Father claims vaccines based more on faith

As the father of a vaccine-damage child, I take exception to health experts like Monika Naus, director of the B.C. Centre for Disease Control's immunization program, who respond to criticisms of vaccines as "really dumb" ["It's in your back yard, so get tetanus savvy", October 30–November 6]. Having a child with an uncontrolled-seizure disorder, neurological damage, and diminished cognitive functioning as a result of a vaccine is evidence enough for me that vaccines are not as safe and effective as claimed. I spent 10 years researching vaccine damage after my son was damaged and discovered that the amount of vaccine damage is substantial.

The fact is, every major western country except Canada has a vaccine-damage compensation plan. The U.S. plan has paid out hundreds of millions of dollars in compensation. These claims wouldn't have been paid had there not been substantial evidence of damage. Second, no vaccine has successfully passed a long-term, double-blind study, comparing a vaccinated population with an unvaccinated population to prove either safety or effectiveness. If this has changed in the last few years, I invite Ms. Naus to provide the citations of such research. In my correspondence with the Centre for Disease Control, they were unable to provide any such citations.

Evidence shows that the reduction in infectious disease has more to do with clean drinking water, closed sewage systems, and better nutrition than the introduction of vaccines.

> Ted Kuntz / Vancouver