it thwarts the ability of your students, faculty, and staff to exercise their ability to refuse a medical procedure. There is no medical justification for requiring people to potentially sacrifice their bodily integrity and health in order to work or obtain an education.

Respectfully,


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

Physicians for Informed Consent (PIC) is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit educational organization that delivers data on infectious diseases and vaccines, and unites doctors, scientists, healthcare professionals, attorneys, and families who support voluntary vaccination. Its Coalition for Informed Consent (CIC) includes over 200 member organizations.

Download/Print PDF

References

  1. University of California. Regents of the University of California. University of California executive order July 31, 2020; [cited 2020 Aug 17]. https://ucnet.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/2020/08/2020-21-flu-vaccination-executive-order.pdf.
  2. Rikin S, Jia H, Vargas CY, Castellanos de Belliard Y, Reed C, LaRussa P, Larson EL, Saiman L, Stockwell MS. Assessment of temporally related acute respiratory illness following influenza vaccination. Vaccine. 2018 Apr 5;36(15):1958-64.
  3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Table 1: influenza vaccines—United States, 2020–21 influenza season; [cited 2020 Sep 3]. https://www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/acip/2020-2021/acip-table.htm.
  4. Demicheli V, Jefferson T, Al-Ansary LA, Ferroni E, Rivetti A, Di Pietrantonj C. Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy adults. Cochrane Database of Syst Rev. 2014 Mar 13;(3):CD001269.
  5. Jefferson T, Di Pietrantonj C, Rivetti A, Bawazeer GA, Al-Ansary LA, Ferroni E. Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy adults. Cochrane Database Sys Rev. 2010 Jul 7;(7):CD001269.
  6. Demicheli V, Jefferson T, Ferroni E, Rivetti A, Di Pietrantonj C. Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Feb 1;2(2):CD001269.
  7. Joshi AY, Iyer VN, Hartz MF, Patel AM, Li JT. Effectiveness of trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine in influenza-related hospitalization in children: a case-control study. Allergy Asthma Proc. 2012 Mar-Apr;33(2):e23-7.
  8. Ohmit SE, Petrie JG, Malosh RE, Cowling BJ, Thompson MG, Shay DK, Monto AS. Influenza vaccine effectiveness in the community and the household. Clin Infect Dis. 2013 May;56(10):1363.
  9. Physicians for Informed Consent. Newport Beach (CA): Physicians for Informed Consent. Vaccines: what about immunocompromised schoolchildren? Dec 2019. https://physiciansforinformedconsent.org/immunocompromised-schoolchildren/rgis/.
  10. Simonsen L, Reichert TA, Viboud C, Blackwelder WC, Taylor RJ, Miller MA. Impact of influenza vaccination on seasonal mortality in the US elderly population. Arch Intern Med. 2005 Feb 14;165(3):265-72.
  11. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. CDC seasonal flu vaccine effectiveness studies; [cited 2020 Apr 17]. https://www.cdc.gov/flu/vaccines-work/effectiveness-studies.htm.
  12. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. How flu vaccine effectiveness and efficacy are measured; [cited 2020 May 14]. https://www.cdc.gov/flu/vaccines-work/effectivenessqa.htm.
  13. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Influenza (flu): how flu viruses can change; [cited 2020 Aug 17]. https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/viruses/change.htm.
  14. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Influenza (flu): selecting viruses for the seasonal influenza vaccine; [cited 2020 Aug 17]. https://www.cdc.gov/flu/prevent/vaccine-selection.htm.
  15. Belongia EA, Skowronski DM, McLean HQ, Chambers C, Sundaram ME, De Serres G. Repeated annual influenza vaccination and vaccine effectiveness: review of evidence. Expert Rev Vaccines. 2017 Jul;16(7):723,733.
  16. Jefferson T. Influenza vaccination: policy versus evidence. BMJ. 2006 Oct 28;333(7574):912-5.
  17. Congress.gov. Washington, D.C.: Library of Congress (LOC). H.R.5546 – National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986; [cited 2020 Aug 17]. https://www.congress.gov/bill/99th-congress/house-bill/5546.
  18. National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. Rockville (MD): Health Resources and Services Administration. National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program: monthly statistics report; [updated 2019 Jun 1; cited 2020 Aug 17]. https://www.hrsa.gov/sites/default/files/hrsa/vaccine-compensation/data/monthly-stats-june-2019.pdf.

*Estimates presented to the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices on June 27, 2019

Posted on by ITadminLast updated

Physicians for Informed Consent and Peter Gøtzsche Debate Risk of Dying from the MMR Vaccine vs. Measles in BMJ

Physicians and scientists refute the claim that rational doubt of the MMR vaccine is “absurd.”

NEWPORT BEACH, CALIF. (PRWEB) AUGUST 07, 2019

Physicians for Informed Consent (PIC), an educational nonprofit organization focused on science and statistics, recently responded in the BMJ to Professor Peter Gøtzsche’s statement on May 24, 2019, “Rational doubt cannot be raised about the measles vaccine.” Gøtzsche’s response was to PIC’s assertion that “it has not been proven that the MMR vaccine results in less death or permanent disability than what is expected from measles.”

To read the full comments, please visit bmj.com/content/359/bmj.j5104/rapid-responses.

Gøtzsche went on to write that “the reason that so few people die or get seriously injured from measles is that most of the population is vaccinated.” However, it is a documented fact that before the vaccine was introduced in the United States, measles was only fatal in 1 in 10,000 cases. Consequently, to prove the vaccine causes less permanent injury than measles, vaccine safety studies must have the statistical power to detect permanent injury in as little as 1 in 10,000 vaccinated children. Dr. Shira Miller, PIC’s founder and president, states, “Rational doubt will continue to be raised about the measles-containing vaccine MMR until a safety study with the statistical power to detect permanent injury from the vaccine in 1 in 10,000 vaccinated subjects is produced.”

Rational doubt will continue to be raised about the measles-containing vaccine MMR until a safety study with the statistical power to detect permanent injury from the vaccine in 1 in 10,000 vaccinated subjects is produced.

Doctors, scientists, and statisticians at Physicians for Informed Consent produce PIC’s educational materials, including the Measles Disease Information Statement (DIS) and the Measles Vaccine Risk Statement (VRS), from data compiled by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the National Center for Health Statistics. The Measles DIS and VRS are resources that are currently utilized in doctors’ offices nationwide to help parents make educated and evidence-based vaccination decisions. To access these resources or learn more about measles and the MMR vaccine, please visit physiciansforinformedconsent.org/measles.

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 that support voluntary vaccination. In addition, the PIC Coalition for Informed Consent consists of more than 150 U.S. and international organizations. For more information, please visit physiciansforinformedconsent.org.

Source: https://www.prweb.com/releases/physicians_for_informed_consent_and_peter_gotzsche_debate_risk_of_dying_from_the_mmr_vaccine_vs_measles_in_bmj/prweb16489867.htm

Posted on by ITadminLast updated

Physicians for Informed Consent: Vaccine-Injured Families and Their Doctors Change the Minds of Directors at the Medical Board of California

NEWPORT BEACH, CALIF. (PRWEB) JUNE 18, 2019

Physicians for Informed Consent advocates for vaccine-injured families, urges opposition to California Vaccine Bill SB 276.

An unexpected and overwhelming public outcry at the May 28, 2019, quarterly meeting of the Medical Board of California (MBC) led some of its directors to change their minds about supporting SB 276, the bill currently at the California Assembly that would prevent doctors from being able to protect their patients from vaccine injuries. After hearing testimony from hundreds of parents, as well as physicians, Dr. Randy Hawkins rescinded his initial support of SB 276: “I withdraw my second. I’ve reconsidered. I was impressed by the amount of concern from the public, and I thought I decided before I came in, but I’ve gotten some literature and that makes me rethink it…”[1]

Dr. Felix Yip voted against SB 276 and stated, “…listening to the public and reading the literature…I’m not sure how many amendments we’d need to make in order to support this bill with amendments; you’d pretty much have to change the whole bill.”

PIC Founder and President Dr. Shira Miller spoke at the meeting and submitted written testimony that explains how SB 276 contradicts the MBC’s mission to protect patients and promote patient access to quality care.[2] Dr. Miller writes, “Since the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, which indemnifies both vaccine manufacturers and physicians from liability for vaccine injuries, and the creation of the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, which has awarded about $4 billion in compensation to only one-third of petitioners, it has mostly been those families with a history of vaccine injuries and their physicians who have had a heightened awareness of their risk of suffering more vaccine injuries.” Less than 1% of schoolchildren have obtained medical exemptions in California, after their doctor determined that their risk of vaccine injury exceeds the benefit of a vaccine(s)—but there are only a small number of physicians who are skilled at meeting this public healthcare need. “If SB 276 passes, the California families who need them most will no longer be able to effectively access the doctors who are best able to protect them from vaccine injuries,” explains Dr. Miller.

“If SB 276 passes, the California families who need them most will no longer be able to effectively access the doctors who are best able to protect them from vaccine injuries,” explains Dr. Miller.

The risk of seizure after the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine is about 1 in 250 in siblings of children with a history of febrile seizures[3] (and 5% of those would develop epilepsy[4]). Although SB 277, which passed in 2015, permits a physician to exempt such a sibling from the MMR vaccine, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines and SB 276 would not.

In terms of measles, before the measles vaccine was introduced in 1963, there was a 1 in 10,000 (0.01%) chance of dying from measles (that’s about the same as one’s lifetime chance of being struck by lightning), not 1 in 1,000, which is the often-publicized misrepresentation of historical data.[5] In addition, three treatments are available to help prevent the rare severe complication: Vitamin A, immune globulin, and the antiviral medication, ribavirin.[6,7,8,9]

Because the facts of SB 276 are often misrepresented, PIC has written the California Assembly Health Committee a letter that clearly explains the facts, and has also developed an informational document entitled “SB 276 Myths vs. Facts: Setting the Record Straight” to help the public gain a deeper understanding of the issues involved with this bill, which threatens public health. Click here to read it.

Physicians for Informed Consent is a nationally recognized 501(c)(3) nonprofit educational organization representing doctors and scientists whose mission is to safeguard informed consent in vaccination. In addition, PIC’s Coalition for Informed Consent consists of more than 150 U.S. and international organizations. Visit physiciansforinformedconsent.org for more information.

References

  1. https://youtu.be/jItwZh4dajY
  2. https://physiciansforinformedconsent.org/physicians-for-informed-consent-testimony-urges-medical-board-of-california-to-oppose-sb-276/
  3. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15265850
  4. https://academic.oup.com/aje/article/165/8/911/184889
  5. https://physiciansforinformedconsent.org/government-doctors-make-gross-errors-concerning-measles-statistics-misinform-senators-threaten-public-health/
  6. https://physiciansforinformedconsent.org/measles/dis/
  7. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22480102
  8. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7008941
  9. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23629813

Source: https://www.prweb.com/releases/vaccine_injured_families_and_their_doctors_change_the_minds_of_directors_at_the_medical_board_of_california/prweb16386437.htm

Posted on by ITadminLast updated

Physicians for Informed Consent Opposes SB 276: Letter to the CA Assembly Health Committee

June 12, 2019

To: Assembly Health Committee
State Capitol, Room 6005
Sacramento, CA 95814

Re: SB 276 (Pan) as amended on 5/17/19 – Immunizations: medical exemptions; Elimination of physicians’ right to determine medical exemptions to vaccination for their patients

Position: OPPOSE

We at Physicians for Informed Consent (PIC), on behalf of our California members, oppose SB 276 as amended by Pan, as it is both unscientific and unethical.

PIC is a nationally recognized 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization representing hundreds of doctors, as well as scientists and attorneys, whose mission is to safeguard informed consent in vaccination.

In addition, our Coalition for Informed Consent consists of over 150 member organizations which represent millions of Americans.

SB 276 is unscientific because:

  • SB 277-mandated vaccines have not yet been proven to be less risky than the diseases they are designed to prevent.

    For example, the chance of dying from measles is 1 in 10,000, based on U.S. data from the prevaccine era. However, the risk of dying or being permanently disabled by the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine has not been proven to be less than 1 in 10,000. This makes mandating the MMR vaccine unscientific and unethical. See attached Measles Disease Information Statement (DIS), Vaccine Risk Statement (VRS), and Immunocompromised Schoolchildren Risk Group InformationStatement (RGIS).In addition, in 2017, we reported in The BMJ that every year an estimated 5,700 U.S. children (approximately 1 in 640) suffer febrile seizures from the first dose of the MMR vaccine—which is five times more than the number of febrile seizures expected from measles. This amounts to 57,000 febrile seizures over the past 10 years due to the MMR vaccine alone. As 5% of children with a history of febrile seizures progress to epilepsy, a debilitating and life-threatening chronic condition, the estimated number of children whose epilepsy is due to the MMR vaccine in the past 10 years is 2,850.1 Furthermore, the risk of seizure from MMR in siblings of children with a history of febrile seizures is 1 in 252, and the risk of seizure from MMR in children with a personal history of febrile seizures is 1 in 51.2

SB 276 is unethical because it:

  • Promotes medical bullying by governmental agents and obstructs parents from being able to protect their children from the potential risk of vaccine injuries (i.e., it violates the principle of informed consent/informed refusal).
  • Thwarts doctors from being able to protect their patients’ health through personalized vaccine recommendations based on infectious disease risks and individualized vaccine-injury risks, and instead promotes an outdated one-size-fits-all governmental vaccine schedule which is not based on new medical discoveries.
  • Subjects the health of California’s children to the mercy of a State Public Health Officer with whom they don’t have a patient-doctor relationship.

Finally, the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) of 1986 was created by Congress as a remedy to mounting vaccine injury lawsuits. Since then, it has not been effectively possible to sue vaccine manufacturers or physicians for vaccine injuries and instead the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) has cumulatively awarded about $4,000,000,000 for severe vaccine injury cases or deaths—to only a small fraction of the VICP petitioners who apply within the two- or three-year statute of limitations. Consequently, it is mostly families whose children have suffered uncompensated vaccine injuries and the doctors who care for them (including many of PIC’s M.D. and D.O. members) who have a heightened awareness of the risks vaccines pose to the health of some American children and the diligence required to provide informed consent in an environment that is effectively immune from the tort system, civil litigation, and publicity.

For these reasons, we oppose SB 276 on both scientific and ethical grounds. See attached PIC’s SB 276 Myths vs. Facts: Setting the Record Straight.

We are here to assist you in these highly technical matters and hope you will not allow bad science to violate the ethics of informed consent.

Sincerely,

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

 

  1. Miller S. Re: The unofficial vaccine educators: are CDC funded non-profits sufficiently independent? BMJ. 2017;359:j5104. https://www.bmj.com/content/359/bmj.j5104/rr-13.
  2. Vestergaard M, Hviid A, Madsen KM, et al. MMR vaccination and febrile seizures: evaluation of susceptible subgroups and long-term prognosis. JAMA. 2004 Jul 21;292(3):351-7. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15265850.

 

Download Enclosed Documents

Enclosed: PIC’s SB 276 Myths vs. Facts: Setting the Record Straight, Measles Disease Information Statement (DIS), Vaccine Risk Statement (VRS), Immunocompromised Schoolchildren Risk Group Information Statement (RGIS)

Posted on by ITadminLast updated

Physicians for Informed Consent: SB 276 Myths vs. Facts: Setting the Record Straight

Background: SB 277, which passed in 2015 in California, prevents parents from being able to protect their children from vaccine injuries based on their own judgment, and instead only allows physicians to exempt children from one or more vaccines in order to attend private or public school, and only due to medical reasons. Now, SB 276 proposes to prevent physicians from exempting children from one or more vaccines and to only allow a state public health officer to do so based solely on CDC guidelines. The purported necessity for SB 276 is in the myths below; however, the facts negate the myths.1,2

Since SB 277, Physicians for Informed Consent, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, has been uniting and educating doctors from across the nation on how to better identify vaccine contraindications, precautions, and adverse events, in order to prevent as many vaccine injuries as possible.3

MYTH 1: SB 276 is necessary because there are a few physicians recommending medical exemptions to vaccination which are possibly fraudulent.

FACT: The standard of care for recommending a medical exemption was established by SB 277 in 2015 and specifies that a physician recommend medical exemptions to vaccination when his or her medical opinion is such that “immunization is not considered safe,” including circumstances related to family medical history. To date, no physician in California has been adjudicated for acting fraudulently when recommending a medical exemption to vaccination.

FACT: Although the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC) has guidelines on contraindications and precautions to vaccination, these guidelines are not all-inclusive, it can take decades for medical research on vaccine injuries to become a CDC guideline, and medical exemptions are not one-size-fitsall. Furthermore, physicians need to be able to protect their patients from harm based on their own knowledge, experience, research, and judgment in order to complement CDC guidelines.4

FACT: Since the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, which indemnifies both vaccine manufacturers and physicians from liability for vaccine injuries, and the creation of the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, which has awarded about $4 billion in compensation to only one-third of petitioners, it has mostly been those families with a history of vaccine injuries and their physicians who have had a heightened awareness of their risk of suffering more vaccine injuries. This latter explains why less than 1% of children have medical exemptions in California, and why there are a relatively small number of physicians who are responsible for recommending most of those exemptions.5,6

MYTH 2: SB 276 is necessary because it is difficult for the Medical Board of California to investigate complaints related to medical exemptions.

FACT: The Medical Board of California has the statutory authority for the issuance and enforcement of subpoenas (Government Code § 11180 et seq. Section 11182) and has indicated that in situations when they are not able to obtain medical records it is because “the Board does not have enough evidence,” parents are not complaining about their physician, and parents wish to protect the privacy of their child’s medical records. Thus, it may be that it is the medical exemption complaints in these situations that are not valid. In fact, a recent study published by the American Academy of Pediatrics states that, of the health officers and vaccination staff who reviewed California medical exemptions in their jurisdictions, “Most participants reported seeing few or no medical exemptions that they believed were problematic.”7,8

MYTH 3: SB 276 does not pose a threat to children at-risk of vaccine injuries.

FACT: If SB 276 passes, at-risk children will categorically be denied medical exemptions. For example, one of the risks of the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine is seizure, which occurs in about 1 in 640 vaccinated children overall but is elevated to about 1 in 250 in vaccinated siblings of children with a history of febrile seizures (and 5% of those would develop epilepsy). Although the SB 277 standard of care would permit a physician to exempt a family with a history of febrile seizures from the MMR vaccine, the CDC guidelines do not list family history of seizures as a reason for a medical exemption, and that would put many children unnecessarily at risk for injury. As vaccines are a preventive medicine administered to healthy children, the precautionary principle is especially important when recommending them.9,10

MYTH 4: Schools with a relatively high number of medical exemptions are a threat to public health.

FACT: The scientific evidence shows that the vaccination status of a child is not a significant risk to other schoolchildren, including immunocompromised schoolchildren. Should a measles outbreak occur, most cases are benign and 99.99% of cases fully recover. In addition, high-dose vitamin A and immune globulin (passive immunization) are available for the treatment of measles upon exposure and there is evidence that the antiviral ribavirin is beneficial in the treatment of measles. As Dr. Alexander Langmuir, director of the epidemiology branch of the Communicable Disease Center (now CDC) for 21 years, explained in his seminal 1962 paper, measles is a “self-limiting infection of short duration, moderate severity, and low fatality,” and “…in the United States measles is a disease whose importance is not to be measured by total days disability or number of deaths.”11,12,13,14,15,16

FACT: Measles mortality declined 98% from 1900 to 1963, before the measles vaccine was introduced, and between 1959 and 1962, there was a 1 in 10,000 (0.01%) chance of dying from measles, not 1 in 1,000, which is the often-publicized misrepresentation of historical data. By comparison, in the modern era, over 23,000 infant deaths occur every year in the U.S. from all causes and the chance of a child dying in his or her first year of life is currently 1 in 170 (0.6%)—which is 60 times the risk of a child dying from measles in 1962, a time period when almost every child had measles by age 15.17,18,19

FACT: The death of an infant in the first year of life, infant mortality rate (IMR), is a major indicator of the health of a population, not the number of measles cases nor the medical exemption rate. West Virginia and Mississippi, which only allow state public health officers to approve medical exemptions to vaccination (like SB 276 would do), have about double the IMR of California; meanwhile, Massachusetts and Washington have a lower IMR than California, even while allowing non-medical exemptions. This means that SB 276-like laws are unlikely to improve public health and may worsen it.20

Infant mortality rate:

  • Massachusetts = 3.7 (1 in 270)
  • Washington = 3.9 (1 in 256)
  • California = 4.2 in 1000 (1 in 240)
  • West Virginia = 7 in 1000 (1 in 140)
  • Mississippi = 8.6 in 1000 (1 in 115)

MYTH 5: If pockets of schoolchildren with medical exemptions get vaccinated, measles outbreaks won’t occur.

FACT: There are two kinds of measles cases. One kind is caused by measles infection and the other kind is caused by the live-virus MMR vaccine (genotype A). Of the 194 measles virus sequences obtained in the U.S. in 2015, 73 (nearly 40%) were identified as being due to the MMR vaccine.21

FACT: Many measles cases occur among populations with high vaccination rates because of vaccine failure and waning vaccine immunity. A 2007 study published in JAMA found that by 20 years, 33% of those previously vaccinated with MMR are susceptible to measles infection. In addition, a 2012 study published in Vaccine found that “measles outbreaks also occur even among highly vaccinated populations because of primary and secondary vaccine failure, which results in gradually larger pools of susceptible persons and outbreaks once measles is introduced.”22,23

FACT: There are two kinds of herd immunity. One kind is from natural infection and the other kind is from vaccines. Over 50% of the measles cases in Disneyland in 2015 occurred in adults because herd immunity from the MMR vaccine wanes over time. And currently, about 80% of measles cases in California in 2019 are in adults because herd immunity from the MMR vaccine wanes over time.24,25

MYTH 6: SB 276 is widely supported by doctors who are experienced in recognizing and preventing vaccine injuries.

FACT: As physicians are not liable for vaccine injuries (since the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986), there is less motivation for most of them to stay up-to-date with the scientific literature related to vaccine adverse events. However, since SB 277, a growing number of physicians with the knowledge, experience, and motivation to recognize and prevent vaccine injuries have stepped up to help meet the needs of families at-risk of vaccine injuries—these physicians strongly oppose SB 276.26

FACT: SB 276 is strongly opposed by Physicians for Informed Consent, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, and Physicians’ Association for Anthroposophic Medicine, which represent thousands of physicians. In addition, at a recent Medical Board of California meeting to address SB 276, on May 28, 2019, directors expressed grave concerns about the bill, indicating that 1) CDC guidelines should not be the standard, and 2) California public health officers should not be the arbiters of medical exemptions.27,28

FACT: Governor Gavin Newsom has suggested that he would veto SB 276.29

“I’m a parent. I don’t want someone that the governor appointed to make a decision for my family… I do legitimately have concerns about a bureaucrat making a decision that is very personal.” — Governor Gavin Newsom

 

Download PDF

References

  1. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB277
  2. http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB276
  3. https://physiciansforinformedconsent.org/
  4. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/acip-recs/general-recs/contraindications.html
  5. https://www.congress.gov/bill/99th-congress/house-bill/5546
  6. https://www.hrsa.gov/sites/default/files/hrsa/vaccine-compensation/data/monthly-stats-may-2019.pdf
  7. https://www.mbc.ca.gov/About_Us/Meetings/Materials/1928/brd-AgendaItem4-20190528.pdf
  8. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30373910
  9. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15265850
  10. https://academic.oup.com/aje/article/165/8/911/184889
  11. https://physiciansforinformedconsent.org/immunocompromised-schoolchildren/
  12. https://physiciansforinformedconsent.org/measles/dis/
  13. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22480102
  14. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7008941
  15. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23629813
  16. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1522578/
  17. https://physiciansforinformedconsent.org/measles/dis/
  18. https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/maternalinfanthealth/infantmortality.htm
  19. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1522578/
  20. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/infant_mortality_rates/infant_mortality.htm
  21. https://jcm.asm.org/content/jcm/55/3/735.full.pdf
  22. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/569784
  23. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3905323/
  24. https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DCDC/CDPH%20Document%20Library/Immunization/IMM-MeaslesUpdate2015-04-17.pdf
  25. https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DCDC/Pages/Immunization/measles.aspx
  26. https://physiciansforinformedconsent.org/
  27. https://physiciansforinformedconsent.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Doctor-Groups-Oppose-SB276.pdf
  28. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jItwZh4dajY
  29. https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/Gavin-Newsom-signals-opposition-to-tightening-13916178.php
Posted on by ITadminLast updated

Government Doctors Make Gross Errors Concerning Measles Statistics, Misinform Senators, Threaten Public Health

Physicians for Informed Consent doctors and scientists sound alarm as legislators consider banning physicians from making personalized vaccine recommendations in California.

NEWPORT BEACH, CALIF. (PRWEB) MAY 03, 2019

Physicians for Informed Consent (PIC), an organization of doctors and scientists who encourage using statistics to safeguard public health, recently flew in doctors from across California to educate members of the Senate Committee on Health about the risks of measles vs. the risks of the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine—which are explained in PIC’s opposition letter [1] to California SB 276, a bill that would allow only state public health officers the right to grant or approve vaccine exemptions to children at-risk of vaccine injuries.[2] PIC’s doctors included Dr. Shira Miller, Dr. Lionel Lee, Dr. Edmond Sarraf, Dr. Melanie Gisler, and Dr. Charles Penick.

At the Senate Committee on Health hearing for SB 276, on April 24, 2019, Dr. Erica Pan, interim health officer at Alameda County Public Health Department, testified to senators that 1 in 1,000 measles cases result in death, a figure that contradicts measles death statistics by 10-fold from the pre-vaccine era.[3] As Dr. Alexander Langmuir, director of the epidemiology branch of the Communicable Disease Center (now Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) for 21 years, explained in his seminal 1962 paper,[4] measles is a “self-limiting infection of short duration, moderate severity, and low fatality,” and “…in the United States measles is a disease whose importance is not to be measured by total days disability or number of deaths.”

Dr. Alexander Langmuir – CDC Director 1949-1970

“…in the United States measles is a disease whose importance is not to be measured by total days disability or number of deaths.”

Between 1959 and 1962, before the introduction of the measles vaccine, about 400 measles deaths among approximately 4 million measles cases occurred every year in the United States, which results in a 1 in 10,000 (0.01%) chance of a child dying from measles, not 1 in 1,000. This information is explained in detail in the PIC educational documents, the Measles Disease Information Statement (DIS)[3] and Vaccine Risk Statement (VRS),[5] which were provided to all California legislators.

By comparison, over 23,000 infant deaths occur every year in the U.S. from all causes and the chance of a child dying in his or her first year of life is currently 1 in 170 (0.6%)[6]—which is 60 times the risk of a child dying from measles in 1962, a time period when almost every child had measles by age 15.[3]

Now, misinformation concerning measles data is rampant. On April 29, 2019, Dr. Robert Redfield, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention since 2018, stated in a CDC telebriefing that, “There are no treatment and no cure for measles and no way to predict how bad a case of measles will be.”[7] However, Dr. Redfield’s statement is erroneous. High-dose vitamin A and immunoglobulin (passive immunization) are available for the treatment of measles upon exposure,[3] there is evidence that the antiviral ribavirin is beneficial in the treatment of measles,[8-10] and 99.99% of measles cases fully recover.[3] Additionally, 75–92% of hospitalized measles cases are low in vitamin A, and vitamin A status is a known factor that can be used to predict the severity of measles.[3]

“Misrepresenting the measles death rate by 10-fold is dangerous because it prevents one from accurately comparing the risk of measles vs. the risk of the MMR vaccine,” said Dr. Shira Miller, PIC founder and president. “If a doctor doesn’t know the true risk of serious harm from measles and doesn’t know that effective measles treatments are available, how can he or she determine which children are more at-risk of vaccine injury than being harmed by a measles infection?”

One of the risks of the MMR vaccine is seizure, which occurs in up to 1 in 641 vaccinated children, 1 in 252 vaccinated siblings of children with a history of febrile seizures, and 1 in 51 vaccinated children with a personal history of febrile seizures;[11] with 5% of febrile seizures resulting in epilepsy.[12] Furthermore, a review of more than 60 MMR vaccine studies conducted for the Cochrane Library states, “The design and reporting of safety outcomes in MMR vaccine studies, both pre- and post-marketing, are largely inadequate.”[13]

“There are more ethical solutions to the rare complications that occur from measles in the United States than banning physicians from making personalized vaccine recommendations for their patients,” said Dr. Miller.

Physicians for Informed Consent is a nationally recognized 501(c)(3) nonprofit educational organization representing doctors and scientists whose mission is to safeguard informed consent in vaccination. In addition, PIC’s Coalition for Informed Consent consists of more than 150 U.S. and international organizations. Visit physiciansforinformedconsent.org for more information.

References

1.    https://physiciansforinformedconsent.org/pic-opposes-sb-276-letter-to-california-legislators/
2.    http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billAnalysisClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB276
3.    https://physiciansforinformedconsent.org/measles/dis/
4.    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1522578/
5.    https://physiciansforinformedconsent.org/measles/vrs/
6.    https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db293.htm
7.    https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2019/t0429-national-update-measles.html
8.    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22480102
9.    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7008941
10.    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23629813
11.    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15265850
12.    https://academic.oup.com/aje/article/165/8/911/184889
13. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22336803

Full article:
https://www.prweb.com/releases/government_doctors_make_gross_errors_concerning_measles_statistics_misinform_senators_threaten_public_health/prweb16284115.htm

Posted on by ITadminLast updated

A Review of Hviid et al.’s 2019 MMR-Autism Study

  

Q: Why didn’t Physicians for Informed Consent (PIC) use Hviid et al.’s MMR-autism study published in 2019 in the Measles Vaccine Risk Statement (VRS)?

A: Hviid et al.’s 2019 study is weaker than the study analyzed in the Measles VRS for the following reasons:

1) Hviid et al.’s study has a smaller proportion of unvaccinated children.

The study discussed in the PIC Measles VRS included 96,648 unvaccinated subjects out of 537,303 total subjects, about 1 in 5.5 subjects. Hviid et al.’s study includes 657,461 subjects, but only 31,619 were unvaccinated, about 1 in 20.8 subjects. Hviid et al.’s study is 4 times weaker in its representation of the unvaccinated population.

2) The statistical power of Hviid et al.’s study is still not enough to prove that MMR causes less permanent harm than measles.

Hviid et al. found an “adjusted autism hazard ratio of 0.93 (95% CI, 0.85 to 1.02),” which means that they did not rule out the possibility that the vaccine increases the risk of autism by a factor of 0.02. The unvaccinated risk of autism found in the study was 525 out of 31,619. Multiplying this by a factor of 0.02 is about 1 in 3,000. That is 3 times greater than the 1 in 10,000 chance of dying from measles. As is usually the case in these kinds of studies, “no increased risk for autism after MMR vaccination” was found within the confines of the statistical power of the study. But that power is not enough to detect the incidence of autism occurring in an amount as small as the risk of fatal measles.

3) The final results of Hviid et al.’s study are biased based on the age of diagnosis.

The study states, “The mean age at first autism diagnosis was 7.22 years (SD, 2.86), and the mean age among autistic disorder cases was 6.17 years (SD, 2.65),” yet the results cited in No. 2 above include children only followed until 3 years of age. The study states, “Ending follow-up at 3 years of age yielded a slightly lower aHR (0.73 [CI, 0.53 to 1.00])” and “Ending follow-up at…10 years of age produced…0.97 [CI, 0.87 to 1.07].”

Therefore, the study did not rule out the possibility that the vaccine increases the risk of autism by a factor of 0.07 in children followed up for 10 years. Among unvaccinated children who were 10 years or older at the end of the study (i.e., those born between 1999 and 2004), the study found 418 autism cases out of 15,876. Multiplying this by a factor of 0.07 is about 1 in 540. That is 18.5 times greater than the 1 in 10,000 chance of dying from measles.

4) The small unvaccinated group in Hviid et al.’s study was at an unusually higher autism risk.

The study computed a “disease risk factor” to gauge which children were possibly predisposed to autism regardless of vaccination status. Among the vaccinated group, 61,296 of 625,842 (10%) subjects had high risk scores. By comparison, 4,465 of 31,619 (14%) unvaccinated subjects, 1.4 times more subjects than the vaccinated group, had high risk scores.

Figure 3 shows that if only children with very low autism risk scores are included in the study, the RR is 0.93 (CI, 0.74 to 1.16), and the study did not rule out the possibility that the vaccine increases the risk of autism by a factor of 0.16 in children at very low risk of autism. Among unvaccinated children at very low risk of autism, the study found 91 autism cases out of 7,590. Multiplying this by a factor of 0.16 is about 1 in 520. That is 19 times greater than the 1 in 10,000 chance of dying from measles.

5) The great majority of the unvaccinated group in Hviid et al.’s study started to vaccinate but then stopped.

Of the 31,619 subjects that were not vaccinated with MMR, 26,890 (85%) had been vaccinated with a different vaccine before and declined MMR after that. The study did not rule out the possibility that a significant portion of those children may not have been vaccinated with MMR because of a severe reaction to a previous vaccine or because of a health condition that discouraged them from being vaccinated. Figure 3 shows that if only children who had not been vaccinated with DTaP-IPV/Hib are included in the study, the RR is 1.09 (CI, 0.77 to 1.56), and the study did not rule out the possibility that the vaccine increases the risk of autism by a factor of 0.56 in children not vaccinated with DTaP-IPV/Hib. Among unvaccinated children not vaccinated with DTaP-IPV/Hib, the study found 64 autism cases out of 4,729. Multiplying this by a factor of 0.56 is about 1 in 130. That is 77 times greater than the 1 in 10,000 chance of dying from measles.

Conclusion: Although Hviid et al.’s study provides compelling evidence that MMR is not causing autism in 1 in 100 cases, it has provided no evidence that MMR is not causing autism in more than 1 in 10,000 cases (more than the case-fatality rate of measles). To the contrary, the study did not rule out the possibility of MMR causing autism in 1 in 3,000 children overall, in 1 in 540 children followed for a 10-year period, in 1 in 520 children at low risk of autism, and in 1 in 130 children who had a similar vaccination history. 

Terms

aHR: Autism hazard ratio

CI: Confidence interval

DTaP-IPV/Hib: Diphtheria, tetanus, acellular pertussis – inactivated poliovirus/Haemophilus influenzae type B

MMR: Measles, mumps and rubella

RR: Relative risk

SD: Standard deviation

To assess the risks of measles compared to the risks of the MMR vaccine, visit https://physiciansforinformedconsent.org/measles.