Tell Congress Your Vaccine Safety Concerns Pre-Hearing
Can’t attend the hearing on the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program?
You are not alone! The program created by congress to “swiftly and generously” provide compensation to care for those individuals harmed by vaccines is badly broken. Vaccine safety advocates continue to expose malfeasance within the NVICP, and on December 2013 the Congressional Committee on Oversight and Government Reform will investigate this dysfunctional program. Sadly, most of us who live with vaccine injury can ill afford the time or expense of traveling to Washington, DC.
But you can still have a voice in this historic proceeding!
The Canary Party has provided two methods by which you can tell congress your story:
1. Complete a brief questionnaire
We have created a survey that can be completed within a few minutes. Answers will be tabulated to provide the OGR committee an overview of how the NVICP worked or did not work for families affected by vaccine injury and death. You will have the ability to provide short comments for some of the questions. Click HERE to access the survey.
2. Submit written testimony
Tell congress what happened to you or your loved one. In your own words, describe how vaccines caused damage or death. What was your child like before the vaccine(s)? What were your own beliefs about vaccines? Did your experience with the NVICP help you or your child in any way? Report how your journey with vaccine injury has brought you to where you are today. You can write a paragraph, a page, or more. Email your story to email@example.com.
Deadline for submissions is November 27th. Survey data and testimonials will be submitted to the OGR Committee for inclusion as hearing exhibits. All submissions MUST include your name, email address, state and zip code. We may contact you if clarification is needed, and will redact your personal data before submitting your testimony to congress, if you prefer.
Feel free to complete the survey AND submit your full story. Excerpts from both methods may be used in oral testimony provided to congress. Thank you!
I just filled in the Canary Party survey on the NVICP asking if I knew about the program before vaccinating. Hard to say. In a way, I understood there was some kind of compensation program for the "rare one-in-a-million vaccine injury." But I had no idea what vaccine injury really looked like or what the NVICP was like. The more I hear about it now, the less I feel I understand in a way, but I don't see these awards as compensation really, assuming that is ever possible. The program from a distance sounds more like an information control process, a "pay-off" or silencing process of those best informed by harsh experience who happen to also have a pretty strong case, a conscious assuaging device for those administering vaccines possibly, obviously a cost-of-liability transference and denial device, as government argues with the few "compensated" over nickel-and-dime elements of care, and really an informed-consent violating program as case after case is sealed and a vaccine injury enabling program as the vaccine schedule continues to expand under widespread ignorance.
The doctor who came forward with EBCALA in 2011 describes the culture of "keep quiet" that she met with that came with the "compensation" her child obtained and in a way couldn't survive without:
She still believes in the importance of vaccines (at least that is what she indicated at the time of the interview), but the violation of informed consent does violate the rights of each and every vaccine recipient no matter what the outcome.
I cannot believe that violation is necessary. In fact I believe that complete openness is the only way to obtain the most benefit from vaccination (which may very well be zero, or less, from my perspective at this point), so I have to question the actual motives of the most informed who still push vaccines with selective data. If it is only the dogma that the "benefits of vaccines far outweigh the risks" that drives all the distrust of giving the average person all the facts while at the same time it appears they are bending over backwards not to gather all the facts, the potential for more harm than good is very real. Why isn't the program operating under a zealous dogma that the truth is what gets us to the quickest understanding and potential for advancement instead of a zealous hush-up?
And I fear as I see so many close their eyes that it is because at some level they are getting the same impression, but don't want to see it (Or they could just be way less cynical than I am. Or they could just be willing to harm others for their own short-term or long-term benefit and I'm not really as cynical as I think. What a relief?).
So here I'm left asking do I keep begging the medical profession to stop making vaccines look suspicious by calling for diligent adverse event reporting, real research and investigation, real efforts to reverse injury, instead of just pushing vaccines so hard, or just step back and let their actions speak for themselves? Which will better protect our vulnerable children in the long run? I'm tired of feeling like a duped punching-bag just asking for more by trying to make things safer, but I suppose it's possible the way we are often treated speaks volumes, when it is seen. I just don't know if the majority are watching and even want to be informed by our experience?
And do we support "reform" of the unconstitutional NVICP or move to end it and let vaccines compete in the open free market (which will take other reforms of the current medical system) with "alternate" healthcare practices and free choice generating demand? The special protection given them by the "vaccine court" does suggest they are not as wonderful as they are marketed to be. Maybe the "threat" by industry to stop making vaccines was the market informing us vaccines do not overall provide benefit to society with today's technology? I'm really honestly suspicious. And it doesn't inspire confidence to watch various vaccines-are-sacred internet "proponents" laud this program. Maybe pharma should pay them to stop (assuming this is not already a paid practice)? I'm still sure some will want vaccines no matter what and I'm all for that being an option, but the whole mainstream setup with medical boards, "peer review," FDA fast-tracking drugs and threatening cherry farmers, the corporate-government revolving door that looks more and more like they are just moving in together, all this just does not inspire confidence, and likely prevents health progress. Can't you guys (speaking the medical mainstream), the "best medical system in the world," compete in a true free market system? Do you really contribute productively to society or are you really a drain, a huge government, slavery-supported-through-taxation progress-forestalling drain?
Posted by: Jeannette Bishop | November 12, 2013 at 06:30 PM