Childhood Vaccines: What you really should know - Testimony by Ted Kuntz

14.06.2023 | www.kla.tv/26303

“The number of parents in this country who actually gave informed consent [Informed consent = principle of full transparency for patients before treatment. Agreed upon internationally in the Nuremberg Code 1947] to any of the childhood vaccinations was probably very few, if any.” this is a quote by Ted Kuntz after 40 years of research and activism on behalf of the most vulnerable in our populations: the children. Ted Kuntz is the father of a vaccine injured child and president of the medical freedom group Vaccine Choice Canada – and he recently testified under oath to the National Citizens Inquiry in Canada. He explained the shocking lack of safety testing, the government censorship of important facts in lawmaking processes and the information withheld from parents that he witnessed concerning childhood vaccines. And all this in Canada, a country where informed consent should be the absolute minimum standard. His evidence shows a strain of serious malpractice by vaccine manufacturers, government and media directly affecting our children. We are publishing Ted Kuntz testimony now and encourage everybody to consider the findings he describes. One last thing before we start right in: These findings need to be publicly discussed in an international independent court of the people. A big thanks to the Public National Citizens Inquiry in Canada to for going the first step and making these hearings available to all. Please share this vital information with parents you know and your friends. Please note: this is an automatically generated transcript of the speech at the NCI and will include mistakes because we did not have time to let a human go over it again. NCI-Moderator: So our next witness is Mr. Ted Kuntz. And Ted, do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Ted Kuntz: I do. NCI-Moderator: Now my understanding is, is that you are the parent of a vaccine-injured child? Ted Kuntz: That's correct. NCI-Moderator: And that you're also now president of Vaccine Choice Canada? Ted Kuntz: Yes. NCI-Moderator: Can you share with us briefly what Vaccine Choice Canada is? Ted Kuntz: Vaccine Choice Canada is an association of parents, primarily parents of vaccine-injured children. It's a group that came together in Ontario in 1982 when the government of Ontario instituted new legislation that removed the right to inform consent. The Ontario government introduced legislation that made it mandatory for children to be fully vaccinated in order to attend public school. The original legislation did not have provision for personal belief or religious exemptions, and so a group of parents lobbied the government for two years, and in 1984 they were successful in having those exemptions included in new legislation. And so that group of parents represent those that firmly believe in the right to inform consent and the right to dissent, but it's also a group of parents that experienced vaccine injury and knew that we had to protect children from the harms that vaccines can cause. And so I'd just like to add... NCI-Moderator: You can take a minute. Ted Kuntz: That I am one father sitting here, but I want you to know that behind me are thousands of parents of vaccine-injured children, and I feel like I'm speaking on their behalf. And my position is that while what we're experiencing in the last three years is more intense, it's not new. And so I'd like to walk the commissioners through an understanding of how what we're experiencing is actually a continuation of practices and policies that we've seen in this country for 40 years. I just want to make clear is that Vaccine Choice Canada is about choice. It's about protecting the right to inform consent. The media would have you believe that we're anti-vaxxers, and I have worked very hard trying to correct that misunderstanding, and they don't seem able to recognize the distinction between being an anti-vaxxer and being somebody who is pro-informed consent. So let's begin with what informed consent is. According to the Canadian Medical Protective Association, for consent to serve as a defense against allegations of either negligence or assault and battery, the consent must have been voluntary, meaning free of coercion or any threats of reprisal. Also, the patient must have the capacity to consent, and the patient must have been properly informed on the purported benefits, significant risks, and alternative treatment options. Now, given the testimony that we've heard about what's happened over the last three years, I don't think anyone would disagree that no one in this country gave informed consent to the COVID vaccination. And the reason I say that is that the significant risks were not known, and that alternative treatment options were not permitted. But I would suggest to you that, in this country, that the number of parents who actually gave informed consent to any of the childhood vaccinations was probably very few, if any. And just to give you why I think that to be true, any of you that have gone to your pharmacy for a prescription will get a product that has a product information insert in it. And I've brought one to give you an example of what one looks like. This here is a product information insert for a sleep aid. Do you have any idea what the product information insert for a vaccine looks like? Let me show you. This is a slide that shows the product information insert for the HPV vaccine that is given to our adolescent boys and girls in this country. In my experience, unless the parent is absolutely committed to getting the product information insert, it is denied them. And so the number of medical consumers, the number of patients who's actually read the information that outlines the ingredients, what the vaccine is indicated for, what it's contraindicated for, the recognized adverse events is very few, if any. What most people don't understand is that vaccines are treated very different from pharmaceutical products. They undergo a different level of safety testing, and the lack of informed consent, I would suggest, is part of the systemic way that we respond to vaccination in this country. So this is a slide that has the words of Dr. Eric Rubin, who's with the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee, and he said, we are never going to learn about how safe a vaccine is unless we start giving it. It would appear that the agenda of our governments and our health industry is not safety, it's about vaccination. And I provide this slide as an example of the perspective that is being held by governments. This is a slide that comes from the Federal Register, which is the official journal of the U.S. government that contains agency rules and public notices. And this statement was delivered in 1984 in response to increasing concerns about the safety of the polio vaccine. And the response of the government was this, any possible doubts, whether or not well-founded, about the safety of the vaccine cannot be allowed to exist in view of the need to ensure that the vaccine will continue to be used to the maximum extent consistent with the nation's public health objectives. How I read that is, it's our goal to vaccinate everybody, safety be damned. NCI-Moderator: Ted, if I might interrupt you, I think that it's somewhat opposite, that the date, the year of that is 1984, the same year as George Orwell's book. Ted Kuntz: Yes, and the same year that my son was injured. There are a number of concerns about vaccine safety, and these are just a few. First of all, none of the vaccines on Health Canada's recommended childhood vaccination schedule were tested against a neutral placebo. NCI-Moderator: Just wait a second, did you just say that none, not a single vaccine in Canada's childhood vaccine schedule has been tested against a placebo? Ted Kuntz: Yes, the only exception to that was there was a very small cohort in the testing of the HPV vaccine, and just like they did with COVID, they very quickly moved that into a vaccinated population, and so the data from there got lost. All of the other vaccines, none of them were tested against a neutral placebo. NCI-Moderator: How many, how many childhood vaccines are in the Canadian vaccine schedule? Ted Kuntz: 17 different vaccines. NCI-Moderator: Okay, so there's 17 different vaccines, and we've learned from medical experts that really the only way to understand both safety and efficacy is a sizable double-blind clinical trial where the intervention, in this case a vaccine, is being tested, tested against a placebo. Ted Kuntz: That's correct. NCI-Moderator: So, but you're telling us that for 16 out of the 17 vaccines that are injected into our children, there's actually never been a sizable or any type of double blind clinical trial, let alone a sizable one that would be statistically significant? Ted Kuntz: That's correct. So their claims that the vaccine is safe are unproven, and again, the way they determine safety is by the amount of adverse events that are reported after vaccination, and I wonder if parents in this country know that. So to me, that's the most egregious violation of what we would understand as robust safety testing. The second is that childhood vaccines are actively monitored for safety for only a few days, or at most a few weeks, before they are licensed for use. As a matter of fact, the range of active monitoring is between 48 hours and four weeks, and I have a chart that will explain that in more detail. NCI-Moderator: Right, but you just told us that they're not subject to double-blind clinical trials, which would reveal safety concerns, that the only way we're testing for safety is we're putting them on the market and looking for safety signals, and now you're telling us that we're only looking for safety signals for a short period of time, up to four weeks? Ted Kuntz: At the longest, yes, and some for as short as 48 hours. NCI-Moderator: Okay, I'm sorry, continue. Ted Kuntz: And then finally, and there's many more, but these are the key ones, there's not enough time to show whether a vaccine causes autoimmune, neurological, or developmental conditions, and other chronic conditions. So this is a chart that's taken from Richard Moskowitz's book, Vaccinations, a Reappraisal, and if you look at this chart, I don't know, the writing is small, but let me just read it to you. This lists a number of the childhood vaccines and the active monitoring period. So for Hep B, it was actively monitored for five days and included 147 participants. DTaP for eight days. Polio for three days. Pneumonococcus for seven days. Meningococcal for seven days. MMR for 42 days. Hepatitis B for four days. Hib for three days. Rotavirus for eight days, and influenza for four days. NCI-Moderator: So for hepatitis B, so first of all, hepatitis, my understanding is, and correct me if I'm wrong, is tends to be a disease that one obtains through having sex with somebody who's infected or sharing a intravenous needle, so if you were a drug user, with somebody who's infected. Is that correct? Ted Kuntz: Yes. NCI-Moderator: And the children, by and large, don't fit into that category. They tend not to be, especially pre-pubescent, having sex, and they're not sharing as a group dirty needles. Ted Kuntz: That's correct. NCI-Moderator: Okay, but be that as a, and I just raised that because one questions why that disease wouldn't, or that vaccine wouldn't just be available to adults, but you're saying they only, so they didn't run a double blind clinical trial for safety and efficacy, is that correct? Ted Kuntz: That's correct. NCI-Moderator: And as far as for measuring for safety, they only measured for five days. Ted Kuntz: Actively monitored for five days. NCI-Moderator: And what do you mean by actively monitored? Ted Kuntz: They contact the person who has received the vaccine and ask if they had any adverse effects. NCI-Moderator: Okay, so the passive monitoring system, people can still, or medical professionals can still file an adverse reaction report. Ted Kuntz: Theoretically. NCI-Moderator: But they are active, and the number of that, I think it was just 147 participants. Ted Kuntz: Yes. NCI-Moderator: So a sample size, that would be statistically meaningless. Ted Kuntz: Yes. And if I can just add to your question about the hep B and understanding what it's indicated for, the hep B is given to our babies on their first day of life. NCI-Moderator: I'm sorry, you must have misspoke. You said that the hepatitis B vaccine is given to children on their first day of life, so babies? Ted Kuntz: That's correct. NCI-Moderator: Okay. We're learning new things. Please continue. Ted Kuntz: So I want to continue on some of the safety concerns. So if you read the vaccine safety insert, that monograph, it clearly says that vaccines have not been tested for the following conditions. Their ability to cause cancer, damage to an organism, damage to genetic information within a cell, to change the genetic information of an organism, to impair fertility, or for long-term adverse events. That's what the product information insert says. NCI-Moderator: Which vaccine is that for? Ted Kuntz: All of them. NCI-Moderator: All of them. Meaning the 17 on the childhood schedule. Ted Kuntz: Correct. So then as we talked about, there's a voluntary reporting period after that, which relies upon physicians to report an adverse event to a vaccination. And in my experience, what I've learned is that physicians are not trained to recognize vaccine injury. They're discouraged from reporting vaccine injury. They believe that vaccines are safe. The reporting is voluntary, and there's no accountability when professionals fail to report a vaccine injury. When parents like myself report a vaccine injury, this is what we're told. It's just a coincidence. This is normal. It would have happened anyways. You have poor genes. You're looking for somebody to blame, and it couldn't have been the vaccine. And I know this because all of these excuses were given to me when I insisted that my son was vaccine injured. To me, if Health Canada was very concerned about vaccine safety, they would have conducted vaccinated versus unvaccinated studies. But the government refuses to do so in spite of many efforts to request that they conduct vaccinated versus unvaccinated studies. Their response is that it would be unethical to have an unvaccinated population. And my response and many others is that there already is an unvaccinated population. You simply have to look for that data, but the government refused to do so. But there has been two studies that have done in recent years that compare vaccinated versus unvaccinated. So this chart shows the results of a study that was conducted looking at Vax versus unvaccinated 12 to 17 year olds in the United States. It was conducted by the Children's Medical Safety Research Institute, and these the size of the figures indicates their likelihood of having chronic medical condition. So the littlest person that's on the left is an unvaccinated population. The next one is is chronic illness. So 2.4 times the likelihood of a chronic illness. If you're vaccinated, eczema 2.9 times neurological disorders, 3.7 times autism 4.2 times, and I would suggest it's much higher now. ADHD 4.2 times learning disabilities 5.2 times and allergic rhinitis, which we often call hay fever, is 30 times. So this gives you some representation of the increased likelihood of having a chronic condition if you're vaccinated. NCI-Moderator: Okay, can I ask you what is the measurement of vaccination? There's how many vaccines would the participants typically had just so that we have some measure of of the meaning of that chart. Ted Kuntz: I don't know that number, but the vaccine schedule in the United States is almost identical to what we have in Canada. NCI-Moderator: Okay. And so you're telling us that in Canada, because you had said on the vaccine schedule earlier for Children at 17. But by the time basically someone is a teenager in Canada, if they're getting all the vaccines that they're supposed to, they're getting a full 72. Ted Kuntz: Yes. So the way you get to 72 is there are 17 different vaccines. But you have to understand that some of those vaccines have three and four vaccines in one shot. So the M. M. R. Is actually three. D. P. T. Is three. And so when you factor in all of those, you're you're actually getting 72. NCI-Moderator: Not including the covid vaccine. Ted Kuntz: Not including Covid. So this next chart is comes out of the safety studies that were conducted by Dr Paul Thomas, who's a pediatrician in Oregon in the United States. And Dr Thomas shares the testimony that he was a typical family physician, pediatrician giving vaccinations to virtually all of his patients. Until he began to recognize that some of his patients were being harmed by the vaccines, particularly regressing into autism. And so he began to do homework. He said he should have done before and he began to recognize that vaccines are not as safe as he was led to believe. And he started giving his taking informed consent seriously with his patients. And as a result of that, he ended up having the largest unvaccinated and partially vaccinated population of Children in America. The Oregon Public Health uh got wind of the fact that he was not fully vaccinating most of his patients and they challenged him and said what makes you think that your uh recommendations to your patients are better than the CDC's? And he said, well, first of all, they're not my recommendations. I simply give parents information and many choose to opt out of some or all of them. But he said, I'm willing to take up the challenge. And so he hired a statistician to go over his patient files and compare that to the standard in America. And this is what the chart looks like. This is just a sampling of the chronic conditions. And so the blue line is the unvaccinated population and the red line is the vaccinated population. And this is the number of office visits for the various medical conditions over a length of time. So the bottom axis is length of time and the vertical axis is the number of office visits. And you'll see that the vaccinated population has significantly more need for medical services than the unvaccinated population. And I'd like to continue on with Dr Thomas's story when he came out with the data that showed that an unvaccinated population was significantly healthier than a vaccinated population. The Oregon Board of Health had an emergency meeting two days after the release of his data and they took away his medical license. The reason I'm showing this slide is that vaccine choice can in 2019 contracted with a billboard company in Toronto Ontario to put up some billboards. This is one of them and this is the second one. We actually had four billboards and they basically asked very basic questions and we were contracted to put them up for 30 days. And within four days the Ontario government forced the billboards to come down. Another example of censorship is that I was with an organization called Health Action Network Society was actually president of the board and in 2018 there was increasing concern about vaccine hesitancy and this is when the measles outbreak was in Disneyland and it was being blamed on misinformation and vaccine hesitancy. And so I wrote an article that I've submitted as part of my testimony about how to reduce vaccine hesitancy and I had very basic information. Do good science, be transparent, give informed consent, be independent monitoring, accountability and as a result of that article that was published in our Health Action Network journal, a CBC reporter did quite a an attack on the organization and then lobbied the government to have the charitable gaming funding removed from the organization and she was successful in that endeavor and the organization was forced to close because they had no money. NCI-Moderator: And my understanding is that the Health Action Network Society had been around for decades, like 30 plus years. Ted Kuntz: Since 1982. NCI-Moderator: Right and had really been instrumental in basically providing health information on a wide range of subjects to people in the Lower Mainland and they had the library people could visit and the entire thing that their their mandate was to educate. Ted Kuntz: That's right and they were involved in everything from fluoridation of water to mercury levels in water to pesticide use and herbicide use in school playgrounds etc etc. So an illustrious organization with more than three decades of service was shut down within six months because of this one article that I wrote. NCI-Moderator: And just so that everyone is aware of this article will be made an exhibit in these proceedings so the public and the commissioners can review it. Ted Kuntz: So I'd like to move on that the efforts to vaccinate children without parental consent is not new. If you go online you will see articles like this how to get vaccinated without parental consent. And if I can read the words to you there it says there's a lot of misinformation about vaccines online and sometimes well-meaning parents fall into rabbit holes of conspiracy theories and made-up facts. While they often intend to protect their children, not vaccinating has the opposite effect and leaves kids more vulnerable to dangerous and even deadly diseases. There are significant efforts to undermine a parent's what I would say is their right and the responsibility to make medical decisions for their children. We witnessed that over the last couple of years. What I can tell you is that every province in Canada has either what's called a mature minor doctrine or an infants act that allows medical authorities to dispense medical treatments to young people without the knowledge of the consent of the parents. That legislation was initially brought in to allow the giving of birth control and abortion services to teenagers without the parent knowledge and has been extended to vaccinations. And so we we see what now where they're putting vaccine clinics in schools and they will I can tell you that this is what happens is that they will say all grade sevens please report to the gym. And by the very fact that you report to the gym and you stand in line and when they ask you to roll up your sleeve and you roll up your sleeve they deem that informed consent even though the parent doesn't know. And I would suggest... NCI-Moderator: And the grade seven kids are you know they not knowing what's going on are just going to generally do what they're told and then there's the peer pressure like they wouldn't even know whether or not they should be asking questions. Ted Kuntz: Exactly. They don't know their family history of vaccinations. They don't know the medical history. They don't know the complications that might have been there for other family members. And I hear we hear reports over and over again of children coming home from school and saying mom I got two needles today. What was that for? I don't know we just did it. NCI-Moderator: So you know what's interesting about that is so we could have... At what age are kids able to consent? Ted Kuntz: Well some of the provinces have a set age. It's been getting lower and lower and some provinces like British Columbia. NCI-Moderator: Can you give us some examples? Ted Kuntz: Most provinces it's 12 years of age. NCI-Moderator: Okay so 12 years of age. So the interesting thing there is that for adults we're aware that in some cases we can get the right to make medical decisions for other people. So I had at one point had the right to make medical decisions for one of my family members. Could any of us imagine given a 12 year old the right to make medical decisions for another person? And even just me saying that sounds so ridiculous. And yet we have states, provinces in Canada giving 12 year olds the right to make medical decisions for themselves. That's basically what you're telling us. Ted Kuntz: That's exactly what I'm telling you. And in provinces like British Columbia there is no designated age of consent of what they call a mature minor. And I am aware of children as young as nine being deemed to be mature enough to make a medical decision about vaccination. Now I also want to point out... NCI-Moderator: These are children whose parents are available to make the decisions for them. This isn't like emergency situation where the parents can't be reached and yet they're asking the child for the child's consent. Ted Kuntz: That's correct. The other twist to this that I'll point out is that it's been deemed that a child as young as nine has the maturity to consent to a vaccine but doesn't have the maturity to refuse a vaccine. NCI-Moderator: Well that's interesting isn't it? So because that's completely inconsistent logically. Ted Kuntz: So this is the situation we're in today. And I just want to point out is that Pfizer in particular but other are marketing to our children. And so this is children's cartoons that are being sponsored by Pfizer and by biotech. I want to talk about vaccine coercion and that's not new either. And so let me point out that Ontario as I said introduced legislation in 1982 to make vaccines mandatory. The other provinces only two provinces in Canada vaccine legislation. The other one is New Brunswick. And New Brunswick in 2019 though they had legislation that allowed for personal belief and religious exemption in 2019 introduced legislation to remove personal belief and religious exemption allowing only for medical exemption which in our experience is exceedingly difficult to secure. Ontario in 2019 introduced new policies that said if a parent did not fully vaccinate with every available recommended vaccine that they were required to take an education session. And then if they still insisted on not receiving every available vaccine that they had to sign an affidavit saying that they are knowingly putting their child's life at risk. NCI-Moderator: So basically they had to sign an affidavit that they could be criminally liable for failing to provide the necessities of life assuming that a court would accept that vaccines are safe and effective. Ted Kuntz: That's right. And let me just point out when New Brunswick introduced their legislation in 2019 they formed a subcommittee to hear testimony over three days and vaccine choice candidate attended that subcommittee and made testimony. And we also secured international experts to fly to New Brunswick to also give testimony. And the experience I had because I testified on behalf of vaccine choice candidates that this felt like an exercise in making it appear to do the right thing because it seemed like no matter what the expert said that the legislators didn't seem to be moved by the testimony until the last day. And on the last day the public health officer was asked to testify and they asked her why she was bringing in this legislation. And she said well we have to bring it in because there's been 11 cases of measles in the last year. And so the astute legislator said OK and of those 11 children that got measles how many of them were vaccinated and the public health officer said I refuse to give you that information. And the legislator said I'm not looking for the names of the children. I'm looking for a number between zero and 11. How many of those 11 cases were vaccinated. And the public health officer refused to answer. And I would suggest that's when the committee shifted its energy and they realized that they were being misled by the public health officer and that bill was defeated. We did a freedom of information request. We did a freedom of information request and we learned it took a year to get the results that nine of the 11 were fully vaccinated. One was partially vaccinated and only one was unvaccinated. That government three months later reintroduced the legislation that had failed. But this time they included the notwithstanding clause that basically declared that they knew they were violating the Charter of Rights and Freedoms but they were going to do it anyways. NCI-Moderator: And just so that people listening to your evidence understand that Section 33 of the Constitution Act of 1982 which includes our Charter of Rights and Freedoms permits a government to pass a law that violates a list of freedoms that are set out in the Charter providing they put a clause in the bill saying yeah notwithstanding the Charter we're passing this law. So we know we're deliberately violating your Charter rights and the safety valve is that that law only lasts for five years and they would have to repass it and do it again. So just so that you understand what Mr. Kuntz is speaking about. Ted Kuntz: And the reason they introduced that legislation that addition to the legislation is when I gave my testimony I used all 30 minutes to talk about safety concerns much of what I've shared here. And when it came time for questions they didn't ask me about safety. The question they asked me was if we pass this bill will Vaccine Choice Canada take us to the Supreme Court of Canada? And I said yes. The other deception that I want to speak to which is part of the coercion is this idea that those that are unvaccinated are a danger to the public health. And the impression that most people have is that all vaccines prevent infection and transmission. And what we learned around the covid vaccine, it doesn't do that. Well, there are five vaccines that actually don't prevent infection or transmission. They're not designed to. They're designed to reduce the severity of symptoms. And those vaccines are the polio vaccine, diphtheria, influenza, pertussis and tetanus. The public doesn't understand that these vaccines aren't all designed to prevent infection or transmission. NCI-Moderator: In fact, if I can stop you, I probably speak for most Canadians in saying that prior to the covid experience, my expectation would be that literally 100% of Canadians would believe because of the word vaccine that a vaccine is something that that gives you immunity from a disease that prevents a disease. But you're indicating to us that for five vaccines or what are called vaccines that they don't give us immunity, that the indication is to reduce symptoms. Ted Kuntz: That's correct. And these these would be vaccines, I presume based on your earlier testimony in which there has not been a double blind clinical trial to determine whether or not they even reduce symptoms compared to a placebo. That's correct. And let me just give an example of some of that coercion when they were promoting the DPT shot, which is the pertussis, which is whooping cough. Some people here may remember that there were commercials on TV that showed a grandmother and a grandfather greeting a newborn grandchild. And then the head of the parent would turn into a wolf. And the what was being said was is that you could be passing on pertussis to your grandchild. Get the vaccine. So that was the advertisement. The truth is, is that the pertussis vaccine does not prevent infection or transmission. It reduces symptoms. And so the grandparent would not, it would not stop infection or transmission. But by being vaccinated, your symptoms might be reduced sufficiently that you didn't even know you had pertussis. And so you could possibly be visiting your grandchild and have pertussis, but not know because the vaccine prevented symptoms. And so what I'm suggesting is that the truth is actually the opposite, that the vaccine could get actually get in the way of your efforts to keep your grandchild safe. The slide that I've got up here is a slide that talks about mortality rates that have declined significantly over the last century. And the vaccine industry would like to take credit for that. And what this slide shows is the arrows indicate where vaccines were introduced. And it also shows two conditions, scarlet fever and typhoid that declined at the same time without vaccines. And what you'll see is there's a significant decline in mortality over the last century and it's not due to vaccination. It's due to sanitation measures like clean drinking water, close sewage sanitation, better nutrition, refrigeration, those kinds of conditions, better housing. There's been studies that have been done that have suggested that the benefits of vaccination to the reduction of mortality rates is between one and 3%. But that's not what the public is led to believe. I want to talk a little bit here about the lack of accountability. Vaccines are the only product, medical otherwise, where a manufacturer is not legally responsible for injury or death caused by their products. What this means is that no one is held responsible for vaccine injury. So there's no legal or financial incentive for a vaccine manufacturer to make their products safer, even when there's clear evidence that vaccines can be made safer. I think it's very dangerous to have an industry that they're not held accountable when their products cause injury. NCI-Moderator: So I just want to make sure that we're clear. So there, to your understanding, vaccines are the only drugs where we don't have sizable double-blind clinical trials, let alone double-blind clinical trials that are not sizable. And yet they're the only drugs that also are exempted from liability for harm… Ted Kuntz: …caused by their products. So this came about in 1986 in the United States under the National Childhood Vaccine Act. And the reason that this was enacted is that by 1985, vaccine manufacturers in the United States had difficulty obtaining liability insurance because there were so many claims against the vaccine industry for injury. And so the purpose, and this is what I actually pulled off the Internet today, the purpose of the National Childhood Vaccine Act was to eliminate the potential financial liability of vaccine manufacturers due to vaccine injury claims to ensure a stable market supply of vaccines. So again, my reading of it is we want to have the vaccines. We're not concerned if they're not safe. NCI-Moderator: I mean, indeed, one could argue that the life insurance companies are basically the world experts in assessing product risk because their existence depends on getting that right. And so they're not willing to insure pharmaceutical companies for vaccines. And so the government's action is to exempt them from liability. Ted Kuntz: That's correct. I know I'm running out of time, so let me just quickly run through these slides and then I'll take some questions. So this is a chart that we developed at Vaccine Choice Canada that show the growth of recommended vaccines from 1950 to 2022. And the significant increase again was after 1983, that legislation in 1986 which exempted liability to manufacturers really opened up the opportunity for them to produce products that didn't need to be safe. This is the new childhood condition in America, and the numbers are very similar to Canada. So one in three is overweight, one in six is learning disabilities, one in nine has asthma, one in ten has ADHD, one in twelve has food allergies, one in twenty has seizures, one in fifty four males has autism, that is actually closer to one in thirty now today, and one in eighty, one in fifty four males have autism, and one in eighty eight has autism. So we have a condition, fifty four percent of American children have a lifelong chronic condition, and it seems like we're more concerned about acute illnesses that have a very short impact on children, and instead we have a chronic condition of chronic disease in Canada and America. And so I would suggest the science is not settled, as we've been led to believe. And so I want to go back to my opening statement about what we're seeing is not new, and my concluding comments are that I believe that if we had vigilantly upheld the right to informed consent back in 1982, we wouldn't be in the place that we're in today. Thank you.

from ---

Sources/Links: https://rumble.com/v2mas30-vaccine-choice-canadas-ted-kuntz-presents-on-vaccine-safety-vancouver-day-t.html
https://vaccinechoicecanada.com/