Peter Menzies

Better thousands of us die prematurely, apparently, than risk a grownup conversation

About the same time as William Watson’s outstanding book Globalization and the Meaning of Canadian Life was being published in the late 1990s, the newspaper I worked for was sending a journalist to Europe to research a series of articles on how health care systems work in some of those countries.

I mention Bill’s book, which was runner-up for a public policy Donner Prize, because it exquisitely details many of the things Canadians believe about themselves that simply aren’t true. Which was the same reason why the Calgary Herald sent its health reporter (yes, there used to be such a thing), Robert Walker, to Europe – to expose its readers to the fact that there are more than two health care systems: our “defining” one and America’s, both of which are extremes. To the best of my knowledge, that remains the only time a Canadian news organization has taken on that task.

In every country examined in Walker’s reports, as is the case with almost every country in the world, public and private health care and insurance systems maintained a peaceful coexistence and the public’s needs were being met. Almost 30 years later, that remains the case. Also almost 30 years later, neither Bill’s book nor the Herald’s reporting has had the slightest impact on the prevailing media narrative in Canada. It remains determined to perpetuate the fear that any move to increase the role of private health providers or even allow doctors to work in both systems (as was proposed this week by Alberta Premier Danielle Smith) is the first step on the slippery slope to “American-style” health care. This line has been successfully used for decades – often hyperbolically and occasionally hysterically – by public monopoly advocates for Canada’s increasingly expensive and difficult to access systems. We have known for 40 years that once Baby Boomers like your faithful servant turned bald and grey that the system would be unsustainable. But that single, terrifying “American-style” slur has halted reform at every turn.

The Tyee responded with a “Danielle Smith’s secret plan to Destroy Public Health Care” column while the Globe and Mail’s Gary Mason, a Boomer, challenged my thesis here by suggesting it was time for open minds because “the reality is, the health care system in Canada is a mess.”

It is. And at least some of the blame – a lot, in my view – belongs at the door of Canadian news organizations that for decades have failed to fully inform readers by making them aware that there are a great many alternatives to just “ours” and “US-style.”

I was reminded of this in a recent Postmedia story concerning the perils of private health care provision. Referencing a study on MRIs, the story, right on cue, quotes the part of a study that states “It’s a quiet but rapid march toward U.S.-style health care.”

One would not want to suggest that those clinging to that parochial view should be denied a platform. But at the same time, readers have every right to demand that journalists push back and ask advocates for state monopolies simple questions such as “Why do you say that? Could it not be the first step towards UK-, German-, Dutch-, French-, Portugese- or Swedish-style health care?” and open the debate.

But, as it was 30 years ago and likely ever shall be, there is nothing to suggest that approach even crossed the reporter’s mind. Canadians deserve to be fully informed on major public policy matters and the record shows that when it comes to health care, media have largely failed to do so. Stuck in the fetid trench of an us and them narrative that compares two systems at extreme ends of the spectrum, the public is largely unaware that moderate alternatives exist, ensuring that no meaningful reforms will ever take place and tens of thousands of Canadians will continue to die on waiting lists – a story that continues to be of little interest within the mainstream. Better thousands of us die prematurely, apparently, than risk a grownup conversation that could challenge our national mythology and lead us down the path to “European-style” healthcare.

Postmedia’s Brian Lilley has written a defence of the use by journalists of anonymous sources. Lilley’s introduction describes him as coming down on both sides of the issue and that “Using anonymous sources is completely justified, if done right.” Well of course it is, but in my view it’s frequently and increasingly not being done right and its abuse is being exploited by government comms people to control the narrative.

An example of that occurred last week when the Globe and Mail, in a story concerning Prime Minister Mark Carney’s sojourn to the United Arab Emirates, declined to reveal the identity of a source offering very standard information. To wit:

“The (senior government) official, whom The Globe and Mail is not identifying because they were not authorized to speak publicly, said this visit matters because the UAE economy is very much driven by personal relationships – the kind that benefit from face-to-face meetings.”

This story had three bylines – from a senior parliamentary reporter, an institutional investing reporter and an economics reporter. It is inconceivable to me that, between them, they couldn’t find an on the record source who could explain how important it is, culturally, to have face to face meetings, particularly in that part of the world. Doing so would have added some needed thump to a “sources say” story and helped mute criticisms by others in the industry such as John Robson and Holly Doan, the latter stating in a Tweet that “Anon sources are gov’t propagandists.” Others have privately expressed their dismay.

Share

Meanwhile, I expect Lilley’s piece is worth a read and it’s important to hear all sides but as it is behind a paywall I haven’t got to it myself. It’s also worth pointing out that a recent Reuters Institute survey put Lilley in Canada’s top 10 social media influencers and creators.

Sadly, we have more this week on unnecessary online smartassery by journalists.

First up is Global News’s Sean O’Shea who managed to allow himself to look like a member of Carney’s comms team when he Tweeted his disapproval of some fans’ behaviour at the Grey Cup.

Then came The Hill Times’s Stu Benson, who blasted his alarm from a loudspeaker before deleting.

Honestly, folks, to paraphrase grandpa’s advice and as I have to remind myself from time to time, just because something pops into your head doesn’t mean it has to pop onto your social media feed.

Last week’s column for The Hub on how Diversity, Equity and Inclusion initiatives remain alive and enforced in the nation’s newsrooms is available here. And don’t forget to watch out for the Full Press podcast with myself, Harrison Lowman and Tara Henley on Thursday.

Donate

(Peter Menzies is a commentator and consultant on media, Macdonald-Laurier Institute Senior Fellow, a past publisher of the Calgary Herald, a former vice chair of the CRTC and a National Newspaper Award winner.)

 Nicolas Hulscher, MPH

Across countries on three continents, a 1% increase in vaccine types before age one corresponded to a 0.47% increase in autism prevalence.

A new cross-national study from Italy’s National Research Council, spanning multiple developed countries across three continents, has identified a remarkably strong association between early-life vaccine intensity and autism prevalence. The number of vaccine types and doses administered before 12 months showed exceptionally high correlations with national autism rates.

A 1% increase in vaccine types before age one corresponded to a 0.47% increase in autism prevalence.

The correlation is enormous — r = 0.87 for vaccine types and r = 0.79 for vaccine doses. In regression models, vaccine intensity alone explained 81% of the variance in autism prevalence across nations.

This is not an isolated signal. It directly corroborates earlier U.S. state-level data from DeLong (2011) — and aligns with the 107 positive-association studies catalogued in the McCullough Foundation’s Landmark Autism Report.

Key Findings

Coccia used cross-national 2021 autism incidence data paired with WHO-reported infant vaccine schedules. Countries were grouped into relatively comparable healthcare and surveillance systems (North America, Europe, and advanced Asian nations) to reduce detection and reporting bias. The primary exposures were:

• number of vaccine types given ≤12 months, and
• total number of doses delivered ≤12 months.

Autism prevalence per 100,000 children served as the outcome, and general vaccination coverage rates were statistically controlled so only vaccine intensity and timing were isolated.

The results were striking but unfortunately expected:

• Countries such as the U.S., Canada, Australia, Japan, South Korea, and Singapore give ~15 vaccine types and 20 doses before age one — and have the highest autism prevalence (~1,273 per 100k).
• Countries like Norway, Finland, Denmark, Italy, and the UK give ~8 vaccine types and 9 doses — and have significantly lower autism rates (~834 per 100k).
• A 1% increase in vaccine types before age one corresponded to a 0.47% increase in autism prevalence.
• The regression model (log–log) explained 81% of the variance.

Coccia then used quadrant mapping to classify nations:

• Critical Risk Zone: high vaccine intensity + high autism (U.S., Canada, Australia, Japan, South Korea, Singapore)
• Protection Zone: low vaccine intensity + low autism (Nordic countries)
• Transitional Zone: countries on track to move upward as vaccine intensity rises (Italy, UK)

The conclusion is clear: Early-timed and compound vaccination strongly tracks with rising autism rates.

How DeLong (2011) Fits In

DeLong’s analysis of CDC data found that each 1% rise in U.S. childhood vaccination coverage was associated with ~680 additional cases of autism and speech/language impairment nationwide.

Where DeLong examined state-level associations between how many children were fully vaccinated and subsequent autism/SLI prevalence, Coccia provides the first true cross-national dose–response analysis — showing that the number of vaccine types and doses given before age one powerfully predicts national autism prevalence.

Both studies point in the same direction:
more vaccination in early life → higher autism prevalence.

How This Strengthens the McCullough Foundation’s Landmark Autism Report

Our Autism Report reviewed 136 vaccine-related studies:

• 107 studies inferred positive associations between vaccination or vaccine components and ASD/NDDs.
• All 12 vaccinated vs unvaccinated studies found better neurodevelopmental outcomes in completely unvaccinated children, including far lower rates of autism.
• Found strong, consistent increases in cumulative vaccine exposure during early childhood and the reported prevalence of autism across successive birth cohorts.

We concluded:

Combination and early-timed routine childhood vaccination constitutes the most significant modifiable risk factor for ASD, supported by convergent mechanistic, clinical, and epidemiologic findings, and characterized by intensified use, the clustering of multiple doses during critical neurodevelopmental windows, and the lack of research on the cumulative safety of the full pediatric schedule.

Coccia independently arrived at a highly similar conclusion:

This study offers a critical contribution to the ongoing discourse on vaccine safety and neurodevelopment by identifying a statistically significant association between early-life vaccine intensity and national autism rates.

All evidence points to the same conclusion:

Early, clustered vaccination is the strongest modifiable driver of rising autism rates.

Nicolas Hulscher, MPH

Epidemiologist and Foundation Administrator, McCullough Foundation

Support our mission: mcculloughfnd.org

Please consider following both the McCullough Foundation and my personal account on X (formerly Twitter) for further content.