I am surely not alone in being angry that The Australian would accept Clive Palmer’s money and let him publish dangerous, inaccurate claims about our Covid vaccination program.
Palmer is suggesting that safety procedures for the vaccine rollout are inadequate, seemingly ignorant of our safety processes for assessing possible vaccines and confusing our procedures with those used in the US. Our Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) did not allow on “emergency” grounds the vaccines we will use but rather endorsed the vaccine after the completion of all due safety measures.
Palmer also declared that no one should be given vaccines unless they “were in immediate danger of dying”. That’s a novel use of a preventative tactic!
Surely someone in senior management at The Australian could have seen that, in the middle of a pandemic and the struggle to overcome high rates of vaccine hesitancy in Australia, it was unethical to allow Palmer to make erroneous claims that could influence some people?
When challenged, the newspaper’s editor-in-chief agreed that Palmer’s views on vaccination were “wrong” but said: “The Australian accepts political advertising from across the spectrum. This should obviously never be interpreted as an endorsement of the messages those advertisements carry. The Australian supports the Covid-19 vaccination program and disagrees with Mr Palmer’s perspective on the matter.”
I believe this is unacceptable behaviour.
Then we have the irresponsible airing of Covid misinformation on Sky News. From Day 1 of our struggle with this latest Sars virus, Alan Jones has been an influential source of misinformation. Then we have the long interviews with Craig Kelly, so wedded to erroneous beliefs about the effectiveness of Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin in preventing Covid-19 that he was prepared to “fall on his sword” rather than moderate those opinions.
I’d argue that Craig Kelly, like Matt Canavan, does not have the qualifications to analyse the quality of published science. Nor, it seems, can they accept the summaries of the validity of these studies published by such reputable sources as the World Health Organisation, the Centres for Disease Control in the US and top journals in the field such as Nature.
While early papers supported the position taken by Kelly, many more papers analysed faults with them in reaching such conclusions. The later papers present far better data that throws doubt on the use of these two potentially dangerous drugs. As a result, top scientists and scientific organisations from around the world have signalled that there is insufficient positive data to support using the drugs and that to do so would be unethical.
Why did Sky New allow Kelly to air unscientific conclusions without immediately following up with experts who would counter the misinformation? In such a serious situation as a pandemic, surely that is the only reasonable reporting approach?
What about the airing of Senator Canavan’s concerns about the safety of the AstraZeneca vaccine, which is destined to be our “go to” vaccine?
He commented on the news that three people who had received the AZ vaccine had developed blood clots soon after. AstraZeneca pointed out that 17 million people had so far received the vaccine and that among such a large cohort a few cases of anything could be expected. Blood clots forming spontaneously are well documented. The latest studies document just seven cases among 20 million vaccinations.
Remarkably, despite reassurances from the WHO, the CDC and distinguished epidemiologists that there was no need to suspend the vaccination program, numerous countries in Europe did so. This was so irrational scientifically that EU insiders are suggesting the decision was all about the politics of the war European nations are waging against AZ, which is based in Europe. Many in Europe claim the vaccine should be given to all Europeans before being distributed to the rest of the world. This is believed to be what triggered the reaction. The story will unfold.
Speaking on Sky News, Canavan said there were “serious concerns” (about the AZ vaccine) that must be looked into. “I don’t think all the capitals of Europe have been overtaken by anti-vaccine zealots. There is obviously legitimate concerns here,” Canavan said. “I just don’t think we can close our eyes to this evidence. The end goal has to be the health and safety of Australians.”
There was widespread bipartisan condemnation of Canavan’s comments, with many senior politicians saying the vaccine was safe and the rollout would continue as planned. Yes, Sky invited Chief Medical Officer Paul Kelly to set the record straight after the Canavan interview, but why was a non-expert like Canavan given a microphone in the first place to raise doubts about the vaccine in the minds of some viewers?
Data released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics documents vaccine hesitancy in the community; while 73% of Australians would be willing to get a COVID vaccine if it is recommended to them, only 58% will try to get the vaccine as soon as it becomes available.
The most common influential factors are whether the vaccine has been in use for a long time with no serious side-effects (67%), and whether it has been recommended by their GP or another healthcare professional (61%).
The Bureau of Statistics data found men (76%) were more likely than women (71%) to agree to vaccination, as were people aged 65 and over (83%) compared to those aged 18–64 years (71%).
The struggle is on to ensure Australians embrace the vaccine and to understand that most Australians must be fully vaccinated in a short period of time to minimise the development of new, more infectious strains. The last thing we need is the mainstream media constantly propagating misinformation for the sake of generating some ‘entertaining controversy’.
Professor John Dwyer AO, is an Immunologist, Emeritus Professor of Medicine at UNSW and for many years heavily involved in efforts to improve the delivery of healthcare in Australia. He was the founder of the Australian Healthcare Reform Alliance.
Comments
7 responses to “Vaccine misinformation on social media is out of control, but we should expect better from the mainstream media”
John, Your pieces on the coronavirus are very helpful and above all authentic. There are few who have had your years of experience in immunology and virology including your leadership in Australia’s response to HIV/AIDS. Thanks for being prepared to put so much time and effort in keeping those who will read, so well informed.
You are right to complain about the mainstream media’s complicity in aiding the cause of unreason in public discussion!
We want free speech, not for its own sake, but for the sake of something else – e.g., because we think free speech will promote better informed choices. Ultimately, the freedom we have reason to value is the freedom to engage in “reasoned public discussion”, and this freedom is impinged by the ubiquity of unreason in public debate.
After decades of cant, denial, dissembling, hypocricy, lying, ‘non-core promises’ and spin from bureaucrats, ‘experts’, police, politicians and the media, is it any wonder that the public has scant trust in what it is told is best for it?
They’re right though. Anyone who reads beyond the establishment for their information or who, like, retains a shred of class consciousness and an understanding of why we should be suspicious of big pharma, knows that these aren’t like a standard vaccine but are MRNA technology, and that while we usually expect years of trials, that these have been rushed through.
I’m not taking one for that reason, as are other people I know. Not because we’re idiots but because we’re suss on GloboCap and the levels of corruption the machine has enabled. Also because, hysteria aside, and the discourse I’m meant to swim in aside, and putting aside the swelled numbers of covid cases due to PCR test inefficiencies and deaths in the northern hemisphere being labelled as covid when the regular flu season numbers have been absorbed into covid numbers – no, sorry, I’m not playing along with your collective psychosis.
Of course, Strayan discourse being what it is, this position that I’ve reached due to far-ranging reading and thought over many months now puts me automatically in the basket of right-wing non-thinkers, ironically. There’s a lot of unquestioning zombies of the centre who like to label anyone doing absolutely bottom line fundamental structural analysis and questioning as such. It makes you all feel better. Absolves you of any niggling 4am doubts that maybe you’re not noticing a bubble cos you’re right inside it.
I look forward to people who only read The Guardian and watch the ABC informing me their establishment narratives are actually the totality of everything telling me what a total fucking whackjob conspiracy theorist Nazi I am.
Perhaps you would be happy with CoronaVac, also known as the Sinovac COVID-19 vaccine, an inactivated virus COVID-19 vaccine developed by the Chinese company Sinovac Biotech.
Rapid development of vaccines for variants of influenza occurs annually.
Promotion of public health in the West is in danger of becoming a thankless and impossible task. We now live in a culture which persuasion for the sake of the persuader’s profit has come to dominate. Public health promotion is persuasion of the kind that is founded on, and promotes, evidence-based belief. It is an act of benevolence. Where profit rules and benevolence is scoffed at, people lose their faith in those who benevolently spread evidence-based belief. The West’s current values are self-destructive. Its demise will be unlamented because it will have lost what made it worth while.
With all due respect, I fully support your stance and admire your article, isn’t slightly naive to expect decisions to be made on a moral basis within a NewsCorp publication?