The Canary Party Position Paper
The time has come for a change. The mounting crisis in the health of children and other vulnerable groups has not only been ignored by medical authorities, it has been suppressed. As parents, citizens and advocates for the health of future generations, we must rise up to call attention to this crisis and take action to end it. In nominally democratic societies, which sadly are increasingly corrupted by the power of entrenched interests and the economy of influence that surrounds the medical industrial complex, we can most directly effect change by mobilizing for political action in order take action against these corrupt forces. It is time to come together to form The Canary Party.
This position paper addresses three questions surrounding the mission of
The Canary Party
1. What is the problem?
2. What is the solution?
3. What is to be done?
What is the problem?
In 19th century coalmines, canaries were used for the first time to detect the presence of poisonous gas accumulation deep in underground tunnels. Because their metabolisms run faster than humans,
these small animals provided a crucial signal in dangerous times: the canaries would die from toxic gas releases before humans. Normally quite vocal, the silence of these songbirds was the signal of danger. Back then, miners whose lives depended on the absence of poisons paid close attention to the absence of the canary’s song. Today, as the rising power and spread of the medical industrial complex are taking an increasing toll on human health, we need to recognize the silenced canaries all around us.
What is this toll? Nothing less than a generation of sick, injured and dying children, children who are increasingly becoming young adults. American children are over vaccinated and over medicated, over fed, undernourished and have record levels of chronic illness and developmental delay.
As well, there is a direct toll of injured adults, especially those who serve in the military, subjected to an increased burden of inadequately tested, compulsory and even experimental vaccine exposures administered over a backdrop of multiple toxic exposures from prescription and over the counter medications, foods made from genetically modified organisms and laden with pesticides and preservatives, and tens of thousands of industrial compounds that did not exist a century ago.
In simplest terms, the medical industrial complex has launched a massive and uncontrolled experiment on a generation of Americans. In an unprecedented intervention in human immune development, this complex has succeeded in promoting an explosion in medical industry revenues and profits; this explosion has been accompanied, however, by an epidemic of death, disability and chronic disease, much of which can be traced directly to these medical and chemical exposures.
What is the medical industrial complex? It is no simple thing to describe, but our working definition is the partnership between the medical and pharmaceutical industry on one hand and the public health establishment on the other. This “public private partnership”–one which includes vaccine manufacturers like Merck and GlaxoSmithKline, associations of doctors like the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association and the British Medical Association, and government agencies like the Centers for Disease Control and the National Institutes of Health—has steadfastly resisted the rising evidence of a crisis in human health, denying its existence, defending its prerogatives in the face of the crisis and pressing its own expansionist agenda in spite of widespread evidence that the medical model its members are advancing has failed consumers. The moral failing of this partnership agenda becomes all the more egregious as one reflects on the notion that the primary precept of medical ethics was once, “First, do no harm”.
The human toll of these experiments affects us all, but most visibly affects the vulnerable in our society, those who have the highest rate of exposure to this uncontrolled experimentation. These groups are modern day canaries and we must heed their silent suffering. They include
• Infants and children exposed to the most dramatic escalation in medical interventions and toxic exposures in human history, and subject to the new childhood epidemics of autism, ADHD, asthma, and food allergy,
o Autism now disables 1 in 88 American children, 1 in 54 boys
o Peanut allergies put the lives of nearly 2% of children at risk
o Asthma affects over 10% of American children, putting their lives at risk as well
• Child and adolescent victims of new experimental vaccines such as Gardasil
o Gardasil recipients have suffered close to 100 reported deaths
o Meanwhile, there are thousands of additional cases of serious adverse events and disability, many of them unreported, uninvestigated and suppressed
• Countless deaths and disabled victims in the soldiers and families of our armed forces
o Uncountable deaths and disabilities from the use of experimental vaccine adjuvants
o An epidemic of suicides (commonly blamed on post-traumatic stress disorder) haunts our service men and women, with large numbers of these suicides occurring among those never deployed in combat
• Adults and children suffering from the epidemic increases in auto-immune disease, disabling and potentially deadly conditions where the body’s own immune system turns against itself.
o Rising rates of celiac disease, Crohn’s disease, irritable bowel syndrome and colitis
o Epidemic rates of ALS, Lupus, Multiple Sclerosis, Addison’s Disease, Guillain-Barré, Graves’ and countless other disabling conditions
In the investigation and management of these and other modern–day plagues, our leading medical institutions have done more than merely fail us, their conduct lies at the root of the problem. Their agents have censored important science, manipulated data, intimidated honest scientists, and deceived the public. Worst of all, they have cloaked themselves in the mantle of science and “evidence-based medicine” as they have circled the wagons to defend their policies, profits and programs. In the meantime, their conduct and behavior is perpetuating one of the most egregious and systematic episodes of scientific denial in human history.
President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned against this outcome half a century ago in his Farewell Address to the nation. In addition to citing the emergence of a military-industrial complex, he also cautioned that an unholy alliance of money, technology, and government power could corrupt public policy more broadly. “Scientific research,” he said, “could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”
Today, despite Eisenhower’s warning, that reality is upon us, and its consequences are devastating. Public bureaucracies, professional associations and private corporations – groups whose interests and leaders are all but interchangeable — have triggered a public health disaster that worsens by the day. Eisenhower’s early warning has emerged in full flower as the medical industrial complex.
Along the way, the press has also failed us. The rise of corporate media and the breathlessly predatory 24 hour news cycle has led most of the mainstream media to swallow the talking points of the medical industrial complex while it continues to accept the advertising expenditures of its corporate members. They hide behind the technical nature of the evidence and meekly accept the claims of the medical industry’s “experts.” Increasingly, media celebrities have joined the attack, leading the inquisition against courageous scientists while denying media access to the many compelling leaders of critical consumer groups.
Most important of all, our political institutions have been failing us, at least so far. No major political party or movement has taken up this complex of issues. The blame for this failure of political will is broadly distributed and largely explained by the triumph of ideology over evidence. In order for our movement to succeed, we must ask advocates to check their political biases at the door, find ways to connect with the most helpful impulses of larger-scale movements while recognizing the ideological obstacles to embracing our agenda for change.
• The progressive movement. In principle, progressives oppose Big Business and the corrupting influence of corporate money. At the same time, progressives embrace the concept of activist government and reflexively support areas in which “good government” can be defended as legitimate. Under this guise, progressives have actively promoted the expansion of the medical roles of Big Government and the expansion of the vaccination program, all in the interest of “progress.” Progressives gloss over the corrosive effect on government regulators of the “public-private partnerships” that pervade this expanding mandate.
• The conservative movement. By contrast, the conservative movement reflexively opposes the program and activities of Big Government but looks past the ambitions and technological agendas of Big Business. Despite widespread evidence of the failure of the pharmaceutical innovation model, conservatives have failed to recognize the necessity of regulatory vigilance in order to defend consumers from the rising risk of palliative medical intervention; they have simultaneously failed to recognize how the free market can break down when Big Business forges unholy alliances (“public-private partnerships”) with Big Government.
• The Green Party. A political movement dedicated to defending human populations against the excesses of industrial activity ought to be a natural ally of the victims of medical excess. Unfortunately, the environmental movement has narrowed its focus to the release of chemicals from industrial processes into the environment and has largely ignored the health effects of injecting toxic substances into vulnerable humans. Along the way, the environmental movement has allied itself with the progressive movement in its celebration of the effectiveness of regulatory intervention. Sadly, most “greens” have developed a blind spot when it comes to the silent canaries victimized by the medical industrial complex
• The Tea Party. Although the populist momentum captured by the Tea Party movement may prove receptive to the critique offered here, to date the movement’s motivating energy has stemmed more from concerns over the expanding economic footprint of Big Government than concerns over the health outcomes that have resulted from Big Government programs. Appropriately, the Tea Party has protested the rising intrusion of government in the issues that affect our lives and liberties; to date, however, the movement has been more concerned with reining in Big Government than the need for justice for the victims of expanded Big Government programs.
The unfettered march of the medical industrial complex is a threat to Western society as we know it: to the lives of children and those who serve and defend us in our armed forces, to our right to choose the medical procedures we receive and to our rights to participate in society if we dissent. This all must change.
What is the solution?
The first step toward political action is unity. As representatives of the silenced canaries, we can start by promoting a shared sense of identity. We have many advocates and impressive leaders, but our political movement is too often fragmented. Many different leaders pursue many different goals. This distributed model of advocacy is both a strength and a weakness. We can maintain our entrepreneurial spirit while also establishing a stronger sense of connection and shared identity.
Political power comes with numbers. And although the many potential constituencies coalesce within communities that provide their own strong and passionate cores, the problem we face is broader than any one of these communities. We can build a strong movement only by assembling the broadest possible base of support. There are many victims of the medical industrial complex who share similar concerns and sympathies and they are increasingly recognizing their shared concerns and interests.
In a broadly distributed movement of voluntary advocates, a command and control model of action will never serve. Rather than seeking compliance, we can concentrate our voice by coming together around a set of shared principles. We have seen the appeal of a principle-driven coalition in some of our political activity and can extend this approach to a platform in which we protest the corruption of our institutions while raising the alarm over the harm done to the canaries.
Refining our principles awaits the opportunity to meet, discuss and debate as a group, but defining them will surely involve this set of ideas: Awareness; Precaution; Safety; Choice; Freedom; Justice; Scientific Integrity; Compassion.
With the right statement of principles we can extend the reach of our efforts by forming a political party. This movement should appeal to a diverse constituency of advocates; it can and must be ecumenical with respect to political beliefs that don’t bear on our principles; by focusing on a limited set of principles, we can seek to influence the platforms of other leaders in political parties and movements; and although we may begin our efforts where our leaders reside, we must embrace a global vision in support for silenced canaries everywhere.
One source of strength in our movement is our broad base of advocates. We can exploit this strength by giving advocates the tools to begin engaging directly in the political and legislative process. Although our opponents have more resources to bring to bear at a national level and in the mainstream media, we can maximize our advantage if we extend our engagement to the broadest possible geographic base, including activities in Washington DC, all 50 states as well as county, city and local political and policy forums.
A broad based movement will help us in creating many occasions for victories including elections. These victories might be achieved through ballot questions, candidate questionnaires, legislative initiatives and even sponsoring candidates for office.
In addition to sponsoring our own agenda through the political process, the movement will also benefit from identifying high profile opponents of our agenda and taking the fight to them. Under the right circumstances, movements define themselves not only by what they stand for, but also whom they stand against.
In the long run, the solution to the problem of institutional corruption in the medical industrial complex will require wholesale shifts in policy, governance and representation in many areas. Part of our movement’s ultimate success will depend on our skill in laying out a detailed agenda for change and influencing the political process to implement those changes. This is a long-term process, one in which success may come slowly at first. Every journey, however, begins with the first step.
What is to be done?
The first steps of the journey require only a few simple steps. The first steps ahead of us are these.
1. Recruit and mobilize a core constituency. The leading groups from which this constituency might be drawn include, but are not limited to
• Parents and families of injured children
o Autism parents and high-functioning autistic individuals
o Peanut allergy parents and sufferers
o Parents of Gardasil victims
o Vaccine Injury Compensation Program participants, both winners and losers
• Adult victims of the medical industrial complex
• Military personnel and veterans
• Medical professionals and service providers who seek to provide an alternative to the failed approaches of the medical industrial complex
2. Hold a party convention, an occasion to convene a broad group of skilled and experienced advocates who can carry the Canary Party agenda forward.
3. Draft an initial platform, one based on principles around which broad agreement is strongest.
4. Develop a working vision of success and set goals and strategies to take the movement there.
5. Decide on a near term plan of action in order to generate early momentum and the maximum possible leverage for change. Possible action areas include
• Introducing local ballot questions
• Drafting questionnaires to submit to candidates for elective office in which they respond to The Canary Platform
• Designing and sponsoring legislative initiatives at the national, state and local level
• Fielding candidates for office, including local, state and national positions
• Engaging in impact litigation where and when the opportunity is deemed necessary and furthers the goals of the Canary Party.
• Beginning to meaningfully harvest, educate, and focus the current court of public opinion which legitimately questions the safety of vaccines and the schedule.
Alison MacNeil, LICSW
Carol Stott, PhD, MSc (Epidemology), CSci, CPsychold
Ginger Taylor, MS
Heather Fraser, MA
Jane Winans, MA
John Oller, PhD
Julie Obradovic, MA Ed
Kathryne Pirtle, MA
Leslie J. Manookian
Leslie Phillips, MBA
Mark Blaxill, MBA
Richard Rovet, RN, BSN, Capt. USAF (RET)
Sherri Tenpenny, DO, AOBNMM