Social Contracts, Body Autonomy and the Vaccine Issue

YOUR RIGHT TO SWING YOUR ARMS ENDS WHERE MY NOSE BEGINS.

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.

BODY AUTONOMY DEFINES THE BOUNDARY

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.

Yet.

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.

Yet.

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.

Advertisements

The Slaughtering of our Constitutional Rights

JOHN STUART MILL is sometimes attributed with the quote “Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins”.  In reality, the quote seems to have arisen during prohibition protests.

Everyone understands that there are times when individuals must be called upon to secure our liberties and rights as a nation, at the risk of cost to individuals. The military draft, for example, is seen by many as a necessary evil from time to time, but even the de facto suspension of individual liberties during the draft is seen as extraordinary – no draft would be acceptable during a non-emergency period. The draft, for example, would never have been acceptable during Bush’s elective war in Iraq.

Lately there have been moves on the part of governments and other organizations to reduce, limit, or remove individual liberties and rights, and a full accounting of which rights are impinged in the name of saving humanity from infectious diseases seems worth considering.

1st Amendment Right to Free Speech

I was stunned to read a legal “scholars”‘s treatment of the question of whether we should tolerate free and open discussion of questions of vaccine safety. Claiming that discussing vaccine safety was akin to “shouting gunfire in a crowded theater”, the authors of the article in the Jurist concluded that perhaps American citizens’ rights to discuss their knowledge of the risks of vaccination should be rescinded.

Luckily, the issue was aptly taken up by Mary Holland, a legal scholar at New York University, who wisely stated (in brief) that the right to yell “gunfire” becomes a moral imperative when gunfire has, indeed, erupted in a theater.

Rights to Informed Consent

Vaccine defenders trample all over individuals’ rights to informed consent for medical procedures, both inside and outside the doctor’s office. Inside the office, they routinely deny informed consent by minimizing what is known about risks of vaccine injury, both in terms of the diversity of injuries that may occur, and their frequency. Patients who ask too many questions about vaccine injury are seen as problematic, rather than being seen as exercising their right (in all states) to know specific risks.  Information on the known HPV vaccine adverse events provided by your doctor are incomplete, and if you ask for the vaccine insert, you will find that it, too states that it is incomplete in its listing of the known adverse events, and it refers you back to your doctor for a full list!

If patients or parents decide to exercise their legally guaranteed right (in 47/50 states) to refuse vaccination, or to modify the schedule, or to skip or delay any specific vaccination due to their individual concern over risk, they are treated as problematic by healthcare workers, including medical doctors and office staff. The disdain and disregard for the law in such a setting by medical professionals is obvious.

California bill SB277 is a highly contested example of a state overreaching the authority intended by previous cases. It specifically strips Californians of the right to non-medical exemptions, and those who persist in exercising their Federal rights to refuse medical treatment once fully informed of the risks are stripped of their rights to access a public education, a right specifically provided by the California state constitution.

AAP Codifies Patient Harassment and Abrogation of the Hippocratic Oath

Doctors and healthcare workers around the country have been reported to use coercion, shame, and threats to deny patients access to medical care if they are vaccine-risk aware, and choose any of the legally provided options other than the CDC schedule. Last week, the AAP codified this disregard for the law by approving pediatricians’ practice of refusing to provide medical treatment to citizens who exercise their legal rights to non-medical exemptions. Citizens in nearly every states with mandatory vaccination for school attendance have the right to exercise religious, philosophical, moral and personal belief exemptions, whether pediatricians like it or not.

eximmunmap15-tuesday

Sept 2016: Forty-seven states honor individual and parental rights to refuse vaccination – without their doctor’s permission to do so. AAP, CDC, and Pharma want that number to be ZERO.

In some states, the medical community has tried claim that doctors should ascertain for the state whether a person’s request for a religious exemption is genuine. Such laws and practices  are clearly a violation of the freedom of religion, which is a constitutionally protected right provided in the religion clauses of the First Amendment.  A moment’s review of the contents of some vaccines (aborted fetal cells, pig products) will reveal that recipients who are forced to receive those contents into their bodies are also being forced to deny central tenets of their faith.

Across the US, patients are denied informed consent in myriad other ways as well.  The fact that pharmaceutical companies are exempt from liability prevents news stories of companies held accountable for harm – and also prevents motivating companies from making vaccines safer.  Instead, consumers pay a tax on every vaccine to pay damages via the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program – which sounds good, until one realizes how extremely tortured the logic has been to make vaccine-induced encephalopathy a replacement vaccine injury for autism so the program does not have to pay for vaccine-induced encephalopathy-mediated autism.

Right to Refuse Medical Experimentation

After the Nuremberg trial, it became both common international and national law in the US that no citizen shall be subject to medical experimentation without their express, fully informed consent. The law that protects American citizens’ right fall under the FDA’s domain, which requires that all medical researchers conducting human subjects research acquire specific consent after reviewing the full list of known and potential risks associated with experimental drugs and medical procedures.

Much of what the CDC calls vaccine safety research is conducted using post-market surveillance. US citizens are not informed that their reaction to a given vaccine may be used by the government or government-funded researchers to assess vaccine safety. By definition, then, we are all enrolled in an uncontrolled medical experiment without consent. We are never given the opportunity to refuse to be enrolled in this massive medical experiment. Not that it matters much for the sake of the science; the studies conducted using data from the passive Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) and the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) are nearly universally retrospective descriptive correlational studies, and thus any suggestion or hint of increased rates of serious adverse events can easily either be cooked away by repeated rounds of data analysis (analysis-to-result), as has been the practice at the CDC for studies on the question of vaccine-induced encephalopathy-mediated autism, or the results can be dismissed as merely ‘correlational’.

When a new vaccine is being added to the CDC pediatric schedule, the prospective studies that are conducted do not test the cumulative effect of the vaccine schedule against unvaccinated individuals, but rather existing schedule vs. modified. Those that do use ‘placebo’ tend to use the adjuvant (additive designed to enrage the immune system) vs the vaccine, and thus the rates of mild, moderate and serious adverse events for vaccines are unknown.

13th and 14th Amendment Rights: The only way so far to identify individuals – and families – who are at risk of vaccine injury is to vaccinate them, and thereby injure them. These subgroups of individuals are potentially identifiable – if only research priorities allowed us to focus on the development of biomarkers to predict who might be at risk of specific harm. In America, minority citizens have, under the 13th and 14th Amendments, the rights to equal protection. The first step to predicting who among us are at special risk is to admit that vaccines cause harm. In denying the link between vaccines and autism, not only are the rights to informed consent denied, and rights to compensation for harm being denied, but the right to protection by the state as a genetic minority are also denied because the science to identify specific biomarkers for specific serious adverse events for specific subgroups cannot be conducted when autism denialists write the rules.

CDC Proposes Their Totalitarian Rule

In a stunning move made under the guise of medical emergencies caused by emerging infectious diseases, CDC has proposed new rules for themselves to be able to apprehend and detain American citizens indefinitely, without access to legal counsel; to disallow citizens’ rights to cease communicating with the CDC (First Amendment; Fifth Amendment); to access (without consent) our electronic communications (Fourth Amendment); to forcibly vaccinate American citizens against their will (Rights to Informed Consent); and to deny them any compensation whatsoever for any harm done to them physically  or to their attempts to enjoy their rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  Defenders will say that this is only for instances in which an emergency has been declared, and they list specific diseases for which they imagine they may have to impose totalitarian rule (Ebola, Marburg, and others (see a full accounting by James Grundvig here). They also, of course, give themselves the right to add more diseases, and thus vaccines, to this list. CDC wish to grant itself open-ended police powers in a manner that is not only not consistent with the Constitution: their power grab is not consistent with America.

I am sure that I have not fully counted the number of rights seized by the CDC Totalitarian Rule, but they must be stopped. They should not be granted powers to suspend most of the Constitution.

CDC employees have an odd, paramilitary culture that is not necessary in a free and open society.  Perhaps they are nervous and this bluster is a threat. Perhaps they will apprehend people who write blog articles. Perhaps they will apprehend people who make movies. Perhaps you will be arrested by a Rear Admiral and force-vaccinated against all of these diseases because you told your sister about “The Environmental and Genetic Causes of Autism“.

We must immediately, forcefully and collectively assert and affirm our rights to:

  • Rights to Free Speech
  • Religious Rights
  • Rights to Refuse Medical Treatment
  • Right to Refuse to Participate in Medical Experiments
  • Rights to Equal Protection
  • Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Summary

The reality is that open-end legislation at Federal, State, and County levels on vaccine mandates are dangerous, because no science is done to tell us about the risks of adding an ever-increasing number of vaccines, and this newly proposed ’emergency’ authority to force vaccination upon American citizens a list of vaccines to which CDC can add at their whim cut deep across the grain of American sensibility and our traditional respect for the rights of individuals.

The attack on Constitutionally guaranteed and protected rights being visited upon the American public is sometimes described using the word “impingement”.  The aggregate effects of these moves is not an impingement – it is a dismantling of our safeguards against a totalitarian state. It’s a wholescale slaughter of the Constitution.

What are your thoughts? What other rights are being threatened by vaccine risk denialists?  Let’s have #thediscussion – while we still can.

References

The Constitution of the United States of America

Holland, MS. 2011. Legally Censoring Speech on Vaccines and Autism: A Response. The Jurist http://www.jurist.org/forum/2015/12/mary-holland-vaccines-autism.php

Vaccine Safety Datalink


About the Author:

Dr. Lyons-Weiler is the CEO of The Institute for Pure and Applied Knowledge, former Senior Research Scientist and Scientific Director of the Bioinformatics Analysis Core at the University of Pittsburgh, and former faculty member in the Department of Pathology and Department of Biomedical Informatics (University of Pittsburgh), and former full faculty member in The University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute. He is the author of three books (Ebola: An Evolving Story; Cures vs. Profits: Successes in Translational Research and The Environmental and Genetic Causes of Autism). To book Dr. Lyons-Weiler for speaking engagements, email ebolapromo@gmail.com

Visit Dr. Lyons-Weiler’s Facebook author page.