Alberta's Davidson Report recommends halting COVID-19 vaccines except with a full disclosure of risks. And to end their use for healthy children and teens.
Includes a link to an interview with Dr. Davidson himself; a review of news coverage and 'expert commentary' gathered so far. Also includes a model of excellence in investigative reporting at the end.
The big news in Alberta is the long awaited report by Dr. Gary Davidson.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Comments placed within rows of crosses are my own as I respond to statements made by journalists, or those whom they cite. I am writing as a public educator who has has been “Following the COVID Science” and highlighting media censorship since 2021. In addition to being a decades long volunteer health advocate for family members and friends, I have volunteered with the National Citizen’s Inquiry and am a lay member of both the Canadian Covid Care Alliance (now Canadian Citizens Care Alliance) and the Canada Health Alliance. These memberships allow me to bypass mainstream media censorship and hear directly from Canadian and international researchers on many of the topics addressed here.
FOR A QUICKER READ, READ ONLY THE CONTENTS OUTSIDE OF THE CROSS ‘BOXES’ - Come back and read my commentary at a later, more convenient time! Then consider using the information being shared here in messaging you send to others….
AND here is the link to a SECTION BY SECTION SUMMARY prepared by the folks at INTEREST OF JUSTICE https://substack.com/home/post/p-155749963
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
First, WHO is Dr. Gary Davidson?
From this CBC article written by Wallis Snowden on September 23, 2021, we learn that according to Alberta Health Services (AHS) “Dr. Gary Davidson's opinions 'do not accurately reflect' pandemic”
Alberta Health Services says a Red Deer doctor's claims that the province waited for a drop in hospital admittance numbers to justify COVID-19 restrictions are "completely false."
A video widely circulated online this week shows Dr. Gary Davidson, an emergency medicine physician at the Red Deer Regional Hospital Centre, speaking before a large crowd at a recent public forum. CBC News was unable to confirm the date or location of the event.
In the video, Davidson — a former chief of emergency medicine in Red Deer — accuses the government of manipulating the numbers surrounding the new restrictions.
In the video, Davidson says the health-care crisis was caused not by COVID-19 but by funding cuts implemented six years ago by the former NDP government. He says the Red Deer hospital has been forced to redirect patients to other hospitals due to ongoing staffing and funding shortages in the ER, not because of an influx of COVID patients.
"It has nothing to do with COVID. It's been going on for six years and it was created."
Red Deer's hospital has been buckling under the pressure of COVID-19.
AHS confirmed Wednesday that ICUs in the central zone are operating at 100 per cent of capacity. Red Deer's hospital is the main facility in the zone, with 26 ICU beds, including 14 additional spaces.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Already early in the pandemic, physicians, nurses and other medical staff were highlighting the falseness of news reports claiming hospitals and ICUs were overcrowded when it was not the case. For a more balanced report, the journalist could have attempted to contact Dr. Davidson for a clarification of his observations that each of the three previous lockdowns were announced just as hospitalization numbers started declining anyway. One would think that a Director of a hospital Emergency Department would have some way of sharing data around admission patterns and that would have been a useful counterpoint to the rebuttal by Alberta Health Services, who could have gained access to the same admissions data. A decline in admissions is not subjective. A hunch as to the connection to lockdown might be.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
WHERE can I find the report?
https://open.alberta.ca/publications/albertas-covid-19-pandemic-response
Next, WHY give the job to a ‘Contrarian’ Doctor?
Writing in the National Post in April 2024, Canadian Press writers cite Premier Danielle Smith’s response as to why Dr. Davidson would be heading up this report.
EDMONTON — Alberta Premier Danielle Smith says it’s a good idea to have a physician who accused the province of exaggerating COVID-19’s impact on hospitals now lead a review of pandemic-era health data.
Smith says Dr. Gary Davidson was selected to lead the data review because she wants to hear a range of viewpoints, including from those “shouted down in the public sphere.” “I needed somebody who was going to look at everything that happened with some fresh eyes and maybe with a little bit of a contrarian perspective because we’ve only ever been given one perspective,” Smith told reporters at the legislature Tuesday.
“I left it to (Davidson) to assemble the panel with the guidance that I would like to have a broad range of perspectives.”
The work of the task force is nearly complete but few details have been publicized since it was struck in 2022.
The Globe and Mail reported Tuesday that Davidson, the former chief of emergency medicine at the Red Deer Regional Hospital Centre, was appointed chair of the task force a year ago.
WHAT does Dr. Davidson himself say about this report?
Chris Scott, the owner of the Whistle Stop Café, is likely one of the first to interview Dr. Davidson following the release of his report.
Scott posted the following on his Rumble page:
Dr. Gary Davidson compiled a VERY detailed report regarding how the government handled COVID. We've been waiting for this for almost 2 years and it was released today. He joins us to discuss his findings.
https://open.alberta.ca/publications/albertas-covid-19-pandemic-response
January 24, 2025
The whole interview is posted here:
https://rumble.com/v6dgqzp-240124b-chris-and-dr.-gary-davidson.html
Here is an excerpt:
Dr. Davidson stated:
There is no such thing as consensus in science. That makes no sense. Science is about questioning everything, experimenting and proving whats’s true or not, that’s science. Consensus is a religion idea and I don’t think it belongs in this field, personally. … We wanna question. We wanna ask. We do have to do it in a way that doesn’t harm patients and populations. That’s completely understandable but the dialogue between high level scientists and those that knew should have been allowed to flow freely which it seems when we did our research, that didn’t happen. We didn’t point fingers at the government. The government made the decisions they had under a lot of pressure with data that seemed to be incomplete. And so … we did a data review. Where did the data come from? Who’d given it to them? Who’s analyzed it, who’s applying it. And it wasn’t the politicians.
To hear the testimony provided by Chris Scott in April 2023 at the Red Deer hearings of the National Citizens Inquiry, please visit: https://nationalcitizensinquiry.ca/witness/chris-scott/
WHAT are the recommendations of this report?
This is the summary provided by unnamed journalists at the Canadian Press, which bills itself as “Canada’s Trusted News Leader”. (Source, italics my own)
The 269-page report calls for the government to halt COVID-19 vaccines without the full disclosure of risks and to end their use for healthy children and teens.
It recommends legislative changes to give doctors more freedom to prescribe alternative therapies in future pandemics, saying health authorities were too restrictive when it came to off-label medication uses.
The report points to drugs like the anti-parasitic ivermectin and anti-malarial hydroxychloroquine, which are not approved for the treatment or prevention of COVID-19 by Health Canada.
The report also casts doubt on the province's approach to public testing for COVID-19, saying methods may have led to “inconsistent determinations regarding the actual infection rate in Alberta,” that in turn may have influenced government policies.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Given that the Canadian Press is not a small agency, one of the journalists working on the article could have been assigned to ascertain WHY, in contrast to the information in the report, Health Canada felt compelled to NOT approve the two therapeutics mentioned. At the recent discussion on the health of Canada’s information environment Dr. Teresa Tam and other medical, polling and media professionals noted that in order to rebuild the confidence of Canadians in both the media and in Health Canada, a more transparent level of reporting is needed. Health reporters could trace the process used by employees at Health Canada to access up to date information. For example, in the fall of 2021, I actively traced the various data curation enterprises posted by and for Health Canada employees and questioned how the claim could be made that there was no evidence of safety and efficacy of Ivermectin at the time. Clearly federal and/provincial health office personnel could have been aware that that was not the case. Who makes which determination that which research is to be excluded or referenced? What information is presented to which Health Canada employees as “trusted”? Who makes that determination? See this document which is part of a larger publication I posted online here: https://followingthecovidscience.8b.io/page3.html#content2-30 (See SECTIONS)
Simply stating that the antiviral medications in question “are not approved for the treatment or prevention of COVID-19 by Health Canada” does NOTHING to promote transparency and trust. This is all the more true as Canadians increasingly become aware of
the importance for pharmaceutical companies of ensuring there are no other safe and effective alternatives when they attempt to gain ‘interim order’ status or ‘emergency use authorization’ in order to be able to market their products to governments.
the absence of people to “champion” repurposed and off patent medications, to ensure that they too have a voice speaking for them throughout the drug approval process. (Typically, pharmaceutical companies have an interest in championing their latest most lucrative products, but once a product is no longer financially viable, they drop it.) Heath Canada DID HAVE a committee to investigate non-vaccine therapeutics (whose membership seems to have included those with other products to sell. What happened to that committee? Why was it disbanded so soon? When it relating to it being disbanded were phycisians and pharmacists prevented from prescribing repurposed therapeutics like ivermectin & hydroxychloroquine? Had these therapeutics even been considered by committee members? If not, why not? LOTS for investigative journalists to dig into….
changes to the drug & vaccine approval process at Health Canada that were implemented in a suspiciously short timeframe before ‘interim order’ status was sought for COVID-19 vaccines. And changes that reflect recommendations in the ‘Agile handbook for regulators published by the world’s largest corporate lobby group — one in which the CEOs of Moderna, Pfizer and other multinational pharmaceutical corporations have an elevated status. (See this post.)
Pfizer’s bribe offer to outspoken Canadian epidemiology and infectious disease researcher Dr. Paul Alexander to buy his silence. In March 2022 Dr. Alexander reported having been approached by Pfizer representatives with the offer of a $1 million lump sum and a $50,000 monthly wage, essentially to stop critiquing Pfizer products. Dr. Alexander turned down this offer. Yet this news caused others to wonder how many other outspoken advocates of these products might have taken up similar offers. https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/dr-paul-alexander-says-he-rejected-pfizers-1-million-offer-to-stop-covid-vaccine-critiques/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
WHAT is the reaction of the Alberta Medical Association?
As reported by the Lisa Johnson of the Canadian Press, Dr. Shelley Duggan, the head of the Alberta Medical Association,
says the report sows distrust by going against proven preventive health measures while promoting fringe methods.
She says the report is "anti-science and anti-evidence," and its recommendations have the potential to cause harm.
"It advances misinformation. It speaks against the broadest and most diligent international scientific collaboration and consensus in history," she said in a statement Monday.
Duggan said the $2-million price tag could have gone toward badly needed hospital beds or medical treatment.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dr. Duggan completely discredits herself with these comments. Please see this separate post dealing exclusively with Dr. Duggan’s responses.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
WHAT is the reaction of other medical, scientific and legal professionals?
So far, it appears corporate and government-backed media outlets have yet to turn to prominent evidence-based scientists or medical professionals for their analysis of the report. Nor have they reported on the possible legal implications of the report.
University of Guelph virologist Dr. Byram Bridle sees the Davidson report “refocusing the mandate of public health services back onto the public as the primary clientele, as opposed to acting in the service of pharmaceutical companies.” Read his entire post here: substack.com/home/post/p-155585498.
Calgarian Lawyer Jeff Rath and Data Analyst Sheldon Yakiwchuk cover many issues in this two hour conversation.
Ontario lawyer Lisa Miron recommends sharing this information with decision makers at all levels, not just in Alberta.
WHAT is the reaction of Canada’s leading “misinformation specialist”?
University of Alberta professor Timothy Caulfield posted this on his X page on January 27, 2025
How problematic is the Alberta report on COVID? Very. Recommendations embrace misinformation & run counter to a vast & diverse body of evidence. Policy analysis is nonsensical & displays a lack of knowledge about law or ethics. This is science in Alberta? Dark Age 2.0.
On the same day, Caulfield posted an interesting note:
Inoculation reduces social media engagement with affectively polarized content https://nature.com/articles/s44271-025-00189-7… cc
"...inoculation significantly reduced self-reported engagement with polarising stimuli."
In other words, if people have been INNOCULATED with information that makes them sceptical of other information, they will dutifully reduce their own engagement with this other information. THIS IS SO TRUE! Someone/something has INJECTED many high level health (mis)information specialists NOT TO TRUST information that is OUTSIDE of the corporate & government backed media/policy bubble. And so they do not even bother to look carefully, trusting 100% in that INNOCULATION. Normally, a hallmark of a critical thinker is some intellectual curiosity along the lines of “I know this is probably false, but let’s just see what exactly about it others find so compelling!” It is clear that none of those commenting on the Davidson study were even trying to understand the research findings of those who contributed to its content. Instead, they simply recirculate the criticisms they hear from others or recycle their own publications.
Prof. Tim Caulfield is a master at this. He has recently pointed at his own 2023 article in which he supports the notion of “scientific consensus”.
There is good news. Studies have consistently shown that both explaining the scientific consensus and using a weight of evidence approach – that is, accurately representing what the available evidence says – can have positive impacts on correcting misperceptions. To this end, journalists should take great care in how they represent contrarian views by, for example, reporting how other reputable scholars view the issue and, when possible, referencing the scientific consensus on point. The scientific community – including universities, public funding entities and scientific and professional organizations – should create accessible and shareable content about the scientific consensus on important topics. There is a new project at Durham University, called the Institute for Ascertaining Scientific Consensus, that is designed to help with this goal by measuring and compiling the strength of scientific consensus on a range of key topics. The team, led by Professor Peter Vickers, hopes it will be a useful tool for policymakers and will “serve to inform laypersons, fighting against ‘fake news’ and misinformation.”
Finally, we also need to correct misrepresentations wherever they emerge, be it on social media, in the news, on popular podcasts or out of the mouths of our political leaders.
https://healthydebate.ca/2023/08/topic/bothsidesism-scientific-consensus-matters/
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
It is unclear at which point in time, Prof Caulfield believes a “consensus” should be determined among which reputable scholars. The consensus that mRNA injections provide more harm than good was already widely circulating OUTSIDE of government and corporate backed media platforms and among evidence-based scholars BEFORE vaccine mandates were issued in Canada. Material with this information was circulating throughout the declared pandemic and continues to do so. Here are a few examples:
https://www.canadiancovidcarealliance.org/media/dr-mccullough-and-the-4-pillars-of-pandemic-response/ (June 14, 2021)
https://www.canadiancovidcarealliance.org/media/the-pfizer-inoculations-for-covid-19-more-harm-than-good-2/ (December 17 2021)
And this video assembled 6 months ago, shows footage of Dr. Teresea Tam and Dr. Bonnie Henry making earlier public statements that CONTRADICT the information that they were KNOWN TO HAVE BEEN PRVVY TO at the time. (July 9, 2014) https://www.canadiancovidcarealliance.org/featured/covid-19-mrna-genetic-vaccines-were-pregnant-and-breastfeeding-women-told-the-truth/
The Harvard Kennedy School Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy garnered 209K page views in 2023. Prior to 2000, the term ‘misinformation’ did not frequently occur in their publications. Yet at some point in the 2000s, the field of “misinformation studies” has ballooned such that the Harvard Kennedy School launched the HKS Misinformation Review in 2020.
Since launching in January 2020, the HKS Misinformation Review has published more than 100 peer-reviewed studies that examine misinformation from different perspectives—from its prevalence and impact to the effectiveness of possible interventions.
The six most recent articles currently posted all claim to centre around various “conspiracies.” To better understand how this repidly growing cadre of “misinformation specialists” undertake their research, readers are invited to take a look at this October 2020 article: Overcoming resistance to COVID-19 vaccine adoption: How affective dispositions shape views of science and medicine
It purported to arrive at answers to these research questions:
Do affective dispositions, including warmth or coolness toward social actors and institutions and feelings of social trust, better explain anti-vax attitudes than political ideology or demographics?
Are there underlying commonalities in the worldview of respondents who say they will not use a COVID-19 vaccine and those who reported voting for Donald Trump in 2016?
Can the collective of single-issue activists referred to as the anti-vaxxer community, who embrace misinformation and conspiracy, be understood in the broader context of their affective dispositions toward social actors and institutions?
Are traditional, information-based public service announcements (PSAs) or similar appeals likely to be effective in reaching everyone who says they will not vaccinate, or is a more nuanced approach required?
The primary research method is the use of survey questions, involving questions around people’s previous voting histories and their general “social trust” scores. These are calculated based responses to questions such as: How much do you trust your family / your neighbours / scientists / science knowledge / journalists / local government / politicians / medical / immigrants, etc. A calculation involving reactions to advocacy groups like Black Lives Matters, Antifa etc. was somehow purported to play into one’s affective disposition and possible resistance to COVID-19 vaccines. Note that this research was peer reviewed and yet, there is no evidence that anyone with expertise in vaccine development, manufacturing, marketing, efficacy or injury was in any way involved in this study. There also do not seem to be any questions like: Have you or any of your family members previously experienced vaccine injuries or medical misdiagnoses, which could likely be a far greater indicator of future vaccine hesitance than any of the other questions!
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
HOW have mainstream media journalists covered this report?
One CBC journalist refereed to the report as:
The $2-million dollar report, which was posted to the Alberta government's website Friday, looked into how data and information informed the province's COVID-19 response.
Kylee Pedersen cited an Alberta MLA who is supportive of the report, an unnamed spokesperson for the Health Minister, the leader of the Opposition and Alberta's former chief medical officer of health. Both Mr. Nenshi and Dr. Talbot critiqued not only the report but the manner in which the report was released, late on a Friday afternoon and without the usual accompanying press release.
An Alberta MLA who hosted a town hall meeting last spring which aimed to persuade the government to end COVID mRNA vaccines for children said he would like to see his government follow through on recommendations made in the newly released provincial COVID-19 task force report.
Eric Bouchard, the UCP MLA for Calgary-Lougheed, said the findings of the report were "shocking" and that the information it presents to the public is "long overdue."
"I think it's up to cabinet now to follow the leadership of the premier and immediately activate Dr. Davidson's recommendations, starting with halting mRNA vaccinations for children, and putting a pause on the vaccinations for children in Alberta until we have more information," Bouchard told CBC News on Monday.
A spokesperson for the health minister told CBC News the provincial government received the interim report in August, for initial review, and a final report was received in December.
Asked whether the province intends to follow through on any of the recommendations found in the report, specifically to end the use of COVID-19 vaccines for healthy children and teens, the spokesperson said government is reviewing the report and that no decisions based on its findings have been made.
Alberta's former chief medical officer of health, Dr. James Talbot, said that typically, reports of this nature are released alongside a press release and are accompanied by public discussion of the findings.
The fact that this report's release lacked either of those things points to several possibilities from the government's perspective, he added.
"One [reason] is that they recognize how bad it is and they would prefer not to have a public discussion of how bad it is.… I think [another reason] is that they just want this to go away because they don't want to have a discussion about whether it was good value for money."
Talbot said the province's Ministry of Health collects key vaccine statistics, and he would like to see them released in order to put an end to the discussion about whether COVID vaccines are safe.
"This isn't a matter of theory anymore, right? The ministry knows which Albertans and how many got immunized. They know what happened to them afterwards. Did they end up getting strange diseases and being diagnosed and admitted to hospital? Or did they end up getting protected and then were able to stay out of the hospital?" said Talbot.
"The ministry has all the data it needs to comment on the safety of the vaccine using 'made in Alberta' data. And so why they wouldn't put this to rest is beyond me."
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Many in Alberta have long been asking for what Dr. Talbot mentioned - that ALL the data around the COVID-19 testing, infections, injections, prevention, treatment and fatalities be made public.
I also agree that the release of this report should not have been scheduled in such an “underground” manner. Vaccine injured people have been pushed to the side for too much. They and their stories as people who DID what the MANDATES asked of them AND THEN were harmed MUST BE HEARD.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Alberta NDP Leader Naheed Nenshi called a news conference to say, among other things, that the report shows the premier doesn't mind "wasting taxpayer money," and that implementing the report's findings would remove medical choice from Albertans.
"There's only two reasons that the province could put out something so shocking. The first is that [the premier] is simply pandering to her extremist base and not planning on doing anything about it. The second is she's planning on doing something about it," he said.
"[This report] would take away life-saving vaccines from Alberta citizens … this is an authoritarian document," he said.
Nenshi also criticized the timing of the government's release of the report.
"This government loves the Friday afternoon trash dump of news. You know, they do this all the time," he said.
"They wanted to quietly release it for one of two reasons. Either they're embarrassed by it — they finally found shame. Or they're planning on implementing it and they didn't want anyone to know. Both are bad answers."
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I would encourage Mr. Nenshi to read the comments I made re: the talking points presented by Dr. Shelly Duggan, the head of the Alberta Medical Association here. That is where I address the comment on the supposed waste of money.
As for the use of the term “extremist”, my reminder to Mr. Neshi would be that his predecessor had the extremist proposal of going door to door to force inject anyone who was still uninjected by a certain date. That was certainly not a moderate position — more like something out of a dystopian movie.
I would also ask Mr. Nenshi to explain how STOPPING A PROCEDURE UNLESS it could be done with FULL MEDICAL DISCLOSURE OF RISKS AND BENEFITS equates to removing medical choice! Or is he referring to the recommendation NOT to inject children with something that provides them more harm than good?
And what (other than media propaganda) is his evidence that COVID-19 injections are truly “life-saving vaccines”? This has been the problem since the start of the declared COVID-19 pandemic. Soundbites that are never presented in conjunction with any valid data. It. should be up to journalists all across the country to abide by their ethical guidelines and present a diversity of perspectives on key issues. Then Mr. Nenshi would be a much better informed and more critical consumer of news.
Too bad the journalist did not ask Mr. Nenshi to point to any single recommendation that is “authoritarian”. Instead, Mr. Nenshi was given yet another platform to engage in electioneering. Anyone who reads this Maclean’s profile of Mr. Nenshi will note that his love of politicking (the thrill of the win) seems to be what gives him greatest joy.
I honestly question what asking the newly minted leader without a portfolio to comment was supposed to add to readers’ understanding of the report. If an NDP voice was desired to comment on a report about DATA, why not choose someone with a data analytics focus, or public safety and emergency management, or health care and continuing care, fields that intersect with the content of the report? The list of NDP caucus members offers a range of exciting possibilities for informed commentary.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
For her coverage posted on January 26, Heather Yourex-West of Global News turned to these three individuals:
Calgary Mount Royal University Political Scientist Duane Bratt who stated:
There’s a lot of self-citing that goes on, so many of the studies that the report cites were written by members of the task force. There's no contrary view.
Dr. Brian Conway, Medical Director of the Vancouver Infectious Disease Centre states:
This is a sad document, its a disappointing document. Its a document that … to my mind lacks significant credibility.
Dr. Lynora Saxinger, Co-chair of Alberta’s Scientific Advisory Group.
I didn’t really see evidence of a literature search or a method where they evaluated the quality of the literature prior to including it in the report and kind of with that I perceived that a lot of better quality information was omitted from the report in some of the sections.
In his coverage, fellow Global News reporter Ken MacGillivray limited himself to the identical set of three critics, choosing different quotes. )
MacGillivray cited Dr. Brian Conway, medical director of the Vancouver Infectious Diseases Centre as saying:
“This is a report that is written by individuals who clearly had an agenda, who did not want it to be peer-reviewed”
“Deena Hinshaw [former Alberta chief medical officer) is not involved even as a contributor and as someone who would comment on the report — and she’s the one leading all of the decisions that are made in Alberta. How can you write a report about what happened in Alberta without Deena Hinshaw?”
Mount Royal University political science professor Dr. Duane Bratt:
“Some of the key decision makers who are not in government, but apparently even within government, wouldn’t talk to the task force because I think they felt — and rightly so — that the deck was already stacked against them,”
Dr. Lynora Saxinger, an infectious disease specialist from the University of Alberta:
“I think that’s what’s happened here. Like it was a group of people who are selected, who are already known in the public domain to have extreme or fringe views about things like vaccination and about things like, you know, restrictions, public health restrictions,”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I am puzzled how two different Global News jouranalists end up citing the same three experts. I wonder whether MacGillivray and Yourex-West jointly reached out to all three individuals for spoken interviews at the same time. Or whether the three critics were approached in another way, or simply all emails out their commentary to a range of news outlets cold turkey.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
WHAT is NOT mentioned in the Global News coverage? (And how would I address this?)
Professor Bratt’s area of expertise is in international relations, foreign policy, nuclear reactor export policy and Alberta politics. Does one presume that comes with background in statistical analysis with a focus on medical information? He is currently working on a book about the politics of COVID-19 in Alberta. Previously, he was an editor for a book called Orange Chinook: Politics in the New Alberta, in which he wrote about the fall of the Conservative Dynasty and the rise of the New Democratic Party in Alberta. Does one presume that he is politically neutral in his critiques?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Thoughts I would share with Dr. Daune Bratt: Were you looking at a different document? Or does my Search feature not work? Which of the publications referenced in the Report was written by which of the task force members? I do not find a single example. Too bad the person interviewing you did not ask this as a follow up question.
How do you expect a “contrary view” when the mandate of the Task Force was to analyze official government data around COVID-19 issues? Are you expecting TWO OPPOSING SETS OF DATA to be gathered within Alberta Health Services for the same metrics? A case in point: A1.1 in the Appendix of Chapter 8. Weekly number of COVID cases from week X to week Z. Percentages of people with vaccination coverage etc. Would there be a different branch collection a second version of the same information?
Did you raise objections to any reports assembled by the Scientific Advisory Group upon whose guidance much of Alberta’s COVID-19 policy was based, each time they chose to omit “contrary views” in their work? Why here if not there?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dr. Lynora Saxinger is a co-chair of the Scientific Advisory Group that provides Rapid Reviews of published literature or policy documents around questions directed to them by AHS or other parties. Her critique re: the process used by the parties involved in the Davidson report might stem from what could be a disconnect between those processes and the Terms of Reference used by the SAG which are outlined here: https://www.albertahealthservices.ca/assets/info/ppih/if-ppih-covid-19-sag-terms-of-reference.pdf
Here is an example of the guidance provided in July 2021 by Dr. Saxinger and SAG to Alberta Public Health Officials https://www.albertahealthservices.ca/assets/info/ppih/if-ppih-covid-19-sag-rapid-review-management-post-covid-conditions.pdf
It is noteworthy that there are no occurrences in the document at all of the terms “vaccinated”, “spike protein”, “ mRNA” or “lipid nanoparticle” - in other words, there is no recognition of the cytotoxic nature of spike protein in the sources included in the literature review. The processes used by Dr. Saxinger’s SAG in July 2021 appear to have precluded the inclusion of findings such as these from March 2021. Likewise, these from May 2021 show how vaccine induced spike protein circulates in the blood stream. It appears that person(s) doing the literature search in advance of the SAG meetings are likely ‘information experts’ without training in immunology, vaccinology, virology, etc. Given certain guidelines, they may only provide committee members with peer reviewed and published information, often limited to only controlled randomized studies for within a certain date range. This might not provide sufficient flexibility in a rapidly evolving situation as medical publishing takes a long time.
It appears that even if there had been a virologist or vaccinologist strongly involved in the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 with the advisory group and had this person been following the discussion among colleagues around the world, around various observations, hypotheses, research proposals and preliminary findings, none of this information would have been allowed to be brought to the table. It is highly likely that only the materials identified in the original literature search could be considered by the members of the SAG. Committee members are likely not allowed to introduce information they were aware of based on their areas of expertise or personal research, for fear of introducing “bias”. Limiting the deliberations by an Advisory Group to only those findings that have already been advanced through the publication stage is predicated upon the biases of the corporations running the publication houses who decide which studies to publish and which to reject.
In other words, Dr. Saxinger’s critique of the Davidson report re: absence of “a literature search” to find “better quality information” NEEDS to be directed also to the work of the SAG and to ALL of its publications. How in guidance on post-COVID conditions can there be no mention of the mechanism of action through which an overabundance of SARS-CoV- spike protein could make its way through the body?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Thoughts I would direct to Dr. Saxinger. When precautions taken to avoid bias leave OUT key recent findings of advisory groups, it is all the more important for journalists (in this case science journalists) to be following and reporting on developments in the field as they occur, so the the wider public gains an awareness off developments in the field that can have a life or death impact on the population. Who or what is preventing many public health decision makers and large swaths of the general public from getting full access to rapidly evolving insights from the field is illustrated by red Xs in the graphics included in this post.
Since July 9, 2022, I believe Dr. Saxinger should have been aware of the information in the Pfizer documentation that the company had wish to keep concealed but was released upon court order. That Pfizer data was pointing to a definite LACK of safety and efficacy of these products. Yet two and a half years later, Dr. Saxinger still appears to think that those who look into the growing body of data putting the safety and efficacy of the COVID-19 injection into question, as ‘fringe’. I wonder how aware she is of the events along the timeline of significant findings and events posted here: https://totalityofevidence.com/pandemic-timeline/. Perhaps a staff member could be assigned to situate all of the COVID-19 related SAG documents within this timeline. Once Dr. Saxinger sees the entire flow of data - WHEN was WHAT known and published WHERE? WHAT information did NOT make its way to her? WHICH of the SAG directives could be contrary to known information? WHAT processes would need to be changed to ensure that in the future, committees that advise governments on scientific matters can ACTUALLY and FREELY access ALL relevant information in a timely manner? Can changes be made to the process so that committee members with expertise in the field can pull in new sources as they become available, and can these sources be purely observational by relevant professionals, like physicians observing what works and does not work win the case of indiduual patients? In other words, is there for live action research in the SAG processes?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dr. Brian Conway is the president and medical director of the Vancouver Infectious Diseases Centre and the Vancouver Urban Health Centre as well as an adjunct professor on the faculty of Health Sciences at Simon Fraser University. (Source)
He is obviously a very concerned and active advocate on behalf of the HIV patient community as seen in this news article from 2023. In other words, a great choice to ask for commentary on the task force report - provided he was given sufficient time to read it. I recommend journalists give him more time and ask him for additional comments when it is more likely he will have gotten through to Chapter 9 for example. Then one could ask:
As a someone who analyzes treatment protocols for hepatitis, how to you respond to learning that someone somewhere selectively chose poorly designed studies in order to PREVENT Canadian physicians from effectively treating patients?
Other questions re: Dr. Conway’s initial responses could have been:
What do you mean by a document being “sad”? Where exactly do your disappointments lie? And what makes you so certain that the Task Force did not try to reach out to Dr. Deena Hinshaw for her perspectives?
You claim the task force members “clearly had an agenda”. Please clarify. You are aware that the entire public health establishment has a very clear agenda - that of combatting ‘vaccine hesitancy’ by whichever means possible. This agenda was clearly outlined by the World Health Organization back in 2015. At the time, it referred to the 1 in 5 children worldwide who had no access to vaccines for preventable diseases. It was a noble thing to try to prevent the deaths of 1.5. million children annually. Do you see however, how the same term was essentially weaponized, the more our public health agencies were infiltrated by pharmaceutical company backed health initiatives? Are you aware of the phenomena of global public private partnerships - mechanisms that have taken decision making out of the hands of governments and turned them over to corporate interests? Premier among those global P3 are of course any and all of the Bill Gates related institutions. I would assume that Dr. Conway is aware of the various untoward actions re: AIDS patients carried out by Dr. Tony Fauci and Bill Gates, as outlined here. I would wonder if he sees parallels with the interference in medical issues by such powerbrokers as Bill Gates also in COVID-19 matters.
As a whole, the reports by Mainstream journalists did not touch on the CONTENT of the reports themselves. They simply gave voice to relevant or less relevant commentary provided by selected individuals.
HOW have independent journalists covered the report?
Former Cross Cancer Institute oncologist Dr. Makis linked directly to this Rebel News report by Tamara Ugolini. In contrast to the other journalist reports reviewed above Tamara Ugolini summarizes key aspects of the content of the report.
It becomes clear that a) she has read the report, b) she has background knowledge of the issues, having covered stories on these topics in the past c) she does not appear to be restricted in terms of available time, word counts (or video minutes) and she has the freedom to follow where the evidence leads and d) can indeed clearly articulate the issues, the context, the matters at hand in almost alll of the chapters of there report.
I recommend all journalists AND the experts consulted re: this Task Force Report to take the time and LEARN about the issues by viewing Tamara’s report.
Consider her coverage the gold standard that the rest of Canada’s journalists should strive to attain.
As you follow along, take a peek at the Critical Balance Reporting Test and its 8 indicators. Can you see any or all of them being addressed by Tamara?
