Why YOU Should Not Listen to Physicians for Informed Consent

Summary of A. I. based reviews of their physician leadership

Physicians for Informed Consent (PIC) is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization based in Newport Beach, California, founded in 2015, with a focus on the voluntary (informed) consent of vaccines. Its mission is to gather and present data on infectious diseases and vaccines—positioning itself as an educational resource that supports the right of individuals to evaluate vaccination information independently and voluntarily North Dakota Legislative Branch+8Physicians for Informed Consent+8LinkedIn+8.

In several recent posts I described the results of queries using the artifical intelligence tool, ChatGPT, to search for and review the CVs and resumes of it’s physician leaders. In this post I will summarize the key findings.

Of the nineteen physicians listed on the PIC website, only one, Dr. Joyce Drayton, is a fellowship trained and board certified infectious disease doctor. However Dr. Drayton is no longer associated with PIC. ChatGPT was unable to locate any explanation for why Dr. Drayton is no longer associated with the organization. There are no public statements from Dr. Drayton expressing support for PIC’s medical advice.

Of the remaining eighteen physician members, not a single one has had felowship training in Infectious Diseases. Thus is is fair to state, none are experts in Infectious Diseases which is a separate and distinct medical specialty recognized by the American Board of Medical Specialties.

Many of the physicians at PIC practice alternatve medicine including “oxidative” and “anthroposophic” medicine, neither of which are recognized by the American Board of Medical Specialties.

But perhaps of greatest concern, six of the nineteen physicians have been disciplined by their state medical boards: Dr. Benton, Dr. Thomas, Dr. Baer, Dr. Stoller, Dr. Sutton and Dr. Fischbein have all either been reprimanded or had their medical licenses suspended / revoked. The charges range from gross negligence to crininal sexual contact with a patient.

Returning to PICs stated mission to gather and present data and as an educational resource on Infectious Diseases leads to a legitimate question. Why should anyone accept recomendations about Infectious Diseases from an organization where none of the physicians currently involved in its leadership have fellowship training in Infectious Dieases? It doesn’t make sense. Would you accept as valid, recommendations about cancer threatment or for heart disease from physicians who are not trained in oncology or cardiology? I don’t think so.

It is considered unprofessional conduct and a deviation from the Medical Practice Act for physicians to treat outside the limits of our training. This is to protect the public from the harm that results when physicians stray beyond their expertise. In this case, all of these physicians have strayed outside their tarining. The entire organization is guilty of unprofessional conduct.

But of greatest concern is the shocking extent to which PIC’s leadership has run afoul of the medical practice act and criminal law. Nearly 1/3 of the organization’s physician leadership have careers tarnished by disciplinary actions including a criminal conviction.

In the final analysis, are you going to accept education about Infectious Diseases from an organization with no fellowship trained Infectious Disease doctors, doctors who have lost their licenses and been convicted of criminal offenses? The “eduction” they present is rejected as false by credible Infectious Disease doctors. You would be foolish to accept PICs medical advice.

The result of these queries is alarming. One of the most influential voices in public health, Physicians for Informed Consent, has no Infectious Disease doctors but quite a few who have been disciplined. No one should take PIC medical advice seriously.