IT'S not all Donald Trump's fault. Even so, his ingenious labelling of anything he didn't like as "fake news" seems to have empowered others in power to shout down those with dissenting opinions.
With COVID and its protocols, and especially with vaccines, it's self-evident that government advice - and obviously not just Down Under - changes quite frequently.
Back in March, a number of European countries, as we reported at the time, suspended use of the AstraZeneca vaccine over blood clot concerns.
Those concerns have not gone away, yet a need to accelerate the pace of Australian vaccination led Prime Minister Scott Morrison to extended the medical insurance indemnity underwriting the previously over-60s AZ jab, allowing doctors to give it to anyone over 18.
COVID LATEST
- Coronavirus snapshot
- Aussies with the flu reluctant to take COVID tests, finds study
-
Queensland eases up on restrictions
- The Informer: Roadmap out after National Cabinet
-
Criticism of WHO and the virus origins probe
Worry from various premiers soon followed and in recent days Queensland leader Annastacia Palaszczuk and her chief health officer, Jeannette Young, have condemned the decision, with the premier saying: "I don't want an 18-year-old in Queensland dying from a clotting illness who, if they got COVID, probably wouldn't die."
It will be interesting to see where this debate ends up, because earlier this week a reader with doubts about various aspects of the pandemic referred me to a dispute on the other side of the world, in which a Canadian doctor and academic has been stood down - and is facing the sack - for "engaging in activities" the University of Saskatchewan's College of Medicine and the Saskatchewan Health Authority believed had "discouraged or prevented" children or adolescents from receiving COVID vaccinations contrary to official policies.
Reporting on the controversy, the Saskatoon Star Phoenix describedDr Francis Christian, a professor of surgery at the University of Saskatchewan, as one of a number of Canadian doctors who had "question(ed) the mainstream narrative about the COVID-19 pandemic and the vaccines developed to control it".
The head of the health authority described Dr Francis's views as "dangerous".
But in other accounts of the situation - including one report that features a full audio recording of a 17-minute Zoom meeting between Dr Francis and the authorities, - a potentially different picture emerges.
These indicate that Dr Christian's main concerns were the suitability of m-RNA vaccines - here and in Canada the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines - for people under 18.
As well as taking part, with at least one other Saskatchewan doctor, at a recent high school demonstration against adolescent vaccination, he had sent a two-page letter to at least 200 people, setting out his concerns.
The letter stressed he was speaking as a practising surgeon, not as a representative of the university or the health authority. He described himself as a "very pro-vaccine physician', and praised vaccines for having "eliminated or made innocuous" some of the "great scourges of mankind".
He was concerned, however, that children and parents were not in a position to give "informed consent" to the risks and benefits of m-RNA vaccines, which he said were a new and experimental design never used before in humans and authorised quickly for "emergency use".
Dr Christian acknowledged an emergency for older people but said COVID posed little physical risk to young people, meaning there was no legitimate reason to vaccinate them.
He said there were so many reported concerns with m-RNA vaccines that in any other situation they would be stopped.
In the disciplinary meeting, Dr Christian said his concerns were in line with the World Health Organisation, which he said had advocated that "children should not be vaccinated from 12 to 18 and anybody less than 18 should not be vaccinated".
As this was disputed by another medical academic in the meeting, and provoked something of a shouting match over Zoom, I went looking for the latest WHO advice.
Various "fact-checking websites" say things have changed since WHO gave such advice in April.
But advice updated as recently as June 15 appears to back Dr Christian.
It says Pfizer should only be used on 12 to 15 year-olds after more high priority groups had been vaccinated and that "individuals below 12 should not be routinely vaccinated" until data on its "efficacy or safety" is available.
Its Moderna advice also updated on June 15 is even more restrictive, saying it is intended for people over 18.
Studies were under way to assess its "immunogenicity and safety" but "at present" those under 18 "should not be routinely vaccinated with this vaccine".
That sounds a lot like what Dr Christian was advocating, as well as the Queensland criticisms of the PM's AstraZeneca expansion plans.
Related reading: experts move to explain vaccine confusion
Although it was not mentioned in the 17-minute meeting, it may be that Dr Christian's advocacy of an anti-parasitic drug, Ivermectin, as a COVID treatment, is an issue here.
Ivermectin was one of the "alternative" treatments promoted by renegade Queensland conservative MP Craig Kelly - even if he was following the advice of an otherwise respected Newcastle immunologist, Dr Robert Clancy, who maintained at the time that Ivermctin was "of significant benefit when used early in the disease".
Five months later, a new peer reviewed meta-analysis - a study of other studies - has re-energised its supporters.
We might be on a war footing with COVID, but suppressing debate - even if there are doubts about what's being said - should not be the way to go in free societies.
And for the record, my second AZ jab next is month.
