CategoryNews
Posted on by adminLast updated

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

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

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

March 5, 2023

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

Position: Oppose

Dear California Legislators,

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

Please consider the following:

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

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

Respectfully,

 

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

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

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

TAKE ACTION!

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

Protection of the Educational Rights of Kids (PERK)

A Voice For Choice Advocacy (AVFC)

California Health Coalition Advocacy (CHCA)

National Vaccine Information Center Advocacy (NVIC)

Stand for Health Freedom (SHF)

STAY CONNECTED!

Join Physicians for Informed Consent to receive our latest updates.

Posted on by adminLast updated

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

###

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

Posted on by 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 adminLast updated

Physicians for Informed Consent Opposes AB 1993


DOWNLOAD PDF

March 25, 2022

Re: AB 1993 (COVID-19 vaccine and booster requirement for all CA employees and independent contractors)
Position: Oppose

Dear California Legislators,

On behalf of hundreds of physician and surgeon members of Physicians for Informed Consent and thousands of our health-freedom members, we oppose AB 1993.

AB 19931 is both immoral and unscientific. It is immoral because it proposes to legalize medical bullying in the workplace and unscientific because the COVID-19 vaccines have not been proven safer than COVID-19 infection and natural immunity in employees of all age groups and all workplaces.

Furthermore, the clinical trials have been the only settings in which the vaccination status of subjects/patients was closely monitored, and those trials did not detect enough COVID-19 deaths to measure a significant difference in mortality between vaccinated and unvaccinated patients despite observing tens of thousands of subjects. In addition, CDC data show that the COVID-19 mass vaccination program has had no measurable impact on COVID-19 mortality—see PIC’s attached educational document COVID-19 Vaccine Mandates: 20 Scientific Facts That Challenge the Assumptions.

We urge you to oppose AB 1993 as it is immoral, unscientific, unnecessary, and divisive.

Respectfully,

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

  1. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB1993

 DOWNLOAD PDF

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, please visit physiciansforinformedconsent.org

AB 1993 was placed on hold on March 29, 2022, and the committee meeting cancelled. The legislative analysis showed that no individuals and four organizations supported AB 1993, while 1,178 individuals and 86 California businesses and associations opposed COVID-19 vaccine mandates in the workplace.

TAKE ACTION AND OPPOSE OTHER MANDATORY VACCINATION BILLS IN CALIFORNIA! 
Contact your legislators through tools offered by PIC’s Coalition for Informed Consent Members:

A Voice For Choice Advocacy

California Health Coalition Advocacy

Protection of the Educational Rights of Kids

National Vaccine Information Center Advocacy

Children’s Health Defense, California Chapter

Or use the California Legislature’s Position Letter Portal:

Position Letter Portal

STAY CONNECTED!
Join Physicians for Informed Consent to receive our latest updates.

JOIN NOW

Posted on by adminLast updated

Physicians for Informed Consent Opposes SB 920


DOWNLOAD PDF

March 25, 2022

Re: SB 920 (Medical Board of California to easily inspect medical and pharmacy records, including vaccination records, of all patients in California without their consent)
Position: Oppose

Dear California Legislators,

On behalf of hundreds of physician and surgeon members of Physicians for Informed Consent and thousands of patients and families who are our members, we oppose SB 920.

SB 9201 proposes to shortcut current medical records privacy laws, which protect all patients, in order to make it easier to bypass the administrative procedures safeguarding current California law for obtaining the medical records of deceased or injured patients.2

We can appreciate that there are situations when a family has lost a loved one or a person has become medically injured and thus is not able to consent to the release of medical records.3 However, there is already existing law3 which grants a patient’s representative the right to access the deceased’s medical records. Thus, there is no need for SB 920, and passing it would jeopardize the privacy of millions of Californians who are alive and well and capable of consenting (or refusing) for the inspection of their personal medical records.

SB 920 would legalize easy access to the medical records of all people in California, including vaccination status and other highly sensitive information, and we urge you to oppose such a divisive bill.

Respectfully,

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

  1. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220SB920
  2. https://www.findlaw.com/state/california-law/california-medical-records-laws.html; see especially Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §1985.3; Cal. Civ. Code §56.11; Cal. Civ. Code. § 1798 et seq.; Cal. Health & Safety Code §123105.
  3. https://sd14.senate.ca.gov/news/press-release/hurtado-introduces-legislation-increase-transparency-medical-board-california

DOWNLOAD PDF

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, please visit physiciansforinformedconsent.org.

SB 920 was pulled on April 1, 2022, and the committee meeting cancelled.

TAKE ACTION AND OPPOSE MANDATORY VACCINATION BILLS IN CALIFORNIA!

Contact your legislators through tools offered by PIC’s Coalition for Informed Consent Members:

A Voice For Choice Advocacy

California Health Coalition Advocacy

Protection of the Educational Rights of Kids

National Vaccine Information Center Advocacy

Children’s Health Defense, California Chapter

Or use the California Legislature’s Position Letter Portal:

Position Letter Portal

STAY CONNECTED!
Join Physicians for Informed Consent to receive our latest updates.

JOIN NOW

Posted on by adminLast updated

Physicians for Informed Consent Opposes SB 866

DOWNLOAD PDF

March 22, 2022

Re: SB 866 (minors obtain vaccination without parental knowledge or consent)
Position: Oppose

Dear California Legislators,

On behalf of hundreds of physician and surgeon members of Physicians for Informed Consent and thousands of our health-freedom members, we oppose SB 866.

SB 8661 proposes both immoral and illegal actions by allowing children 12 years of age and older to, without parental consent or knowledge, become injected with any vaccines that meet “federal agency criteria.” First, this would steal from parents their rights and responsibilities to make medical decisions for their children and expect doctors to lie to parents about the vaccination status of their minor children. This situation would then put children in potential danger should something go wrong. As exemplified by the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (NCVIA),2 sometimes serious vaccine injuries do occur and over $4.75 billion3 in compensations have been awarded for vaccine injury complaints which were filed within the three years of injury or two years of death statute of limitations. Furthermore, only a parent or legal guardian is legally able to petition for compensation for a minor’s vaccine injury,4 and this would be thwarted if SB 866 passes. Although the COVID-19 vaccines are not protected by the NCVIA because they are not yet licensed and are only authorized for emergency use in children, this is a distinction whose repercussions are complicated and may not be clear even to adults.

Finally, physicians experienced in obtaining informed consent know that it is not possible for 12-year-old children as a group to understand the risks and benefits of vaccination, and California’s health education curriculum for public schools does not even mention vaccination until high school.5

We urge you to oppose SB 866 as there is no evidence that its application would be safe for minors, it is immoral, and it is potentially illegal—a preliminary injunction (enclosed) was just granted by Judge Trevor N. McFadden against a similar bill that was passed in the District of Columbia.6

Respectfully,

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

  1. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220SB866
  2. https://www.hrsa.gov/vaccine-compensation/about/index.html
  3. https://www.hrsa.gov/sites/default/files/hrsa/vaccine-compensation/data/vicp-stats-03-01-22.pdf
  4. https://www.hrsa.gov/vaccine-compensation/eligible/index.html
  5. https://www.cde.ca.gov/be/st/ss/documents/healthstandmar08.pdf
  6. Booth v. Bowser, No. 21-cv-01857 (TNM), 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48877 (D.D.C. Mar. 18, 2022), Memorandum Opinion.

DOWNLOAD PDF

 

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, please visit physiciansforinformedconsent.org.


SB 866 was placed in the Inactive File on August 31, 2022. Previously, SB 866 passed in the California Assembly on June 16,2022, and passed in the California Senate on Thursday, May 5, 2022.

Please thank PIC’s Coalition for Informed Consent Members who led and organized the opposition to SB 866:

Posted on by adminLast updated

Physicians for Informed Consent Updates Its Information Statement About Vaccines and Immunocompromised Schoolchildren, Includes Data on COVID-19 Vaccines

The updated document presents five reasons why the vaccination status of other schoolchildren is not a significant risk to immunocompromised schoolchildren

NEWPORT BEACH, CALIF., March 28, 2022 (Newswire.com) – 

Physicians for Informed Consent (PIC), an educational nonprofit organization focused on science and statistics, has released an update to its information statement entitled “Vaccines: What About Immunocompromised Schoolchildren?” Developed as a concise, two-page educational brief, the document includes new information about COVID-19 and COVID-19 vaccines, and addresses the common question, “Is it a health risk to immunocompromised kids if other schoolchildren are not vaccinated?”

A safe environment for all people, including schoolchildren, is the goal of everyone involved in public health. Because immunocompromised schoolchildren are among the most vulnerable children in school, this educational document focuses on concerns about their safety, and provides key scientific data about infectious diseases, and the effects and limitations of vaccination. Importantly, the document (referenced here) shows five reasons why the vaccination status of a child is not a significant risk to other classmates in general or immunocompromised schoolchildren in particular. For example:

  1. Some vaccines cannot prevent the spread of the bacteria or viruses they target. As such, children vaccinated with the diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis (whooping cough) vaccine (DTaP) or the inactivated polio vaccine (IPV) can still be infected with diphtheria-causing bacteria, pertussis bacteria, or poliovirus and spread them to others, even with mild or no symptoms of their own. The influenza vaccines (TIV and LAIV) have not been observed to significantly reduce the spread of influenza. About half of schoolchildren vaccinated with the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine can still be infected with measles virus and spread it to others, even with mild or no symptoms of their own. And several studies of the COVID-19 vaccine suggest that the vaccine has had no measurable impact on preventing transmission.
  2. Not all infectious diseases targeted for vaccination are contagious. For example, tetanus cannot spread from person to person under any circumstances. Consequently, a child’s vaccination status for a non-contagious disease does not pose a risk to immunocompromised schoolchildren.
  3. Some infectious diseases are not spread in schools. For example, the main routes of hepatitis B transmission are sexual contact, injection drug use, and being born to an infected mother — routes of transmission that do not occur in school. Nearly all cases of Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) occur among children younger than 5 years of age; therefore, nearly all Hib transmission does not occur in school. Human papillomavirus (HPV) is sexually transmitted and is therefore not spread in school.

The Physicians for Informed Consent educational document on vaccines and immunocompromised schoolchildren discusses COVID-19; diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis (DTaP); polio; influenza (flu); measles, mumps and rubella (MMR); varicella (chickenpox); hepatitis b; Haemophilus influenzae type B (Hib); and human papillomavirus (HPV).

“We’re happy to be able to help parents in this way, when they are researching which vaccines are required for attending school,” said Dr. Shira Miller, founder and president of Physicians for Informed Consent. “And the data indicate that whatever vaccine decisions parents make for their children, those decisions don’t significantly affect other children — even if they are immunocompromised. Thus, informed consent and informed refusal in vaccination are both logical and moral, and there is no justification to mandate schoolchildren receive COVID-19 vaccines, or any other vaccines.”

To read all five reasons why the vaccination status of a child is not a significant risk to other classmates, download your copy of “Vaccines: What About Immunocompromised Schoolchildren?” at physiciansforinformedconsent.org/immunocompromised-schoolchildren. Readers are encouraged to share the document with their physicians, friends and family.

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

###

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