The Canary Party is a movement created to stand up for the victims of medical injury, environmental toxins and industrial foods by restoring balance to our free and civil society and empowering consumers to make health and nutrition decisions that promote wellness.
“If the people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny.” -Thomas Jefferson
There is no disputing it. The Greater Good is a film that is making an impact.
Not many films have school board presidents writing open letters urging other parents to watch it and "to begin the discussion within their own families about the benefits and risks associated with vaccinations." On Friday, Greg Marvel of the San Ramon Valley Unified School District did just that.
My name is Greg Marvel, and I am currently the President of the Board of Education for the San Ramon Unified School District. I am serving my third term on the Board. In addition, I have an extensive background in educational administration, having served in various executive and Assistant CEO capacities in various K-12 and higher education institutions. I retired as a Vice Chancellor from a large college system and now am President of a consulting firm with over 100 school districts as clients. The comments in this letter are solely my own, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the rest of the Board of Education or my school district.
I recently had the opportunity to view the firm “The Greater Good” and found it to be very thought provoking. I am a strong believer in the use of vaccines. However, I also believe in informed consent for all parents. The tragic examples of the unintended consequences of vaccines on some of our children are graphically portrayed in this film. However, it presents a balanced argument, with national experts advocating for universal vaccination, while others in the film present cautionary arguments.
I have personal experiences with the potential adverse impacts of vaccinations on young children. My daughter was given her recommended series of vaccinations as a baby and small child. Each time, she became seriously ill for several days. We were assured that for some children that was normal. No one ever outlined the potential long-term and permanent damage that some children experience from vaccination routines. Thankfully, the impact on our daughter did appear to be temporary and she went on to graduate with honors from high school, UC Berkeley and Columbia University Law School. However, this film clearly outlines examples where the consequences were much more serious and long-term.
Parents should be encouraged to examine all the issues surrounding vaccinations and make an informed decision about what is best for their children. For many if not most parents, the decision to proceed will prove to be the right one. However, it is important that parents fully investigate and understand the benefits and the risks associated with the current recommended vaccinations and their opt out rights under their respective “mandatory” state vaccination laws.
I see this film as a starting point for each viewer to begin the discussion within their own families about the benefits and risks associated with vaccinations, and thus strongly recommend that every parent watch this film.
Greg A. Marvel
President, Board of Education
The documentary's look into the problems in vaccination today is reasoned, fair and powerful, and despite establishment attempts to keep it out of major film festivals and off the radar of the American people, it is getting out there any way. It started with smaller festivals, then individuals began screenning it for friends, then Mercola and Natural News got it out there, and now Current TV will be running it this week.
It will be showing on Current TV this Friday, March 24th, at 1pm Eastern, and will be followed by a live chat eith the producers.
"Did vaccinations give Jordan Autism, or did they merely aggravate a pre-existing condition? This and other tough questions are being debated around the world. "The Greater Good" explores the cultural intersections where parenting meets modern medicine and individual rights collide with politics.
"The Greater Good" premieres March 24, 2012, at 1p.m. EST on Current TV. Join the producers of the film back here for a live online chat when the film premiers at Current.com/GreaterGood."
We encourage parents of vaccine injured children to join the discussion after the film and share your experiences with others.
The most egregious state bill in the pharma attempt to circumvent parents to vaccinate children directly (and illegally) was killed in committee today in Maryland.
HB 561 would have allowed pharmacists to vaccinate children as young as nine years old with any FDA approved vaccine without parental consent. This, of course violates the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, which requires parents of a minor be given CDC approved materials on the benefits and risks of the vaccine before a child can be vaccinated, as does the recently passed AB 499 in California. Similar legislation has also been introduced in New York.
We encourage Marylanders to contact these representatives and express their concern over this cynical attempt to improve vaccine sales by cutting parents out of health decisions for children, violating parental rights and violating federal law.
Capitol Office: State Capitol P.O. Box 942849 Sacramento, CA 94249-0005 Tel: (916) 319-2005 Fax: (916) 319-2105
District Office: Sacramento State University Modoc Hall, Suite 1009 3020 State University Drive East Sacramento, CA 95819 Tel: (916) 452-0505 Fax: (916) 452-5525
Dear Assemblyperson Pan,
I represent the California members of the Canary Party, a political action committee dedicated to health freedom and choice in medicine.
Our members vehemently oppose AB2109.
AB2109 would require parents who wish to exercise their philosophical exemption rights to first consult with a medical practitioner. This is an unnecessary intrusion into the rights of parents.
Parents currently have the option of the Philosophical Exemption Law (also referred to as the Personal Belief Exemption), which ensures they do not have to vaccinate their children if it is against "their personally held beliefs". Personally held beliefs include religious and spiritual beliefs, as well as conscientious and moral beliefs.
The state does not have the right to interfere with, question, add obstacles to, or regulate a closely held belief that is protected by law.
Furthermore, requiring parents to seek out and pay for a consultation with a medical practitioner is an unfair and unnecessary burden to families. Many families see alternative practitioners such as Naturopaths, Homeopaths, Chiropractors and Acupuncturists, who are not permitted to sign these forms under the rules of AB2109. Thus, these parents would be required to pay to see medical practitioners that they have already chosen not to use. This is an offensive and costly intrusion into their lives, and a violation of their right to make their own medical and healthcare decisions.
This law will create an unfair financial burden to families at a time when few can afford any additional expenses. Numerous resources exist regarding the risks and benefits of vaccines, and about infectious diseases, and are readably available in libraries and on the internet at no cost. Parents should not be forced to seek out additional and unnecessary medical coercion forced upon them by the state.
In closing, we believe this bill is a tactic being initiated by pharmaceutical and medical lobbyists, who have made substantial contributions to CA state legislators, to increase their profits without regard for the law, parental rights, parental beliefs, or the health and welfare of California’s children.
We respectfully request that you immediately withdraw AB2109.
Your donations are needed to further our work to protect the health and rights of Americans.
Just a few short months ago, a small group of people from all over the U.S. gathered for a weekend in Minneapolis, Minnesota for the first ever Canary Party Convention.
Their goal was to unite several groups who all shared common stories of human injustice by the medical industrial complex. Some were whistleblowers who had endured being wrongfully terminated from their jobs after they spoke out about corruption in the field of medicine. Some were parents who watched their children die or suffer permanent brain damage after forced medical interventions. Some had lost loved ones to hastily-approved drugs that were pushed by doctors without regard for the individual patient’s welfare. Some were leaders in the fight for real food, food freedom and GMO labeling. And some were doctors who have lost faith in the current state of “health” care in the U.S. All were disgusted with the fact that, despite the astronomical costs allocated for health care in our country, we have the poorest health in the industrialized world.
These passionate and motivated individuals came together to outline and define the guiding principles of the Canary Party.
Since that initial convention, the Canary Party has taken flight! Thousands of citizens concerned about health freedom have signed up to support the cause. Three regional conferences have taken place in Boston, Dallas and
Congressman Kucinich has introduced similar bills several times
since 1999. At present there is no matching Senate bill. However, Senator
Barbara Boxer of California has previously introduced mandatory labeling
legislation and currently is building awareness and support for mandatory
labeling through a Dear
For more than two decades consumers have pushed back against food
industry attempts to place genetically modified foods in the family grocery
cart. Originally referred to as Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO or GM), the
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) often uses the term “bioengineered” and
legislators and others have adopted the term genetically engineered (GE). Throughout
this article, the various terms GE, GM, and GMO will all be referred to with
the acronym GE.
There are dozens of groups that are working in a loose coalition to
suspend the approval, commercialization, and release of any new genetically
engineered crops and animal species until or unless they are thoroughly tested
and found safe for human health and the environment. Additionally, these groups
support moves to require foods
that already contain genetically engineered ingredients to be clearly labeled.
has provided the following bullet points as an outline of the 3-piece framework
I. HR 3553: The Genetically Engineered
Food Right to Know Act:
Requires food companies to label all
foods that contain or are produced with genetically engineered (GE) material
and requires the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to
The Canary Party: Contact Ginger Taylor 855-722-5282 or
Dr. Andrew Wakefield’s co-author on controversial Lancet “MMR paper” completely exonerated of all charges of professional misconduct
World renowned pediatric gastroenterologist Prof. John Walker-Smith won his appeal today against the United Kingdom’s General Medical Council regulatory board that had ruled against both him and Andrew Wakefield for their roles in the 1998 Lancet MMR paper, which raised questions about a link to autism. The complete victory means that Walker-Smith has been returned to the status of a fully licensed physician in the UK, although he had already retired in 2001 — six years before the GMC trial even began.
Justice John Mitting ruled on the appeal by Walker-Smith, saying that the GMC “panel’s determination cannot stand. I therefore quash it.” He said that its conclusions were based on “inadequate and superficial reasoning and, in a number of instances, a wrong conclusion.” The verdict restores Walker-Smith’s name to the medical register and his reputation to the medical community. This conclusion is not surprising, as the GMC trial had no actual complainants, no harm came to the children who were studied, and parents supported Walker-Smith and Wakefield through the trial, reporting that their children had medically benefited from the treatment they received at the Royal Free Hospital.
While John Walker-Smith received funding to appeal the GMC decision from his insurance carrier, his co-author Andrew Wakefield did not — and was therefore unable to mount an appeal in the high court. This year, however, Dr. Wakefield, who now conducts his research in the US, has filed a defamation lawsuit against Brian Deer, Fiona Godlee and the British Medical Journal for falsely accusing him of “fraud.” The suit is currently underway in Texas, where Wakefield now lives. The ruling today bodes well for Dr. Wakefield’s suit against Deer, on whose reporting the entire GMC hearing was based.
In 1998 the Lancet published a case series on twelve children receiving treatment for bowel dysfunction at the Royal Free Hospital in London. The paper called for further study of a possible association between bowel disease and developmental delay, including cases of autism. It also noted that eight of the children’s gastrointestinal and autistic symptoms began shortly after they received the MMR vaccination. The verdict today raises questions about whether or not the Lancet should have retracted the paper after the GMC decision, as the reasons for its retraction have now been contradicted by the judge’s decision.
The thirteen original co-authors of the 1998 Lancet case series were members of the Royal Free’s Inflammatory Bowel Disease Study Group. In 2004, under pressure from the British medical establishment, ten of the co-authors signed a letter retracting an interpretation of the paper that it proved that vaccines caused autism, which the paper never actually claimed in the first place. John Walker-Smith, Andrew Wakefield and Dr. Simon Murch were subsequently brought up on misconduct charges before the GMC. The proceedings resulted in Walker-Smith and Wakefield being found guilty and being “struck off” the medical register, while Dr. Murch retained his status as a physician. Wakefield was then vilified by corporate media and by bloggers eager to repeat scandal and engage in industry protectionism, rather than investigate the complicated facts of the story.
Today, almost 14 years after the paper was published, the high court determined that John Walker-Smith was innocent of the wrongdoing alleged by the GMC. Judge Mitting reported that the GMC, “on the basis of sensible instructions, does not invite me to remit it to a fresh Fitness to Practice panel for redetermination. The end result is that the finding of serious professional misconduct and the sanction of erasure are both quashed.”
British parents from the group CryShame, which includes parents of the Lancet 12, issued a statement saying that they “welcome with immense relief the end of the eight year ordeal of Prof John Walker-Smith and the quashing of all substantive charges against him in the High Court, and wish him their heartfelt congratulations at finally clearing his name.”
“Though justice has finally prevailed for Prof. Walker-Smith, the damage done to him and his colleagues has been incalculable,” said Mark Blaxill, chairman of the Canary Party. “The UK government must investigate the corruption in theGMC, which has severely damaged the reputations of good, honest doctors. Most of all, it’s outrageous that Dr. Andrew Wakefield has been vilified by government officials, vaccine manufacturers and physician organizations, and that the media has accepted these unfounded accusations uncritically.”
“It’s time that we started treating responsible parents as reliable witnesses to serious adverse reactions to medical procedures such as vaccination,” said Jennifer Larson, president of the Canary Party. “The work that Walker-Smith and his colleagues at the Royal Free Hospital did with the Lancet 12 was medically necessary and above reproach. No patient complained, and the charges against the Royal Free team came only from a freelance journalist writing for a Rupert Murdoch newspaper. Meanwhile, the findings reported in the Lancet paper have been replicated in numerous scientific publications and reported by thousands of parents all over the world.”
“It is quite obvious to me that James Murdoch, Brian Deer and GlaxoSmithKline orchestrated the smear attack on Dr. Andrew Wakefield,” said Ginger Taylor, executive director of the Canary Party. “A judge has now ruled that the GMC hearings were a farce. Parents are waiting for journalists to find their spine and start some honest reporting on the character assassination of doctors that is blocking medical treatments for vaccine injured children, and the role that GSK and Merck may be playing to protect their profits on the MMR vaccine. The Canary Party honors and stands by doctors of integrity like Prof. Walker-Smith, who continue to fight and defend their hard-won reputations for going the extra mile to investigate and improve the chronic, difficult-to-treat cases that now permeate our society.”