PIC Letter to Cal/OSHA: Reject Proposed Revisions of COVID-19 Prevention Emergency Temporary Standards

California Department of Industrial Relations
Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board
2520 Venture Oaks Way, Suite 350
Sacramento, CA 95833
OSHSB@dir.ca.gov

RE: Reject the proposed revisions of Cal/OSHA COVID-19 prevention requirements

Dear Board Members,

On behalf of Physicians for Informed Consent, I am writing regarding the proposed revisions of the Cal/OSHA COVID-19 prevention requirements,1 which will be considered at your June 17, 2021, board meeting. The updated guidelines aim to treat California workers differently depending on their COVID-19 vaccination status. However, key scientific data demonstrate that discrimination is unwarranted. Before you implement a new policy for the workplace, I urge you to consider the following:

1. There is no evidence that COVID-19 vaccines prevent the spread of SARS-CoV-2 or COVID-19. Therefore, there is no scientific justification to treat vaccinated people differently from unvaccinated people.

Clinical trials for the Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna, and Janssen (Johnson & Johnson) COVID-19 vaccines were not designed to observe asymptomatic infection with SARS-CoV-2 or the effect of the vaccine on the spread (transmission) of COVID-19. Consequently, in its briefing document for each vaccine, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) states that “it is possible that asymptomatic infections may not be prevented as effectively as symptomatic infections” and “data are limited to assess the effect of the vaccine against transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from individuals who are infected despite vaccination.” Furthermore, “additional evaluations including data from clinical trials and from vaccine use post-authorization will be needed to assess the effect of the vaccine in preventing virus shedding and transmission, in particular in individuals with asymptomatic infection.”2-7

2. There is evidence that previous SARS-CoV-2 or COVID-19 infection is more effective at preventing SARS-CoV-2 or COVID-19 infection than at least one of the COVID-19 vaccines. Therefore, those previously infected with COVID-19 should have at least the same rights as those vaccinated for COVID-19.

The Janssen (Johnson & Johnson) COVID-19 vaccine clinical trial included over 2,000 subjects that had contracted SARS-CoV-2 before the study. The trial recorded the incidence of COVID-19 in that unvaccinated group at least 28 days after the vaccination of the other subjects in the study. The COVID-19 incidence of the unvaccinated group with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection was 0.1% (2/2,021), whereas the COVID-19 incidence of vaccinated subjects was 0.59% (113/19,306). These data suggest that there are six times more cases of COVID-19 in vaccinated subjects than in unvaccinated subjects previously infected with SARS-CoV-2. This also means that an unvaccinated person previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 has 99.9% chance of being protected from a repeat infection.7,8 Of note, as of April 17, 2021, there have been 165.7 million SARS-CoV-2 infections in the U.S., which is 50.2% of the U.S. population.9

Treating people differently depending on their COVID-19 vaccination status is not based on science. As Cal/OSHA is responsible for ensuring the safe and healthful working conditions for all workers, we urge you to reject the proposed guideline revisions and instead implement a policy that ensures all employees are treated the same, regardless of their vaccination status. We are here to assist you in these highly technical matters and welcome further discussion.

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


References

  1. Cal/OSHA. Standards presentation to California Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board; 2021 Jun 11. https://www.dir.ca.gov/oshsb/documents/Jun172021-COVID-19-Prevention-Emergency-txtcourtesyReadoption.pdf.
  2. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee. FDA briefing document: Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine. Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee Meeting: December 10, 2020. https://www.fda.gov/media/144245/download.
  3. Physicians for Informed Consent. Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine: short-term efficacy and safety data. Jun 2021. https://www.physiciansforinformedconsent.org/COVID-19-vaccines.
  4. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee. FDA briefing document: Moderna COVID-19 vaccine. Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee Meeting: December 17, 2020. https://www.fda.gov/media/144434/download.
  5. Physicians for Informed Consent. Moderna COVID-19 vaccine: short-term efficacy and safety data. Apr 2021. https://www.physiciansforinformedconsent.org/COVID-19-vaccines.
  6. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee. FDA briefing document: Janssen Ad26.COV2.S vaccine for the prevention of COVID-19. Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee Meeting: February 26, 2021. https://www.fda.gov/media/146217/download.
  7. Physicians for Informed Consent. Janssen (Johnson & Johnson) COVID-19 Vaccine: Short-Term Efficacy & Safety Data. May 2021. https://www.physiciansforinformedconsent.org/COVID-19-vaccines.
  8. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee. FDA briefing document: Janssen Ad26.COV2.S vaccine for the prevention of COVID-19. Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee Meeting: February 26, 2021. Table 14: vaccine efficacy of first occurrence of moderate to severe/critical COVID-19, including non-centrally confirmed cases, with onset at least 14 or at least 28 days after vaccination, by baseline SARS-CoV-2 status, per protocol set; 30. https://www.fda.gov/media/146217/download.
  9. Statistical Analysis of the Frequency SARS-CoV-2 Infections in the United States
    A Stanford University systematic review that included 69 antibody studies estimated that the COVID-19 infection fatality rate (IFR) in the United States ranges from 0.3% to 0.4%.a Data analysis herein uses the midpoint of that range, 0.35%. An IFR of 0.35% is also supported by an analysis published in Clinical Infectious Diseases that estimated that there were 44.8 million symptomatic COVID-19 illnesses in February–September 2020.b Additionally, since 33% of all SARS-CoV-2 infections are asymptomatic,c there were an estimated 66.9 million (44.8 million/[100%-33%]) total number of SARS-CoV-2 infections in that time period. There were also 213,000 COVID-19 deaths in February–September 2020,d resulting in a COVID-19 IFR of 0.32% (213,000/66.9 million). As of April 17, 2021, there have been about 580,000 COVID-19 deaths in the U.S.d As the COVID-19 IFR is about 0.35%, as of April 17, 2021 there have been about 165.7 million SARS-CoV-2 infections (580,000/0.35%), which is 50.2% of the population of the U.S. (330 million).

    a Ioannidis, JPA. The infection fatality rate of COVID-19 inferred from seroprevalence data. Bulletin of the World Health Organization. 2020 Oct 14 [cited 2021 Apr 16]. https://www.who.int/bulletin/online_first/BLT.20.265892.pdf?ua=1.
    b Reese H, Iuliano AD, Patel NN, Garg S, Kim L, Silk BJ, Hall AJ, Fry A, Reed C. Estimated incidence of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) illness and hospitalization—United States, February–September 2020. Clin Infect Dis. 2020; Nov 25;ciaa1780. https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciaa1780.
    c Oran DP, Topol EJ. The proportion of SARS-CoV-2 infections that are asymptomatic: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med. 2021 May;174(5):655-62. https://doi.org/10.7326/M20-6976.
    d Worldometer. Coronavirus: United States. https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/.

Download Letter (PDF)

Enclosed:
Pfizer Bio-NTech COVID-19 Vaccine Risk Statement
Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine Risk Statement
Janssen (J&J) COVID-19 Vaccine Risk Statement

Physicians for Informed Consent Updates Its Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine Risk Statement for Healthcare Providers and Families

Educational document highlights Pfizer clinical trial finding that 1 in 9 vaccinated adolescents suffered a severe adverse event

NEWPORT BEACH, CALIF. (PRWEB) JUNE 8, 2021

Physicians for Informed Consent (PIC), an educational nonprofit organization focused on science and statistics, recently published an update of its Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine Risk Statement, which includes key questions and answers about the clinical trial data. The Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine is the first COVID-19 vaccine to receive expanded emergency use authorization (EUA) for adolescents; however, the vaccine is still not FDA-approved.

The PIC Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine Risk Statement (VRS) answers important questions such as:

  • How effective is the vaccine in children, adults, and the elderly?
  • Is the vaccine effective in preventing hospitalizations and deaths?
  • Is the vaccine effective and safer than the COVID-19 virus?
  • Does the vaccine prevent the spread of the virus?

The updated document indicates that for children 12 to 15 years of age, the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine clinical trial found the overall incidence of severe adverse events during the two-month observation period to be 10.7% or 1 in 9 in the vaccinated group. In addition, the incidence of COVID-19 in the unvaccinated group was 1.6%; therefore, there were almost seven times more severe adverse events observed in the vaccinated group than there were COVID-19 cases in the unvaccinated group.

Furthermore, since only about 1,100 vaccinated children 12 to 15 years of age were observed in the clinical trial, there were not enough children included in the trial to be able to prove the vaccine is safer than the disease in children 12 to 15 years of age. The chance of a child 0 to 17 years of age contracting SARS-CoV-2 and dying from COVID-19 is 1 in 290,000.

Anyone considering the COVID-19 vaccine must be informed of known and potential benefits and risks, and the extent to which benefits and risks are unknown. For example, the clinical trial did not have enough statistical power to measure the vaccine’s ability to prevent hospitalizations and deaths, and did not assess if the vaccine prevents asymptomatic infection or spread (transmission) of the virus.

“PIC is committed to making the available data more accessible to everyone researching COVID-19 vaccines,” said Dr. Shira Miller, PIC founder and president. “Our concise, reader-friendly document assists healthcare providers and parents in making informed decisions for the children in their care.”

Physicians for Informed Consent’s body of physicians, scientists, statisticians and healthcare workers is trusted by both patients and practitioners for providing scientific data on infectious diseases and vaccines. To download your copy of the VRS “Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine: Short-Term Efficacy & Safety Data,” visit physiciansforinformedconsent.org/COVID-19-vaccines.

###

VIEW the press release on PRWeb.


About Physicians for Informed Consent
Physicians for Informed Consent is a 501(c)(3) educational nonprofit organization focused on science and statistics. PIC delivers data on infectious diseases and vaccines, and unites doctors, scientists, healthcare professionals, attorneys, and families who support voluntary vaccination. In addition, the PIC Coalition for Informed Consent consists of more than 250 U.S. and international organizations. To learn more or to become a member, please visit physiciansforinformedconsent.org.

comment Add Comment

Physicians for Informed Consent Publishes Influenza (Flu) Vaccine Risk Statement “9 Flu Vaccine Facts”

Physicians for Informed Consent Publishes Influenza (Flu) Vaccine Risk Statement “9 Flu Vaccine Facts”

Educational document answers the question: Are flu vaccine mandates science-based?

NEWPORT BEACH, CALIF. (PRWEB) OCTOBER 27, 2020

Physicians for Informed Consent (PIC), an educational nonprofit organization focused on science and statistics, today published the Influenza (Flu) Vaccine Risk Statement (VRS), unpacking nine facts about the flu vaccine and exploring whether mandates are science-based. The VRS is a two-page info sheet that serves as a resource for patients, parents, and doctors to learn more about the flu vaccine and better understand its relationship to the spread of the flu and hospitalization.

“Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, some communities such as schools and corporations are considering making the flu vaccine compulsory, and many families are weighing the risks and benefits,” said Dr. Shira Miller, founder and president of PIC. “This VRS includes important and timely scientific data that can help the public engage in informed decision-making.”

“This VRS includes important and timely scientific data that can help the public engage in informed decision-making.

To create this VRS, PIC focused on what the science says about the flu vaccine. For example, it may be assumed that the flu vaccine will help decrease hospitalizations. Research shows, however, that the flu vaccine does not reduce demand on hospitals. Furthermore, research shows that flu vaccine mandates are not science-based.

To download your copy of the VRS “9 Flu Vaccine Facts,” please visit physiciansforinformedconsent.org/flu-vaccine.

###

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, the PIC 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.

Physicians for Informed Consent Provides Key Information in Medical Board of California Hearing, Aims to Protect Patients at Risk of Vaccine Side Effects

Medical Exemptions to Vaccination, Recommended Due to Patient History and Genetics, Go on Trial

OAKLAND, CALIF. (PRWEB) OCTOBER 02, 2020

Physicians for Informed Consent (PIC), an educational nonprofit organization focused on delivering data on infectious diseases and vaccines, provided key information on physician best practices in the case between Kenneth Stoller, M.D., and the Medical Board of California (MBC) (Case No. 800-2017-034218). In July 2019, the MBC accused Dr. Stoller of gross negligence in recommending medical exemptions to vaccination for patients based on their genetic risk of suffering side effects from multiple vaccines mandated by the State of California for school attendance—a precaution that’s not recommended by conventional standards of care. Dr. Stoller’s attorney and author of Galileo’s Lawyer, Richard Jaffe, Esq., defended him based on Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 2234.1, which legally protects California physicians who use alternative or complementary standards of care.

The MBC was represented by Deputy Attorney General, Lawrence Mercer, and its expert witness was Dean Blumberg, M.D., a pediatric infectious disease specialist. Kelly Sutton, M.D., a board-certified internist with training in pediatrics and functional medicine, was the expert witness for the defense. The Administrative Law Judge presiding was Juliet E. Cox. Judge Cox, in addition to earning her juris doctorate from UC Berkeley, also holds a bachelor’s degree in Biology, and a Master of Science in Genetics, a fortuitous background as Dr. Stoller’s defense adduced much genetic information on individual and familial susceptibility to vaccine side effects.

In support of the existence of alternative standards of care for integrative physicians who make vaccine recommendations, Jaffe brought forth “Best Practices for California Physicians Providing Complementary Health Care Methods” by Greg Glaser, Esq., General Counsel for PIC and National Director of the Coalition for Informed Consent (CIC). PIC represents hundreds of doctors who make personalized risk/benefit assessments for their patients and alternative vaccine recommendations when indicated. Another key exhibit was the March 2019 document “Best Practices for Physicians Recommending a Medical Exemption to Vaccination” presented by the late Toni Bark, M.D., and Glaser at the PIC Workshop & Luncheon in Costa Mesa, California.

The hearing was conducted via videoconferencing between Sept. 21–24, 2020, with members of the public listening in via teleconferencing and Ann Leitz as court reporter. Judge Cox’s decision on the case is expected by January 2021.

“I expect that Dr. Ken Stoller will be exonerated, and that his medical exemption letters written under SB277 guidelines will be safeguarded,” said Glaser.

“I expect that Dr. Ken Stoller will be exonerated, and that his medical exemption letters written under SB277 guidelines will be safeguarded,” said Glaser.

###

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.

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.

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.

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

Physicians for Informed Consent Publishes New Educational Document on Risk of Aluminum in Vaccines

Aluminum Vaccine Risk Statement analyzes the risks of aluminum-containing vaccines administered to infants and children

NEWPORT BEACH, CALIF. August 13, 2020

Physicians for Informed Consent (PIC), an educational nonprofit organization focused on science and statistics, has just released its Aluminum Vaccine Risk Statement (VRS) entitled “Aluminum in Vaccines: What Parents Need to Know.” The educational document answers important questions about the risks of aluminum-containing vaccines administered to newborns, infants and children.

“The COVID-19 pandemic has shown us that the public is very interested in weighing the risks of infectious diseases versus the risks of vaccines,” said Dr. Shira Miller, PIC founder and president. “Parents and the public must become knowledgeable about aluminum in vaccines because even though it is used as an adjuvant in many vaccines, it is a neurotoxin—and overexposure may lead to significant harm, including problems in motor, sensory, and cognitive function.” Currently, up to 22 doses of aluminum-containing vaccines are recommended to children, with 11 doses recommended from birth to 6 months of age.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), agencies of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), have raised concerns about the negative effects of aluminum exposure in humans. In scientific studies, small amounts of aluminum that remain in the body have been observed to interfere with a variety of cellular and metabolic processes in the nervous system and in tissues of other parts of the body. 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).

The FDA states that if some vaccines did not include aluminum (i.e., aluminum hydroxide and aluminum phosphate) as an adjuvant, the immune response they trigger may be diminished. Therefore, aluminum is included in many vaccines on the childhood schedule, including the following: hepatitis B (HepB), Haemophilus influenzae type b (PedvaxHIB), pneumococcal (PCV), hepatitis A (HepA), human papillomavirus (HPV), meningococcal B (MenB), and diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis (DTaP and Tdap).

“Vaccines are administered preventively to healthy people, not people with acute or chronic infections, so it’s crucially important to know the safety data upon which one’s recommendations are based,” said Dr. Miller. “PIC developed the Aluminum VRS to help families and their physicians advance their understanding of the risks of aluminum adjuvants, so they may engage in informed decision-making.”

Parents and caregivers are encouraged to discuss the Aluminum VRS educational documents with their children’s doctor. To read the Aluminum VRS or to download it, please visit physiciansforinformedconsent.org/aluminum.

###

READ the Aluminum educational document.
VIEW the press release on PRWeb.
SHARE the press release on Facebook.
SHARE the press release on Instagram.
SHARE the press release on LinkedIn.
SHARE the press release on Twitter.

About Physicians for Informed Consent

Physicians for Informed Consent is a 501(c)(3) educational nonprofit organization focused on science and statistics. PIC delivers data on infectious diseases and vaccines, and unites doctors, scientists, healthcare professionals, attorneys, and families who support voluntary vaccination. In addition, the PIC Coalition for Informed Consent consists of more than 200 U.S. and international organizations. To learn more or to become a member, please visit physiciansforinformedconsent.org.