CategoryPress Release
Posted on by adminLast updated

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Press Contact:

info@picphysicians.org
925-642-6651

###

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

Posted on by adminLast updated

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

###

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

Posted on by adminLast updated

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

###

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

Posted on by adminLast updated

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

###

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

Posted on by adminLast updated

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

###

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

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 (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 by ITadminLast updated

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 by adminLast updated

Physicians for Informed Consent Opposes That Minors Obtain Vaccination Without Parental Knowledge or Consent

PIC Doctors Send Letter Opposing SB 866 to California Legislators

PIC Oppose SB 866 Letter

NEWPORT BEACH, Calif., May 1, 2022 (Newswire.com) –

Physicians for Informed Consent (PIC), an educational nonprofit organization focused on science and statistics, has submitted an opposition letter to California Senate Bill 866 (SB 866).

SB 866 proposes allowing children 12 years of age and older to, without parental consent or knowledge, become injected with any vaccines that meet “federal agency criteria.” Physicians for Informed Consent, representing hundreds of its physician and surgeon members, opposes the bill and asserts that SB 866 is immoral, potentially medically dangerous, and potentially illegal. PIC asserts that SB 866 would violate parental rights and thwart children’s ability to obtain compensation in the case of a vaccine injury.

Per Dr. Shira Miller, PIC founder and president, “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.”

SB 866 will be heard by the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday, May 5, 2022. If you or someone you know lives in California, PIC urges you to read the Physicians for Informed Consent SB 866 opposition letter and request your representatives to oppose SB 866 as soon as possible, and call in or show up to the public hearing in Sacramento on May 5, 2022.

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.

Physicians for Informed Consent
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
CLICK HERE to view on Telegram

Posted on by adminLast updated

Physicians for Informed Consent Opposes COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate for Private and Public Employees and Independent Contractors in California

PIC Doctors Send AB 1993 Opposition Letter to California Legislators

 

NEWPORT BEACH, CALIF., March 29, 2022 (Newswire.com) – 

Physicians for Informed Consent (PIC), an educational nonprofit organization focused on science and statistics, has submitted an opposition letter to California Assembly Bill 1993 (AB 1993).

AB 1993 proposes a COVID-19 vaccine mandate for all private and public employees and independent contractors in California. Physicians for Informed Consent, representing hundreds of its physician and surgeon members, opposes the bill and asserts that AB 1993 is both unscientific and would legalize medical bullying in the workplace. Per Dr. Shira Miller, PIC founder and president, “…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.”

AB 1993 will be heard by the Committee on Labor & Employment members this Wednesday, March 30, 2022, at 1:30 pm. If you or someone you know lives in California, PIC urges you to read the Physicians for Informed Consent AB 1993 opposition letter, including its accompanying educational document “COVID-19 Vaccine Mandates: 20 Scientific Facts That Challenge the Assumptions” and request of your assembly members and representatives to oppose AB 1993 as soon as possible.

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.

Physicians for Informed Consent
Press Contact:
info@picphysicians.org
(925) 642-6651

###

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