June 2, 2010
To: Servus Credit Union
Dear Mr. Burns and Mr. Bruinooge
It has come to my attention that Servus Credit Union has been exemplary in respecting the personal right of staff members to decide whether or not to participate in the COVID-19 clinical trials. I applaud you for respecting the right of your employees to medical choice and bodily sovereignty. Far too many organizations, institutions, and corporations are coercing their employees to accept this experimental gene treatment by shaming, shunning, threats of termination, and other measures meant to undermine informed consent.
This is a very dangerous time in the world. Under the guise of a global pandemic, governments, health agencies and corporations are violating our most fundamental rights and freedoms, with no end in sight.
The justification given for imposing the COVID injections upon unwilling citizens is the belief that the injection will safely increase public safety. What most Canadians, including many health professionals and politicians fail to understand is that vaccination does not equal immunization. Becoming ‘vaccinated’ does not necessarily mean that one is immune to infection or transmission. This is true for many of the vaccines in use today, including all of the COVID-19 vaccine products. Their intended purpose is solely to reduce the severity of symptoms should infection occur.
This is true for the polio, tetanus, whooping cough, influenza and diphtheria vaccines. These products are ‘treatments’ rather than ‘vaccines’ as we commonly understand the use of the word. The purported benefit of the treatment is only to the person receiving the injection. To date, there is no scientific or medical evidence that the COVID-19 vaccine products function as a vaccine and confer either immunity from infection or prevent transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
Of greater concern is the issue of safety. The COVID-19 ‘vaccine’ products currently available under ‘emergency use authorization’ have not received formal approval denoting safety and efficacy from any regulatory agency, including the FDA and Health Canada. These products are still in Phase III clinical trials, meaning these products are considered ‘experimental’. The results of the clinical trials will not be reported until 2022 – 2024 depending upon the manufacturer. The intense efforts to coerce the public to accept an experimental treatment when its safety profile is unknown is unethical and quite likely criminal.
In Canada, bodily sovereignty and security of the person are constitutionally protected rights. Canada is a signatory to the Universal Declaration of Bioethics and Human Rights. Article 6 – Consent states: “Any preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic medical intervention is only to be carried out with the prior, free and informed consent of the person concerned, based on adequate information. The consent should, where appropriate, be expressed and may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without disadvantage or prejudice.”
To require the injection of these genetic devices as a condition of employment or service, as is being considered with a vaccine passport, is a clear and egregious violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Universal Declaration of Bioethics and Human Rights. A vaccine passport system, by design, will cause disadvantage or prejudice. What is being proposed is effectively a medical apartheid.
The World Health Organization, in an updated statement on April 19, 2021, recognizes the negative impact of a vaccine passport system. They state: “States Parties are strongly encouraged to acknowledge the potential for requirements of proof of vaccination to deepen inequities and promote differential freedom of movement.” 
Authoritarian governmental reactions and the setting of dangerous precedents – actions that may be more damaging than COVID-19, have no place in Canadian society. When rights and freedoms are exchanged for perceived safety, they are rarely given back to the fullest extent of what existed prior. The introduction of a vaccine passport system would establish a pernicious precedent for any future pathogenic challenge.
Jonathan Kimmelman, director of McGill University’s biomedical ethics unit warns: “Outbreaks and national emergencies often create pressure to suspend rights, standards and/or normal rules of ethical conduct. Often our decision to do so seems unwise in retrospect.” 
Benjamin Rush MD, Signatory to The US Declaration of Independence stated: “Unless we put medical freedom into the Constitution, the time will come when medicine will organize into an undercover dictatorship.” I think Rush would agree that we are essentially there.
I applaud you both for your efforts to honour our right to bodily sovereignty and medical choice. These are fundamental rights and freedoms that need to be protected and preserved if we wish to continue to live as free individuals.
Ted Kuntz, President
Vaccine Choice Canada