PCIC

10/14/2026

Elections have consequences. Vote accordingly Tuesday November 3rd.

10/14/2026

WHEN DOES FEAR OF A DISEASE BECOME FEAR OF OUR NEIGHBORS?

Take a good look at these two images.

The American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) is advertising an infectious disease conference with the ominous headline:

“They're back. Are you ready?”

And what image did they choose? A pixelated horse-drawn wagon reminiscent of the 1980s computer game The Oregon Trail.

Meanwhile, attorney Aaron Siri is discussing another petition to the United States Supreme Court involving the religious freedoms of Amish families.

Two images. Two conversations about infectious disease. And a question about how we perceive the people caught in the middle.

I have some questions.

Under the routine childhood schedule, children receive their first MMR dose at 12–15 months and their second at 4–6 years. That means many children between their first and fourth birthdays have received only one dose. Infants younger than 12 months generally have not received a routine dose, although earlier vaccination may be recommended in certain circumstances.

Even children who have received both doses are not guaranteed protection.

A vaccination record is not an impenetrable shield against infection. And being unvaccinated does not make someone less deserving of medical care.

Prevention matters. But so does treatment.

How much attention will this conference devote to caring for patients who actually become ill, regardless of their vaccination status?

What about recognizing illness, managing symptoms, monitoring complications, and understanding appropriate treatment?

A fully vaccinated child who develops measles needs competent medical care just as much as an unvaccinated child. Neither should be overlooked.

Physicians must be prepared to treat the patient in front of them—not merely evaluate the vaccination record in their chart.

Because ultimately, vaccination status is not a diagnosis, and prevention is not a treatment plan.

And this brings me back to the imagery.

A child with measles is not a political statement. An Amish family is not a public-health mascot. And a patient who declines a medical intervention is still a human being deserving of dignity and care.

The AAFP may have intended its advertisement simply to convey urgency about reemerging diseases through a nostalgic reference to a childhood computer game.

But intent and impact are not always the same.

We should be able to ask whether this kind of imagery is responsible, particularly when it comes from an influential professional medical organization.

We should also be willing to examine the assumptions we bring to that imagery ourselves.

Because the line between fearing an illness and fearing the people associated with it can become dangerously blurred.

Medical education should prepare physicians to recognize and treat disease. But shouldn't it also prepare them to recognize their own assumptions about the people they treat?

And perhaps there's one more lesson worth remembering from The Oregon Trail.

When someone in your wagon party became sick, the objective wasn't to blame them for becoming ill. It was to figure out how to help them survive.

Modern medicine has far better tools, knowledge, and treatments than anything available to nineteenth-century pioneers.

Surely our commitment to treating people with compassion should have advanced just as far.

We should be teaching physicians to recognize disease—not to regard their neighbors with suspicion.

The danger isn't simply misunderstanding an illness. It's allowing assumptions about an illness to become assumptions about the people who experience it.

So where should we draw the line between warning people about a disease and teaching them to fear their neighbors?

What do you see when you look at these two images?

10/14/2026

People who were vaccinated against measles can still contract and transmit the virus to others, and in some instances can initiate substantial chains of transmission, according to a new systematic review and meta-analysis.
The study, published Aug. 14 in Expert Review of Vaccines, examined decades of evidence on measles transmission from people who had received at least one dose of a measles-containing vaccine.

People who were vaccinated against measles can still contract and transmit the virus to others, and in some instances can initiate substantial chains of transmission, according to a new systematic review and meta-analysis. The study, published Aug. 14 in Expert Review of Vaccines, examined decades o...

10/14/2026

A friend asked us to share this YouTube interview.

A Conversation About Measles, Vaccines and the Meaning of Informed Consent

This wide-ranging conversation is hosted by Jacobus Hollewijn, a Dutch-born health educator based in Bozeman, Montana. Hollewijn founded Gesundheit! Nutrition Center and began hosting his long-running radio program, ! With Jacobus, in 2000. Through radio, podcasts, lectures and his current *Health in Focus* project, he has spent decades interviewing guests and helping listeners explore health, healing and nutrition. His stated approach brings conventional and traditional perspectives into the same conversation. And here is a fitting fun fact: “Gesundheit” literally means “health” or “good health.”

In this program, Hollewijn speaks with filmmaker Rick Barnes, creator of the vaccine documentary 50 Cents A Dose. Their conversation examines questions that are especially timely as Pennsylvania continues debating measles, school policies and the proper limits of government public-health authority.

Among the most relevant portions:

- At 18:55, they consider what information patients are or are not given before vaccination. This raises a fundamental informed-consent question: Does a patient receive understandable information about material risks, anticipated benefits, contraindications, alternatives and individual circumstances, or merely a standardized information sheet?

- At 41:30, the discussion turns to school requirements, mandates and manufacturer liability. This is where a public-health recommendation can become coercive if education, employment or participation in society is conditioned upon accepting a medical product.

- At 50:49, they examine the ingredients and production of the combined MMR vaccine. Regardless of one’s ultimate vaccination decision, families deserve clear and accurate information about what a product contains, how it is manufactured and what options are or are not available.

- At 1:10:04, the conversation addresses vitamin A and care for someone who already has measles. This reinforces an important concern PCIC has repeatedly raised: Public-health communication should not stop at “get vaccinated.” Families also need practical information about recognizing illness, obtaining an accurate diagnosis, caring for a sick child, watching for complications and knowing when medical attention is urgently needed.

- At 1:13:20, they discuss natural measles infection, historical mortality and how measles was viewed before modern vaccination programs. This section raises worthwhile historical questions, but, as always, this is for educational purposes and medical claims should be discussed with your health care provider.

- At 1:41:48, the discussion moves to consent in vaccine research and the treatment of vulnerable populations. The principle is essential: No population should be used for medical experimentation without meaningful disclosure, voluntary participation and appropriate ethical protections.

- Beginning at 2:07:45, Hollewijn and Barnes return to individualized medical decision-making. Population-wide recommendations cannot account for every person’s medical history, susceptibility, prior reaction, contraindication or individual risk-benefit calculation.

- At approximately 2:09:12, the conversation reaches the point most directly connected to PCIC’s mission: Can consent truly be considered voluntary when declining a medical intervention may result in exclusion from school, loss of employment or an inability to participate fully in society?
PCIC is neither categorically for nor against vaccination. We are for **complete and accurate information, meaningful informed consent, individualized medical decision-making and protection from coercion**.

This conversation raises important questions, but sharing it should not be interpreted as PCIC’s endorsement of every factual or medical claim made during the program. We encourage listeners to examine the evidence, consult original sources and ask thoughtful questions especially when claims involve autism, historical vaccine trials, vitamin A, measles complications or comparative mortality.

The value of this discussion lies not in asking everyone to reach the same medical decision, but in defending every person’s right to receive complete information and make that decision without coercion.

As you listen, ask yourself:

?!! Are families receiving complete information—not only about the risks of disease, but also about the risks, benefits, limitations and alternatives associated with the proposed intervention?

?!! Are individual medical histories, contraindications and circumstances being respected?

?!! Are families given practical information about recognizing illness, caring for someone who is sick and knowing when to seek medical attention—or are they primarily being frightened into compliance?

?!! And if saying no can cost your child an education, your family a livelihood or your place in society, is saying yes really informed consent?

These questions matter in Pennsylvania. They should be answered openly and the boundaries of government authority should be established clearly before the next outbreak, public-health proposal or declared emergency places individual rights under pressure.

Link to this Video in Comments **The YouTube video contains additional links that are relevant to this discussion.

10/12/2026

Vitamin A and Measles: What Does the American Academy of Pediatrics Say?

Vitamin A is an essential nutrient involved in immune function and maintaining healthy epithelial tissues, including the protective linings of the respiratory and gastrointestinal tracts.

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recognizes that measles infection can lower circulating vitamin A levels, even in children who were well nourished before becoming ill. Vitamin A deficiency can increase the severity of measles and contribute to susceptibility to complications, including secondary infections.

Research has demonstrated that vitamin A treatment can reduce measles-related complications and mortality, particularly among young children in resource-limited settings. The AAP and World Health Organization recommend vitamin A as part of the medical management of children diagnosed with measles.

Vitamin A treatment is not the same as routine nutritional supplementation. Therapeutic doses are substantially higher than ordinary dietary requirements and should be administered under medical supervision because excessive vitamin A can cause serious toxicity.

Vitamin A does not prevent measles infection, and treatment should not delay evaluation of dehydration, breathing difficulties, pneumonia, neurologic symptoms, or other complications.

**Sources:** American Academy of Pediatrics, *Red Book: 2024–2027*, Measles chapter; AAP, *The Use of Vitamin A in the Management of Measles* (March 10, 2025); AAP, *What's Old Is New Again: Measles* (2025).

10/10/2026

🚨 ANOTHER PENNSYLVANIA REGULATION NEEDS YOUR ATTENTION

The Pennsylvania Department of Human Services is advancing Regulation #14-558: Mental Health Procedures, which would change the rules governing access to and disclosure of confidential mental-health records.

Among our concerns, the regulation would delete explicit Pennsylvania language recognizing a parent’s authority over the mental-health records of a child under 14 and replace several existing protections with references to federal HIPAA standards.

Mental-health privacy matters but so does the right of parents to know who is treating their children, what services are being provided, and what is being billed in their names.

Please take three actions:

1. Submit your objection through PA Family’s action center by midnight Tuesday, October 13.
TAKE ACTION THROUGH Pennsylvania Family Council https://advocacy.charityengine.net/Default.aspx?isid=3178

2. Read the regulation for yourself and share it with other Pennsylvania parents. READ REGULATION #14-558 / IRRC #3466 https://www.irrc.state.pa.us/regulations/RegSrchRslts.cfm?ID=3481

3. Attend the IRRC public meeting.
📅 Thursday, October 15, 2026
🕙 10:00 a.m.
📍 555 Walnut Street, 8th Floor Conference Room, Harrisburg
🔴 Livestream: pacast.com/live/irrc

IRRC will hear public comments and vote on this regulation. Remarks are limited to three minutes. Anyone wishing to speak should email a written statement and request to speak to [email protected] as soon as possible.

Visitors must bring identification and sign in.

10/09/2026

🚨 PA DHS seeks to restrict parents’ access to kids’ mental health records.

IRRC: [email protected]
Department of Human Services:
[email protected]

Subject: Public Comment—Final-Form Regulation #14-558 / IRRC #3466—Mental Health Procedures

10/09/2026

This Is Where It Started for Us. And Why the 2026 Midterms Matter.

In 2015, measles was at the center of a national debate over vaccine mandates, parental rights, and medical freedom. State legislatures were facing pressure to eliminate longstanding vaccine exemptions, and California was leading the charge.

That was the year the Pennsylvania Coalition for Informed Consent (PCIC) was born.

We watched as measles outbreaks became the justification for legislation restricting families' ability to exercise their personal and religious beliefs when making medical decisions for their children. We knew Pennsylvania could be next.

We organized because we understood that what happened in California would not necessarily stay in California.

More than a decade later, those same fundamental questions remain: Who makes medical decisions? What authority should government have? And how do we protect informed consent, parental rights, medical privacy, and religious liberty?

Our partners at Stand for Health Freedom have documented former California Senator Richard Pan's legislative record, including his role in eliminating personal-belief exemptions and advancing additional public-health legislation.

Now Pan is seeking a seat in the United States Congress.

This is why midterm elections deserve our attention.

On Tuesday November 3, voters will elect all 435 members of the U.S. House of Representatives and 35 U.S. senators. Those elections will help determine congressional leadership, committee assignments, legislative priorities, and the federal laws considered over the next two years.

State elections matter, too. Governors and state legislators influence everything from public-health policy to the laws governing elections. They may also play important roles in future redistricting, when electoral boundaries are redrawn following the census.

The decisions made in state capitols can influence national policy. And the people elected today may shape laws for years to come.

History matters. Legislative records matter. And understanding how government works matters.

PCIC was founded because Pennsylvanians recognized the importance of paying attention before legislation reached our own doorstep.

We were paying attention in 2015. We're still paying attention today.

👇 Read and share: California, Remember the Record: Richard Pan's Long Campaign Against Health Freedom

10/08/2026

Medical freedom is on the line Tuesday November 3rd. If we want to see more wins like this one you'll need to vote out the party that wants to ignore the science.

https://www.hhs.gov/press-room/hhs-strengthens-vaccine-injury-research-reporting-patient-care.html

Elections have consequences. Vote wisely.

10/07/2026

Watching tonight’s Pennsylvania gubernatorial debate?

We put together this PCIC Debate Scorecard to help you listen beyond the talking points and stay focused on the issues at the heart of our mission: informed consent, parental rights, medical privacy, religious freedom, transparency, and appropriate limits on government authority.

As you watch, listen carefully to what each candidate says—and what they don’t say. Consider their answers alongside their past record, present actions, and promises for the future.

Use the scorecard to take notes and make your own assessment.

Then come back and tell us what you heard. Which answers stood out? Where were the candidates clear? Where did you still have questions?
We hope you’ll share your feedback on how both candidates performed on the issues that matter to you.

Be informed. Ask questions. Know the record.

THE QUESTION BEHIND EVERY QUESTION
What happens next time there’s a health emergency declared?
Will informed consent survive an emergency? Will people retain the ability to make medical decisions without losing ordinary opportunities? Will government use access to society to incentivize medical compliance? Will fundamental rights remain protected when they're under the greatest pressure?

Don't score rhetoric alone.

Listen for what each candidate says tonight but then compare those answers with the past record, present actions, and future promises.

A candidate can say, “I support medical freedom.”
The better questions are:
What does that mean when I say no?
What does it mean during an emergency?
What does it mean when an agency wants more power?
What does it mean when my child's school is involved?
And what has this candidate already done when given power?

Elections have consequences. Let’s make sure Pennsylvania voters know the score.

https://phl17.com/watch-phl17/