Social Contracts, Body Autonomy and the Vaccine Issue


We are a society at odds with itself. We Americans, conditioned by cold war rhetoric to huddle under the protectorate government in our fear of annihilation, can barely think for ourselves. We are conditioned to respond to threats of each and every type of childhood illness as if it were the next Ebola.  We are strangely at once completely against generalizations about race, creed, religion, and gender, while at the same time not willing to hear the manifold pleas of those fall under the rubric of “antivaxxers”.  We want our guns, yes, but with restrictions to access for those who we personally feel are at highest risk of abusing the right to bear arms, because they might do something.

It wasn’t that long ago that that type of thinking – restricting someone’s liberties, or rights on the pre-supposition that they might do something, was anathema to being American.  Ok, felons might not be the best party to which might warrant unrestricted access to guns.  But restricting the rights of someone who has never hurt another human being simply based on a presupposition of what might happen, well, that was the topic of The Minority Report.

When the majority in this country thinks and speaks of vaccine risk, they mostly repeat, verbatim, the misinformation that CDC and Pharma has worked diligently and tirelessly to embed in their minds. Forget that we are imbued with inalienable rights wherein no one – not even especially the government – has the right to violate the sanctity of our bodies.  We have sovereign rights that literally begin where our skin starts – and anyone – ANYONE who trespasses that inviolable boundaries of our very selves – has not only violated our person.  They have violated the law.

A man cannot rape a woman, it’s her body. No one can tell a woman she can’t have an abortion, it’s her body.  No one can take any part of your body and use it for medical experimentation without your consent. It’s your body.

Patient – Society Contact

If our children have a fever, they are expected to stay home from school, to reduce the chance they might spread a cold virus.  This seems like a good intention, but the school usually cannot enforce this. But there seems to be form of a social contract that some people abide by – they won’t go to work if they believe they have a serious cold, or they may forestall or skip a visit to family or friends for fear of making them ill.  But there is no law that compels them to stay put.  It’s a form of social contract.  And the individuals who abide by that contract sacrifice a little for others.

When it comes to vaccines, the sacrifice being asked of many is not little. In some cases, it’s everything. Their very life, or the life of their child.  Their lifelong health.  Their child’s neurodevelopment. The risk, we are told, is small.  We’ve been told that vaccines are “unavoidably unsafe” by the US Supreme Court.  At the same time, we’re told that “Vaccines are Safe” by the media.

Never before has so obvious a misinformation campaign been delivered so blatantly with complete disregard for reality.

But what if only people with blue eyes suffered the risk of vaccine injury? Or only people with red hair?  Would we still be so blithe as to say “It’s for the greater good?”

Our willingness to impart risk seems to be a function of whether SPECIFIC RISK applies to a given group of identifiable individuals.  Imparting risk on others for our own benefit is anathema to the American ideal of self-sufficiency. It would be nearly universally seen as wrong if only an identifiable minority were asked to suffer all of the vaccine injuries, for the greater good.

A minority of people suffer serious adverse events.  They are not considered identifiable, in part because there has not been sufficient effort on research to find risk factors and markers of susceptibility to vaccine injury.  Instead, we have fallen into a pattern consistent with groupthink, a form of mob rule, fostered by billions spent on advertising campaigns to market vaccines as perfectly safe.  A taboo exists among professionals in the medical community and at Universities who must persist in their careers as if vaccine injury risk is small; as if vaccines do not cause autism.  This taboo is unwise, and unnecessary.  It has stifled research in the area of neurodevelopment for at least fifteen years.  It has thwarted research on ways of revering the brain burden of toxins from industry, agriculture and medicine, for the same period of time.

Medical Community – Public Contract

It is difficult to consider the contract between the medical community and the public in this age, in part because it has substantially changed over the last fifteen years. These changes include how health care is organized and funded, with increasing direct influence over medical options determined by “partners” (insurers) and also, in a less overt manner, by options provided by pharmaceutical companies.  The medical community has changed how professionalism is expressed, with increasing intolerance of an increasingly informed public.  Medical privacy has restricted family members’ input, with an increasing emphasis on medicine as transaction, reduction in time to service (to increase throughput) under watchful influence of administrators.

In their hearts, medical professionals by and large seek the identity of the healer.  The increasing disconnect between the pursued role and identity of the medical professional as healer, and that which can be achieved, can render an identity crisis, and it seems to be a factor in the high rates of practitioner burn-out.

The written portions of the social contract of medical professionals and their employees, associations, and the government define both the specific obligations of these professionals, and the limits of how they can ethically conduct themselves.  Adherence to these codes of conduct are legally enforceable; however, as a profession, there appears to be an additional layer of austerity imbued in staying within the confine the accepted medical practice owing to the ancient trust in the healer, with “caring” being a core principle, combined with compassion, sincere interest in the well-being of others (something like altruism), yielding a professional identity that reflects more than their job or career.  Doctors carry an identifiable position within a community held in high regard; this regard is afforded them as a form a quid pro quo in return for time and expertise focused on others’ well-being.

The unwritten portion of the social contract for the medical professional resides mostly in the expectation of derived benefit from a visit, especially for routine medical care. Both the written and unwritten social contracts have been – and are being – redefined, with corporate influences increasing every year.  Since pharma has acquired increasing undue influence  over regulatory agencies, it is clear that these allowances and restrictions have become increasingly influenced by profit incentive. The types of medicine practiced increasingly reflect a type of conformity that is partially imparted upon the community by agency regulation, such as FDA approval of new drugs, devices and biologics.

For any medical specialty, by some means this convoluted process results in some form of consensus.  While individual practicioners may vary in their adherence to medical norms, the details of the exact process by which new guidelines for accepted practices are adopted in not always, and is sometimes far from, transparent.  Medical authorities often rely on their status as authorities for the determination of proper medical procedures, and I offer that minor differences of opinion aside, the profit motive has one singular and over-arching effect on medicine: homogenization of options, and corporate monopoly.  Institutional inertia is a extraordinarily large in medicine, and thus medicine, for all of the billions pumped into research for innovation, is staunchly conservative.  The emergent consensus cannot be said to be independent of market influences, and the larger the effect of the profit motive, the more the social contract imbuing altruism is violated by the medical establishment.

THE AMERICAN PUBLIC is demanding a re-negotiation of its social contract with the medical community on the issue of vaccines, and the medical community believes their practices and norms will protect them from this sea change.  Even though the law protects vaccine manufacturers and medical doctors from serious adverse events that fall into the run-of-the-mill risk categories,  and in spite of billions spent by Pharma and regulatory agencies to mislead the public, the biological truth is larger than the manufactured non-reality.  Millions of people have been seriously harmed by vaccines, and the law, the governmental agencies, the media and the medical profession have all contributed to a strategy in which vaccine risk denialism feeds more and more people into the vaccine risk awareness army.  What the vaccine risk denialists fail to see that is people don’t choose to become vaccine risk aware; they are conscripted by the very injuries being denied by pundits, by doctors who misinform patients, and by others who have a clear professional obligation to act in the better interest of the public.


In spite of those with their heads in the sand, that stubborn epithelial layer of body autonomy persists.  We have a right to say “No”.  An infuriated medical community exists that would love to strip of us that right.  Indeed, because long-term vaccine safety science relies on post-market surveillance as a primary source of evidence of the ill effects of vaccines, if you are vaccinated in America, you have been denied your right to informed consent for participation in clinical studies.  Take a moment to consider: did your doctor give you Vaccine Information Sheets from the CDC with each and every vaccine administered to you, or your child?  If the answer is no, you have been denied the informed consent required by law.

We don’t just need reform.  We need revolution.  When they try to mandate adult vaccines, and come for adults with threats of no jab, no pay, or deny your driver’s license, or deny your health coverage (which you have paid for), you will know.

And you will seek change.

But for now, you won’t do anything.  Because it’s not you.

You don’t have a social contract with those people who have specific mutations that confer increased risk of vaccine injury.

Because they are not you.


Because they have not yet mandated a vaccine from which you, or your children, or your grandchildren are genetically predisposed to have a serious, life-altering adverse reaction.


Since they are planning 290 additional vaccines, I’d say it’s only a matter of time before most Americans are at very high risk of suffering a debilitating illness due to vaccines.

New communications from schools about health education programs in Washington mean intensive indoctrination of your children on vaccines.  New laws in NY allowing minors, motivated by headphones, to make medical decisions, should make all ethical medical professionals cringe.

But, more than cringe, it’s time for them to speak out.  If you’re a medical professional, it’s your time. You are the ones who can make change faster than the public.  We won’t figure out that we control state laws on vaccines, not pharma, until it’s too late.  We won’t figure out that we can pass legislation re-affirming and re-asserting our bodily autonomy and protect ourselves from unwanted medical experimentation, until it’s too late.  We won’t figure out that regulations already exist that Federal level that provide special protections pregnant women, and children from experimentation, until it’s too late.Image result for medical paintings

So, medical doctors, pediatricians, our civilization awaits your answer to your professional calling.  Heal our society.

First, do no further harm.

Second, rise up and overthrow those who have.  That means outlawing kickbacks to practices.  That means not counting the medically exempt as candidates for vaccines.  That means using what we know about family risk autoimmune diseases and vaccines.  That means starting a private practice if need be.  That means refusing to bend to corporate pressures.  That means working to unshackle Congress from the yokes of corporate donations.

Third, demand innovation on new technologies for artificial immunization.  You are the learned intermediaries.  Play your part. Do your job.

Watch VaXxed.  See part of the truth. Read “Causes“.  And above all,  #bebrave.  You’re not alone.  Join Physicians for Informed Consent.


  1. Well written. I agree with most everything. I must inform you that if your abortion statement were true then the woman would infact be the one having HER body ripped apart, not the other body (with their own distinct DNA) found growing in the uterus. However, I digress; that is a battle for another article.

  2. Dr. Lyons-Weiler: Thank you! Powerful and timely. The good news is that the public is becoming more aware that something is terribly wrong in our nation. I recently met a neighbor who was taking a walk with her two younger children, one in a stroller, and the other fascinated with the creatures in my garden (for some reason small children really like isopods). We got to talking, and it turns out she is very well-informed about vaccine injury. She herself, after being talked into getting the DTaP, spent the day curled up in a ball, very ill. She had to call on a relative to take care of the kids. She was fortunate to get a PBE for the oldest before the July 1st, 2016 deadline, and her doctor has agreed to write a ME for the second, so she can enroll him in preschool, but this is madness. They are destroying the nation. We will not let that happen. Americans are better than that. We are not cowards, and we know the difference between right and wrong. Thank you for your powerful voice in raising awareness of the carnage.

  3. James Lyons-Weiler: Do you know specifically what part of the Constitution or Amendment to the Constitution guarantees our right to the the sovereignty of our bodies? Or are you referring to that sovereignty as a birthright? Unfortunately, for practical purposes, our rights to the sovereignty of our bodies must be set forth by law, and upheld in court decisions. As the legislators of vaccine exemptions, states are currently deciding the specifications of the issue by granting or removing exemptions.

Leave a Reply