Also see:
It may be difficult or impossible to find a doctor licensed in your state to sign an exemption. Some state medical boards are aggressively disciplining physicians for writing vaccine exemptions. Many entities imposing mandates seem to be using the CDC’s listed contraindications (like severe allergy to components of the vaccine) as their guide for determining if a particular medical exemption will be accepted or not.
In other words, medical exemptions may be rejected more often than not.
The following points may be made in a letter to the entity, although the company may disregard them:
(a) The COVID vaccines contain polyethylene glycol and/or Polysorb80, to which most people have been exposed. When injected, these can provoke a life-threatening anaphylactic response. This is unpredictable and can occur in persons who have not experienced it previously.
(b) I am a woman of child-bearing age. Pregnant women were excluded from vaccine trials, so the products have not been determined to be safe in pregnancy.
(c) Myocarditis/pericarditis is a complication recognized by the FDA. Post-marketing studies of this effect, required by the FDA for the only approved product, labeled Comirnaty, will not be complete until 2027. I am at risk for this complication.
(d) I have already recovered from COVID-19 and have demonstrated immunity.
According to the journal Science, immunity from prior infection may be superior to that from a vaccine: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/08/having-sars-cov-2-once-confers-much-greater-immunity-vaccine-no-infection-parties
A George Mason University Professor recently won an exemption based on 1) the immunity derived from his prior infection and 2) the increased risk of adverse events from the shot for those who have had an infection.
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/08/18/professor-beats-george-mason-universitys-vaccine-mandate-asserted-natural-immunity-in-lawsuit/
In the Joint Declaration of Dr. Jayanta Bhattacharya and Dr. Martin Kulldoff (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1z12qVE40yKC-3fpATBLLGGjbMolIhbyR/view) , the authors conclude: “Multiple extensive, peer-reviewed studies comparing natural and vaccine immunity have now been published. These studies overwhelmingly conclude that natural immunity provides equivalent or greater protection against severe infection than immunity generated by mRNA vaccines (Pfizer and Moderna).” Their declaration lists the peer-reviewed citations that backup their statement. Also, they state: “Some clinical evidence indicates that those who have recovered from COVID-19 could have a heightened risk of adverse effects compared with those who have never had the virus. This may be because vaccines reactogenicity after the first dose is higher among those with prior immunity.”