Note: Ted Kuntz is a valued contributor to Age of Autism. Below, we share his letter to CBC, (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.) The response, is a polite refusal to budge. Please visit the Vaccine Choice Canada site for information from our friends to the North.
Ted Kuntz writes to CBC – their response and Ted’s reply are below:
To the Attention of:
Mr. Jack Nagler, CBC Ombudsperson firstname.lastname@example.org
Dear Mr. Nagler
I’m writing to you because I’m very concerned about what the CBC has become to many Canadians.
I am the parent of a vaccine injured child, now deceased. I have spent more than three decades investigating the science which is purported to be the foundation for our current vaccine program and government policies pertaining to childhood vaccination. I’ve learned that the reality is much more complex and different than we have been led to believe.
In my efforts to bring awareness to this critically important topic, what I have experienced is that vaccine safety is one topic that is not permitted to be discussed at the CBC. When the topic is vaccine safety, informed consent, or vaccine injury the CBC is no longer willing to host dialogue and honestly debate ideas. Amongst my fellow parents, the CBC has lost its value and its purpose and has become obsolete. This is most unfortunate for the media that purports to be “Canada’s broadcaster”.
Can the CBC be a force to help heal the divide?
On March 29, 2019 I reached out to Charlie Cho, the Associate Producer of ‘The Early Edition’. My goal was to invite Charlie and the rest of the CBC to help me create a safe space where ideas could be shared, information exchanged, fences dis-mantled, and relationships mended. This is what I wrote Charlie:
“Good Morning Charlie
First of all, I want you to know that we are wanting the same thing.
I trust that both of us are here to be of service.
I trust that both of us are interested in healthy children. You, and others, are fighting so children don’t die of infectious diseases.
Thank you for your efforts with this.
I’m fighting so children don’t die from vaccines.
Both are real.
I’m simply asking the question – Is what we are doing working?
This is an important question to ask over and over. We should never stop asking this question.
The medical industry is advocating for policies that mean:
- The loss of informed consent
- The loss of parental rights
- The loss of therapeutic choice
- The loss of the freedom to discuss this issue
I’m advocating for:
- The right to informed consent
- Parental rights to medical decisions
- Better science that includes inert placebos, long-term clinical trials, better adverse events reporting, compensation for vaccine injury, and vaccinated vs. unvaccinated studies
- Rich discussion
This is not just a medical issue. It is also a civil rights issue.
I’d like us to be able to have rich conversations that honour each other’s perspective and experiences.
I want the loss of my child to vaccine injury to be just as important as the loss of a child to an infectious disease.
I want us to make wise decisions, not reactive decisions.
I think we want the same things.
Will you join me in this conversation?
Will you help me to build a container where true dialogue can happen; one that holds everyone’s voice?”
Mr. Nagler, I’d like to explore with you how we might move in this direction and how the CBC can be a force to help heal the divide that has been created in our society with regard to the differing perspectives on the safety and effectiveness of our current vaccination program.
Can I offer one possible action that would move us in that direction?
Might the CBC make a commitment to refrain from using the label “anti-vaccine”? This label is dishonest and divisive and impedes our ability to develop a deeper understanding of the perspectives of parents whose children have been harmed by vaccination and are now ‘vaccine risk aware’.
This simple act would help to create a climate that makes constructive dialogue more possible.
Will you work with me on this goal?
Is it possible the CBC could become an agent to heal this manufactured divide in Canada?
I can’t imagine a more worthwhile goal than this.
I look forward to your considered response.
CBC response to Ted
May 2, 2019
Dear Ted Kuntz,
Thank you for your email of April 10, 2019, addressed to CBC’s Ombudsperson. General Manager and Editor in Chief Jennifer McGuire asked me to reply.
You wrote to express concern over use of the term “anti-vaccine” in health stories and public policy coverage. “This label is dishonest and divisive and impedes our ability to develop a deeper understanding of the perspectives of parents whose children have been harmed by vaccination and are now ‘vaccine risk aware,'” you said. The CBC should stop using the term “anti-vaccine” in order “to create a climate that makes constructive dialogue more possible,” you added.
I respectfully disagree that the entrenched compounds “anti-vaccine” and “anti-vaccination” are inaccurate, unfair or inappropriate in any other way. Allow me to explain.
“Anti-vaccine” and “anti-vaccination” are clear, neutral, fact-based terms with deep roots. They are tied to the now largely archaic label “anti-vaccinationist,” first used in the 1880s, according to the Oxford English Dictionary. Read the full article at Vaccine Choice Canada HERE.