With due respect for the author, the examples used in the editorial ‘Think Again’ (published in the July 21 edition of The Review) do not fit this reality. None involve submitting to a medical procedure.

The Nuremberg Code and The Helsinki Accord are supposedly the base of Canada’s health policy. These are clear on the principle of voluntary informed consent: Individuals should not be forced or coerced into a medical procedure, and consent to that procedure, if given, should be determined by the individual after careful consideration of all known facts.

With regard to the COVID-19 vaccines, where does one go to get honest information on the jab? Main stream media pushes “safe and effective” with no consideration for past or present health conditions. But what if an individual has a medical history of blood clots or adverse events after injections, or questions about acquired immunity or medical alternatives? Where does that person go to get unbiased information?

First choice might be the family physician. But that is futile. Ontario doctors were issued a stern warning from the College of Physicians and Surgeons to say nothing outside the official line of “safe and effective”. (Source here: College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario Statement on Public Health Misinformation http://twitter.com/cpso_status/138821157777038544). To give a professional opinion based solely on one individual’s situation and concerns might be reason for the doctor to be investigated, if that opinion ran contrary to “safe and effective” for all.

Next venue could be social media. Another pointless exercise because most platforms only allow the official “safe and effective” narrative. Anything else brings a warning about misinformation and can result in being barred, ridicule, and personal grief. Such as what happened to Dr. Christian, University of Saskatchewan professor and surgeon. Or Dr. Birdle, University of Guelph viral immunologist, and many others.

The companies which sell these vaccines do not have any long term, specific info. They are simply purveyors who hold no liability for their products. What remains for information is the open web, and that is a mishmash of conflicting opinions and statistics.

So how to give informed, rather than coerced consent when information is deliberately blocked? Should people be ostracized for having legitimate concerns? For some, taking this novel vaccine, or not, is a serious decision with life or death on both sides. All discourse should be open for scrutiny. Science has never been a closed book. It evolves constantly by means of criticism. What changed? Is light now afraid of darkness?

Privacy is a secondary issue, largely given up voluntarily by anyone who uses a computer, smart devices, or the IT of things. Everything is tracked and recorded. Vaccine passports however, smack of control, division, and coercion. None of which fit the concept of voluntary informed consent. Nor do they unify a nation.

Do we really want to be the instigators of a system which, once accepted, will never cease? Becoming ever more onerous. Pass this on as our legacy to future generations?

Perhaps there should be second thoughts. But the subject is out of bounds.

Gordon Fraser