How Will the VRA Engineer a Safe Landing for Pharma?

LOOKING AT SOCIAL MOVEMENTS in the past, we can see that it was the victors who decided the fate of the overthrown oppressors. The vaccine injured are leading the charge for social change, and the current calls for stripping away existing rights via elimination of personal belief and religious exemptions are being fought back via highly informed parents who will never – read this carefully – NEVER – accept government coerced vaccination for their children.

Looking at the issue of vaccine risk awareness mathematically, it is clear that the increase in activism is not being driven merely by social media. The just-so story often portrayed in the media is that one mom heard from a neighbor that her sister’s kid developed autism right after vaccines is a misrepresentation of the real-life experiences of parents with infants and school-aged children. In reality, in the American classroom, about 1/25 kids have autism, 1 in 25 have epilepsy, 5 of 25 have ADHD, another 5 have asthma, and so on and so on so that we can see that parents will meet parents with the same stories in real life. In other words, the vaccine risk aware “army” is growing due to the accumulation of people in the population who have direct knowledge of vaccine injury in their community.

The reaction of many people in the VRA movement to the title of this article will no doubt be another “has he lost it?”, because why would we WANT to engineer a safe landing for Pharma when their products have done and do so much harm. So let’s examine (a) where the VRA movement wants society to go, and (b) the various pathways by which it can achieve those goals.

Some hard-core anti-vaxxers want vaccines banned. The goals of the VRA movement – the ones we can all agree on – include

• Respect for choice – respect for the right to refuse vaccination as a medical procedure, and for the right to decline participation in post-marketing vaccine safety studies.
• Fulfillment of the 1986 Congressional mandate to make vaccines safer
• Fulfillment of the 1986 Congressional mandate to identify those at highest risk
• An end to corporate regulatory agency sponsorship and of politicians.

Some in the movement want

• Prosecution of those who have participated in scientific fraud to hide vaccine risk from the public.
• Reform in policies reflecting vaccines as a pancea for public health questions surrounding infectious disease and immunity. This seems fair, since it is illegal to conduct scientific fraud using government funds.
• Revocation of the immunity-from-liability clause in the 1986 Act.
• Prioritization of science conducted to detect and reverse vaccine injury to brain development and to the immune system.

Some who are more radical want

• An end to allopathic (“Western”) medicine

I certainly do not pretend to speak for the VRA movement, but I would encourage all involved to take a look at social movements from a historical perspective. We know that social movements can, for the most part, fall into four categories based on the degree of change sought, and how many people are expected to change. Consider the four-way categorization by Aberle (1966):

Alternative social movements – Limited change in specific people.

Redemptive social movements – Radical change in specific people.

Reformative social movements – Limited change in everyone.

Revolutionary social movements – Radical change in everyone.

There are solutions to the current impasse with Corporatist Congress and regulatory agencies within each of these four possibilities. An Alternative Social Movement would be convincing CDC/FDA/NIH to conduct objective science. No one who is VRA and who understands the degree of manipulation and fraud inherent to vaccine safety pseudoscience would trust Frank DeStefano, Coleen Boyle, Francis Collins and whichever corporate puppet is now in charge at FDA to suddenly reverse course and begin to realize that knowledge of vaccine risk allows critically valuable feedback on vaccine risk that can be used to form new directions for vaccine development.

A Radical Social Movement could result in the replacement of those in control of vaccine science at CDC, or better yet removal of vaccine safety science from the captured CDC/FDA/NIH triad, allowing the medical community and the public to learn what independent science reports on studies conducted without an agenda to control public perception. This could result in a more trusted scenario, but many in the VRA movement would still never trust any research from Universities attached to hospital systems that profit from vaccines.

Change in every person at all levels of society to accept that vaccine safety scientists have systematically misled everyone would be a Reformative Social Movement, and it seems this is necessary before we see any need for change. However, since the US Government and Pharma has conducted massive perception control with vaccine risk denialism and vaccine injury denialism, even this would appear to be – i.e., feel like – a Revolutionary Social Movement. But if it is truly revolutionary for medical doctors to respect patient’s rights to choose, then we need to find the benefit of that respect to medical doctors. Clearly 100% vaccination means 100% possible vaccine injury rate; perhaps pediatricians faced with less vaccine injury they then are expected to deny would burn out less?

It works to Pharma’s advantage to make shifts in vaccine risk awareness and shifts in the solutions to the problems with vaccines for everyone – including many in the VRA – to view the coming necessary changes as a Revolution. In reality, there is a critical percentage of vaccine risk awareness in the population necessary where the nonsense arguments made in defense of – and this is important – whole-population vaccination a fail-safe, fool-proof solutions to the control of transmission of infectious agents.

There is a fifth category that is not covered by Aberle’s four-part classification (1966): Rebellion. This, like all of the other paths, is a possibility, but it really is a sociological artefact involving achievement of new aims by new institutionalized means. This is in comparison to other forms of deviance. In this context, ‘deviance’ is not a perjorative term, although those on the losing end would react with loathesome hate and fear over new means to achieve new aims. The call for restructuring who does vaccine safety science may not involve all people, but it would then require all people to shift – or to have shifted – their trust of the “brand” of the CDC as a reliable and trustworthy agency.

Clearly allopathy is conformist and ritualistic. I advocate innovation. But it is a fair question to ask what or whom would be in rebellion, and whom or what would they be rebelling against? Clearly, Pharma’s (and CDC’s) agenda of vaccine risk denialism could not withstand a simultaneous rebellion against the media refusing to curb their publication of accurate facts on vaccine risk (for example, the very simple fact that not all vaccines have been tested for association with autism). It could equally not withstand a spontaneous rebellion by ethical MDs who stand up and refuse to continue to conform to the vaccine risk and injury denialist agenda. Finally, it could equally not without a boycott of pediatricians’ offices of parents from all walks of life. The aim of such a boycott would be get the attention of the Corporatist allopathic medical establishment, and would be a show of power beyond anything that parents could achieve short of repeal of the portion of the 1986 act that indemnifies Pharma and doctors from liability.

In the meantime, the VRA movement has clearly found it legs – and will be seeking political retribution for the stripping of rights of choice with political campaigns against those who vote to remove personal or religious exemptions. The movement will also be seeking damages for impingement of first amendment rights – in other words, the frantic and panicked responses from the Corporatist government have been terribly useful mistakes by which hundred-fold gains will be made in defense of basic human rights.

“Social movements challenge informal criteria of citizenship that define some individuals as ‘Others’, as belonging to a group that makes them unworthy of equal rights in the civil sphere.” (Nash, Citizenship p132).

So, to the highly presumptive question of the title of this article – “How Will We Engineer a Safe Landing for Pharma?” – the answer is that we do not yet know which path we will march, but march we most assuredly will, with non-passive peaceful and legal means to dismantle what we can now easily recognize as fascism incarnate in the US in 2019.

But we know that we will not bureacratize, and willfully place a head to be captured. The VRA community instinctively prefers “death by a million cuts” and we have learned the value of “you do you”. This is why the divide-and-conquer tactics of counter-insurgency ops cannot work. We see all agencies and entitites as tools to be utilized – fairly, with compassion – and I dare say for the bulk of the VRA, our current view is we have emerged, we are coaelescing, but there we will stay until we achieve the ends we seek.

This is why I dare presume to predict that the parents of the vaccine injured and killed will be the ones who ultimately determine the fates of vaccine manufacturers. It would therefore be in Pharma’s interest to extend an olive branch with a settlement offer for all who claim vaccine injury, and for Vaccine Manufacturers to call for a hearing on why the 1986 Act mandates have not been achieved. Remember, all politicians engaged in stripping rights away will eventually lose their seat. Therefore, I will be happy to speak at such a hearing, and can offer completely reasonable solutions and terms acceptable to most people in the VRA that brings justice and will dramatically reduce the burden of the cost of vaccine injury on society.

I once told Pharma to bring their lawyers to Washington to change the laws regarding patents on natural compounded formulations that have clear public benefit. I lectured them harshly on the need to understand the value of profit sharing and licensed gathering of intellectual property. Within the next four years, many in Pharma will either be being prosecuted or will be at the helm determining the extent to which the coming regulations impact their autonomy.

Again, I do no speak for the entire VRA, I speak ABOUT them. The rate of vaccine injury has surpassed the level at which the population can psychologically tolerate – and the social costs imposed upon the VRA are irrelevant. They cannot be ridiculed into submission. They cannot be made to submit by threatening to take away public education. They will show up en masse and demand entry anyway. They will not accept vaccines as safe even if you fine them, or restrict their ability to work. They will fight loss of their custody. They MAY vaccinate at the point of gun, but some will not. Someone will be hurt, and the true police state will have been forced to show its face. That will work to the advantage of liberty and freedom.

Those who are VRA who agree or disagree can weigh in. What would you have me tell the US Senate on how to end vaccine injury, and, at the same time, not destroy the vaccine manufacturers? If you say “let them hang”, say that too. Remember: it’s all about respect and change and an end to vaccine violence using all possible legal and non-violent means.