Confirmation Bias in the Media

In February, Postmedia reporter Sharon Kirkey approached Vaccine Choice Canada to inquire how Ontario’s mandatory ‘education session’ was being received by vaccine risk aware parents and what our perspective is on the education session. Ted Kuntz, VP of Vaccine Choice Canada invested considerable effort in compiling information for Ms. Kirkey’s consideration. Below is the information provided to Ms. Kirkey by Vaccine Choice Canada and the article by Ms. Kirkey published by Postmedia on March 15th.
When you read all the information, is it vaccine risk aware parents who have ‘confirmation bias’, or is it the medical industry and mainstream media who interpret information in a way that supports what they already believe?

Ted’s written reply to Sharon Kirkey from Postmedia:
Dear Sharon,
Thank you for your inquiry and your questions pertaining to Ontario’s “vaccine education session” mandated for parents who choose to vaccinate selectively or not at all.

1. Parents’ Reaction to the Education Session

In order to answer your question about the reaction of parents to the education session, we put the question out to parents on our social media platforms. Here is a summary of their responses:

• The overwhelming response from parents is that the employees at Public Health are as frustrated with this process as are the parents.
• A few shared that the Public Health nurse was judgmental and rude to parents.
• Parents feel the “education” session is a “joke” because it presents a biased perspective of the issue.
• Some commented negatively about the use of cartoons in the video since the sessions are intended for an adult audience.
• Parents stated they have already extensively researched the topic of vaccine safety and effectiveness and that they found it insulting to have the government force them to be ‘re-educated’.
• Many referred to the education module as a “mis-education session”.
• All parents said the education session was a waste of their time.
• None of the parents who responded stated the ‘education session’ caused them to change their mind, and if anything, the education session reinforced their decision not to vaccinate or to vaccinate selectively.
• Many expressed the sentiment that the government does not respect parents.
• The education session does not respect or recognize the legal right to religious or conscientious-based objections to vaccination.
• Many stated the “education” sessions are a huge waste of tax dollars that could be better spent elsewhere to meet the health needs of the community.
• All parents felt the mandating of the education session was a violation of their rights.
• Some parents refused to attend the education session, electing instead to have their children suspended.

2. Exemption Filing

You asked how many parents continued to file an exemption after attending an “education” session. We don’t have access to those statistics. The Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care should have that information.

3. Perspective of Vaccine Choice Canada

You ask what we at Vaccine Choice Canada feel is the intent of the “education” session.
We assumed that the intent of the education session was to produce an educated and informed individual or parent who is better able to evaluate the risk/benefit assessment needed to make an informed medical decision.
If this is truly the intention of the “education session”, one wonders why all citizens of Ontario were not invited to partake in the education session.
If educating parents is the goal of the education session,  one wonders why this information is not readily available online with full public access. Other jurisdictions (such as Oregon and Utah) have their vaccine education session on-line – so it is convenient for parents  to access (does not require them to take time off work, no need for babysitter and no need to sit in front of Public Health Staff who may or may not exert pressure).
Other jurisdictions were confident enough in the integrity of their Vaccine Education Module to put it on-line for all the world to see, to review and to get educated. The Ministry of Health in Ontario intentionally chose not to post its video and content online. Without the option for public scrutiny of the contents, it is very difficult to assess the quality of the information in the module and how it compares to informed consent standards and current vaccine safety research.
Here are links to the Education Modules from Oregon and Utah:
Oregon.https://www.oregon.gov/oha/ph/preventionwellness/vaccinesimmunization/gettingimmunized/modules/vaccineeducation.htm
Utah. http://www.immunize-utah.org/Education%20Module/Index_Education_Module.html
Parents who watched the video reported that the education session content is inaccurate, misleading, of low-quality and failed to provide sufficient information about the risks of vaccine injury.
If indeed the information is misleading and inaccurate, as we have been told, then it may be that the education session is a violation of the right to informed consent. People are entitled to informed consent, prior to getting any medical intervention (including vaccines). Some would say that the Education Module/video is contrary to Ontario’s Health Care Consent Act, section 11 which articulates the elements of ‘consent’.
If the intention was to reduce ‘vaccine hesitancy’, Vaccine Choice Canada has produced a document outlining a number of recommendations to reduce vaccine hesitancy that the Ontario government would be wise to consider. A copy is attached. https://vaccinechoicecanada.com/in-the-news/how-to-reduce-vaccine-hesitancy/
It is difficult not to conclude that the “education session” was implemented to be punitive to parents who elect to vaccinate selectively or not at all, and to coerce, through the use of misinformation, more parents to vaccinate.
Objective information and conflicting responsibilities
Of great concern to Vaccine Choice Canada is that the government has dual and conflicting responsibilities with regard to the medical practice of vaccination. These responsibilities include the promotion and maximum uptake of vaccines and, at the same time, to provide oversight and monitoring of the safety of these medical products. One cannot serve both interests without compromising one or the other.
If the Government of Ontario were truly committed to informed consent, they would provide up-to-date, transparent, objective, easily accessible,  and complete reporting on adverse events following vaccination (AEFI) through the Canadian Adverse Events Following Immunization Surveillance System (CAEFISS).
Last month, Vaccine Choice Canada published our annual Vaccine Safety Report critiquing the Public Health Agency of Canada’s (PHAC) Annual Report of 2017 CAEFISS data.
https://vaccinechoicecanada.com/about-vaccines/reports/vaccine-safety-report-7/
It is important to note that Ontario’s AEFI reporting rate is much lower than in other provinces. This was noted in the report of Ontario’s Auditor General when he discussed immunization.
In summary, our report highlights five areas of concern:

1. Deficiencies in our Canadian surveillance system.
2. A need for new guidelines for truly, evidence-based safety testing of vaccines.
3. Application of newer, evidence-based, peer reviewed science on the plausible biological connections between vaccines and AEFIs.
4. Training of medical professionals on the relationships of vaccines to various injuries and diseases and the importance of reporting (not denying) these AEFIs.
5. Institution of a vaccine injury compensation program.

Although we provided copies of these reports to government authorities, we have yet to receive a response. It is our opinion that the government/Public Health short-changes parents both in their data collection and reporting of adverse events following vaccination (AEFI) and in delivering an accurate and up-to-date assessment of vaccine injury risk.
Informed consent requires accurate safety information
Beyond the deficiency of the PHAC CAEFISS report is the lack of legitimate vaccine safety testing prior to vaccines being reviewed and recommended by the National Advisory Committee on Immunization (NACI). The White Paper produced by the Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN) exposes the lack of vaccine safety testing, much of it constituting fraud.
What the ICAN paper reveals is that none of the vaccines on the childhood vaccination schedule were tested against an inert placebo. The reason that this is important is that you cannot know the safety profile of a medical product unless it has been tested against a neutral placebo. This standard is required for all pharmaceutical products excepting vaccines.
Of great concern is that vaccine manufacturers in the US are not legally responsible for the harm, injuries or deaths caused by their products. Vaccines are the only product, medical or otherwise, where the manufacturer is not legally responsible for harm or injury. The very real consequence of this is that there is no financial or legal incentive for vaccine manufacturers or health professionals to make their liability-free products safer.
Combine this reality with the growing efforts to take away medical choice (informed consent) and you have a very dangerous situation. These same vaccine manufacturers use the same liability-free vaccines in Canada and provide their own selected studies to NACI and the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) to “prove” their safety.
A Harvard Pilgrim Hospital study revealed that less than 1% of vaccine injuries are reported. I’m sure you understand the implications of this. One cannot evaluate the risk/benefit of a vaccine product when more than 99% of adverse reactions go unreported.
In our efforts to assist Canadians with informed consent by understanding the risk/benefits of each vaccine, we have written Dr. Teresa Tam, Canada’s Chief Public Health Officer, to request the scientific evidence of research conducted by Health Canada to ensure that vaccine products licensed and sold in Canada are safe. A link is attached. To date, scientific evidence of vaccine safety research has not been provided by Health Canada.
As part of your investigative journalism on this topic we encourage you to demand answers from those who promote vaccines and claim that the current vaccine schedule is safe. Request scientific evidence of the safety of the entire childhood schedule, ask them to respond to the questions and concerns in our Safety Report, and address the gaps in safety testing revealed in the ICAN White Paper and in our questions to Dr. Tam.
Thank you for your efforts to ensure that Canadians’ right to informed consent is recognized and protected.
Regards,
Ted Kuntz
Vaccine Choice Canada
Questions for Canada’s Chief Medical Officer
https://vaccinechoicecanada.com/in-the-news/questions-for-canadas-chief-medical-officer/
How to Reduce Vaccine Hesitancy
https://vaccinechoicecanada.com/in-the-news/how-to-reduce-vaccine-hesitancy/
ICAN Report
https://icandecide.org/hhs/ICAN-Reply.pdf

For a printable PDF click here.
Further Reading: 
How Did Things Ever Get This Crazy? by Ted Kuntz
Postmedia article by Sharon Kirkey:
Ontario’s mandatory class for parents seeking vaccine exemptions has ‘zero conversions’
Since it was introduced in 2017, thousands of mothers and fathers have collected their “Vaccine Education Certificate,” then continued to duck the shots for their children