Physicians for Informed Consent has just released the scientific foundation that could reshape America’s vaccine debate—and the legal battles ahead. This “Silver Booklet,” Vaccines and the Diseases They Target: An Analysis of Vaccine Safety and Epidemiology, demolishes the flimsy scientific foundation of America’s vaccine policies. This is essential reading for anyone questioning whether these policies rest on solid science and medical ethics.

Here is the link: https://physiciansforinformedconsent.org/silver-booklet/

Authored by physicians and scientists (including members tied to two of my free-speech cases, Hoang v. Bonta (which won a preliminary injunction against the now-repealed AB 2098) and Kory v. Bonta (cert petition pending at the Supreme Court after surviving initial conference review). The book exposes gaping holes in vaccine safety research that hinder doctors’ ability to prioritize individual patient needs. Its findings signal an inevitable collision between rigid federal mandates and the push for medical autonomy, a fight that’s closer than you might think. (And that’s a promise with a short turnaround payout!)

The Government’s Science Problem

PIC’s central claim is that uniform vaccine mandates lack robust scientific support. The book states that “uniform vaccine requirements… are not supported by current scientific evidence and warrant reconsideration based on risk-benefit analysis” (p. 5). It shows that safety studies for vaccines like Hepatitis B (p. 14), DTaP (p. 22), MMR (p. 38), and Varicella (p. 42) often involve just a few thousand subjects, too few to detect rare but serious adverse events like death or permanent disability. This leaves unanswered questions about whether vaccines’ risks outweigh those of the diseases for normal-risk U.S. children (p. 10).

Take Hepatitis B: clinical trials included “only a few hundred subjects per study” (p. 14), while the annual risk of fatal Hepatitis B in kids under 10 is less than 1 in 7,000,000 (p. 15). Similarly, MMR vaccine trials can’t confirm that the vaccine’s risk of death or disability is lower than that of measles, mumps, or rubella (about 1 in 500,000 over 10 years, p. 38). These gaps raise doubts about whether CDC guidelines account for individual factors like genetics or immune vulnerabilities.

The book covers vaccines like Hepatitis B, DTaP, Hib, Polio, MMR, and Varicella through Disease Information Statements (DIS) and Vaccine Risk Statements (VRS), noting that diseases like Hepatitis B often resolve without complications (p. 12) and that vaccines haven’t been tested for carcinogenic or mutagenic effects (pp. 21, 25, 35). It also flags concerns about aluminum in vaccines, with 1,225 mcg administered by 6 months potentially nearing unsafe levels (pp. 48–49).

By highlighting these scientific shortcomings, PIC underscores a growing tension: CDC’s one-size-fits-all policies often sideline the nuanced clinical judgment doctors rely on to protect vulnerable patients. This critique lays the groundwork for legal challenges that could soon question whether such mandates respect individual medical needs.

The Coming Legal Reckoning (and it’s coming sooner than you think!)

Vaccines and the Diseases They Target is more than a critique: it’s a roadmap for legal challenges that could fundamentally reshape how America approaches vaccine policy. Its data-driven arguments fuel the broader fight for medical freedom, echoing the principles at stake in Hoang v. Bonta and Kory v. Bonta, and all the vaccine medical and religious exemptions battles of the past several decades.

The timing of this book’s release is no coincidence. As federal health agencies entrench themselves deeper into one-size-fits-all mandates, the scientific groundwork is being laid for a new generation of legal challenges—challenges that will test whether individual medical assessments can prevail over bureaucratic uniformity. The data is assembled; now comes the harder question of whether courts will listen. (Again, these challenges may arrive much sooner than you think. So stay tuned.)

As debates over vaccine policies intensify, this book provides the scientific foundation that could restore doctors’ and patients’ rights to make informed choices. This isn’t just another academic exercise in vaccine skepticism—it’s essential reading for anyone who believes parents and doctors, not politicians, should make medical decisions.

I urge readers to dive into this book to grasp the science and the stakes—in these critical discussions.

Bravo to my friends at PIC for a much needed job well done!

Rick Jaffe, Esq.