Physician Heal Thyself! - When Certain Medical Minds Forget the Ethics of their own Professional Code
A gentle reminder of the ETHICAL REQUIREMENT to be OPEN to new medical discoveries
This is obviously too much for a single letter. Readers are encouraged to pull information from this post for possible use in their own communication with others. I propose the following new angles to the discussion:
fixed vs transformational science (noun based vs verb based or Science “Frozen in Time” vs Science “Moving with Time”
a demonstraton of a lack of consensus even within the field of “misinformation studies” (plus the snowflake analogy)
the possibilty that as the President of the Alberta Medical Associaiton someone could be primiarly focused on administrative matters, and not be expected to play the role of medical role model
References to Dr. Bridle’s experiences as one engaged in transformational, not fixed, science. Also references to Dr. Kilian and the matter of which official documents (ethics code or college procedures) take precedence
three examples of how it is Dr. Tam, not the Pandemic Data Review Task Force that is sowing distrust (+ other replies to Dr. Duggan’s critiques)
a review of CMA Ethics that need to be revisited in light of new learning
a reference to the red X’s in the Information Trail (not new for some readers) along with a poster re: trying in vain to stop the flow of information
the suggestion that the Task Force Report be used as an educational tool to introduce all those who have been stuck with Mainstream Science reporting for 4 years to what they have been missing
3 tools that the AMA could possibly use as it supports the mental healthof those who are now needing to deal with entirely new realities.
Dear Dr. Duggen,
you were recently cited by Lisa Johnson of the Canadian Press as having made the following comments in response to the recent release of the Final Report of the Alberta COVID-19 Pandemic Data Review Task Force:
Apparently you said…
the report sows distrust by going against proven preventive health measures while promoting fringe methods.
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,"
the $2-million price tag could have gone toward badly needed hospital beds or medical treatment.
I have a number of questions — items apparently not asked by the journalists who sought your professional opinion:
Ms. Johnson reported that you made these statements on the Monday after the report was released on the Friday afternoon. Can one assume you spent the weekend reading the report in detail, or were your comments based solely upon a quick scroll-through of the document, perhaps a peek at the table of contents only?
The report includes this statement: Our quest for answers was impeded by barriers, including reluctance from key stakeholders to engage with the Task Force's mandate“ Would you personally have been one of the key stakeholders from whom the Task Force members sought to hear?
I note that since 2016, once you took on roles within the Alberta Medical Association, you have no longer been practicing as a physician. Your name no longer shows in the CPSA directory. Given that you continue using the title of Dr. in your name, am I correct in assuming you still have your medical license and that you are therefore obligated to abide by the Canadian Medical Association Code of Ethics and Professionalism?
I am writing on the assumption that yes, this Code of Ethics and Professionalism still has a bearing upon you. Below the “Information Trail” stickman flowchart you will note that I have selected specific sections of the CMA Code of Ethics and Professionalism that I believe you have overlooked or forgotten about when you issued the comments cited by Lisa Johnson.
I am writing to give you the opportunity to issue a second, more informed statement on the Pandemic Data Review Task Force Report.
I note that as the head of the Alberta Medical Association Executive, your focus must be on the Strategic Priorities identified by your fellow Executive members.
Interestingly, these are:
to assist and support AMA members “in maintaining their financial health. This includes negotiating with payers to ensure fair compensation, the provision of practice management services and the offering of financial products”
support “physician Well Being, whether it be at home, in the workplace or in the community”
support members “in their role as leaders within the health care system. This includes supporting physician leadership in developing innovations in care delivery and integration of primary and specialty care. Other activities include the AMA’s key role, with Alberta Health through the AMA Agreement, in developing and implementing the physician payment strategy for the province; several programs aimed at quality improvement; activities related to eHealth; and supporting the development of physician leadership skills.”
It is very likely that like me, journalists who turn to you for commentary have an incorrect assumption that you are a top MEDICAL leader, but it appears that you are only operating from an administrative standpoint instead.
I come from a public school environment, where a school principal is regarded not only as an administrator of budgets, timelines and operational planning, but also as an educational leader, a role model when it comes to the vocation of educating young people. As such, principals should be keeping on top of developments in the fields of educational psychology, teaching methodology, etc. I had assumed that your role also involves being a leader when it comes to the vocational calling of being a physician - someone who demonstrates professionalism in the pursuit of ever evolving medical and scientific knowledge.
Perhaps in the day to day minutiae circling around fair compensation, financial products, payment strategies, quality improvement programs, eHealth issues and Well Being initiatives, you have lost sight of the ETHICAL obligations that govern your profession.
Perhaps also, with the impact of 24/7 pandemic messaging coming at you from our mainstream media ON TOP OF whatever Health Canada, PHAC, AHS, Alberta Health were sending your way, you had little or no exposure to the analysis of scientists working hands on in the fields of computational biology, respirology, virology, vaccinology, pathology and the like. One such scientist is Dr. Byram Bridle of the University of Guelph. He had been tasked with DEVELOPING a CANADIAN COVID-19 VACCINE PRODUCT. Federal and provincial granting agents are not in the habit of giving such high level contracts to NON-SCIENTISTS.
You might NOT have heard of the police investigation into the people who conspired to silence Dr. Bridle when he did what any professional scientist should do. That is, he used methods of scientific inquiry to ascertain the pathways through which external non-human elements (like lipid nanoparticle delivered modified RNA encoded to trigger the development of the most harmful component of the SARS-CoV-2 virus) affect the cells throughout the body. One such method of inquiry was to investigate documentation prepared by Pfizer itself - i.e. its own biodistribution study of where in the body the injected materials travel. You might be unaware of what was done to Dr. Bridle over the three years following his attempt to sound the alarm based on actual data.
I have had to endure having many colleagues from around the world try to paint me as an academic who lost his way; that I somehow lost my ability to discern fact from fiction within my fields of expertise. Because there was so much propaganda pretending that a worldwide scientific consensus existed, many members of the public sided with the apparent majority of ‘experts’ who claimed that I and others like me were outliers and misinformers, and we were treated like pariahs deserving of ridicule, hatred, and punishment. Rather than being recognized as an alleged victim, I was banished from my workplace, and my academic research and teaching programs were destroyed.
That would be why you might never have been privy to the inconvenient truths pointed at by the data that Dr. Bridle unearthed FROM PFIZER ITSELF. Please refer to his entire post entitled My Story is Finally Being Told Because of a Publicly Available Police Report.
By not having access to the full range of information around the entire COVID-19 topic, you like many of the other critics of the Pandemic Data Task Force Report, are operating and making policy decisions without the knowledge of the entirety of the issues. Let’s put this into an administrative context. If you were to oversee the implementation of a new software program to manage eHealth and payment strategies, would you rely solely on the vendor’s flyers when ascertaining which program to spend money on? Or would you rely on a committee to investigate only the features of the one program that has the loudest, most prevalent marketing campaign? Or would you give your committee the task of doing a full scale review of all available and relevant software programs - to ascertain the weaknesses and strengths of each regardless of the marketing used by each one?
I cannot assume you would oversee a full scale expenditure and roll out of one expensive option, WITHOUT ensuring that ALL options were considered.
Your comments to Lisa Johnson for her article reflect the poor administrative choice of having only considered a single option when it came to COVID-19 prevention and care.
And because you spoke to a journalist from Canadian Press, your ill informed words are now circuiting widely across the country, since CP is not just a single platform local news outlet, it is a NEWS AGENCY whose reports are a major source for smaller publications nation-wide.
In particular, you stated:
the report sows distrust
WRONG. This was already expertly being done by Dr. Teresa Tam. Here are three examples of many:
a) On June 22, 2021 in a public forum, Dr. Tam stated:
continually tracking new evidence is crucial, remaining nimble and ready to refine our approaches, to shift how we respond. …Not doing so will not, I think, be responsible.
and yet, she has done none of those things. Her persistence in continually denying new evidence culminated in her horrible endorsement of mRNA vaccine technology on January 21, 2025 at an event entitled: How healthy is Canada’s information environment? Action in the face of misinformation. In her words: “mRNA is an absolute miracle. We just have to explain better how it works.” If it didn’t lead to such fatal outcomes, I would say Dr. Tam’s excitement would be akin to someone gushing over the new spell-check and and word-count feature in the 1985 version of Microsoft MS-DOS in the face of today’s technology. When mRNA tech was first introduced to Dr. Tam, it certainly would have sounded intriguing, but once the first results started being reported (results fully censored OUT OF MAINSTREAM AND PUBLIC HEALTH REPORTING) ALL the shine came off the new “innovative” technology. If you personally CANNOT explain HOW mRNA based COVID-19 injections ACTUALLY WORK (i.e. step by step what they do once they leave the needle) please visit Understanding the Basic Mechanisms of an mRNA Injection.
b) Dr. Tam spoke to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Health (HESA) and mentioned having already placed orders for pandemic related products BEFORE THE APPROVAL PROCESS WAS COMPLETE - I apologize for not having the exact date, but I believe it was at some point prior to the approval of Paxlovid or some similar product — it was not the mRNA injections themselves. I believe HESA staff could assist your staff in finding the date and the words spoken by Dr. Tam on this topic.
c) Dr. Tam’s many statements on the supposed safety of COVID-19 vaccines for women in pregnancy have been identified as contrary to published documentation her office would have received prior to her comments. Please view the compilation found here: Were Pregnant and Breastfeeding Women told the Truth?
You continued your comments to Lisa Johnson with this critique:
by going against proven preventive health measures while promoting fringe methods.
Apparently you are not aware of how over the long run, COVID-19 vaccines did NOT prevent infection and so it cannot be considered a “proven preventative health measure”. Nevertheless, the Task Force Report is actually showing how GOVERNMENT HEALTH AUTHORITIES WENT AGAINST PROVEN HEALTH MEASURES. Please note these statements in Chapter 8 of the report:
Notable Statements in the NACI Review
Anyone receiving any authorized mRNA COVID-19 vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna) should be informed of the risks associated with mRNA COVID-19 vaccines (myocarditis and anaphylaxis) and be advised to seek medical attention if they develop signs and symptoms suggestive of these conditions.
Anyone receiving any authorized viral vector COVID-19 vaccine (AstraZeneca/COVISHIELD or Janssen) should be informed of the risks associated with viral vector vaccines (GBS, VITT/TTS, CLS) and be advised to seek medical attention if they develop signs and symptoms suggestive of these conditions.
None of the COVID-19 vaccine data reviewed in Alberta, including government communications or SAG reviews of vaccination, included the NACI cautions above.
When ever before would you have condoned a medical practice NOT following recognized protocols? Here we have it being done on a massive scale.
You went on to say:
the report is "anti-science
Let’s recognize that we are dealing with two definitions of SCIENCE - one definition is FIXED ( or FROZEN IN TIME) and the other is TRANSFORMATIVE (or MOVING WITH THE TIMES) (Source: dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/science)
This is FIXED. On date X what facts did X scientists (who have studied a particular subject) provide? This is also FROZEN IN TIME. Think of all the disastrous health recommendations used in the past (from arsenic and bloodletting to lobotomies and LSD, not to mention tapeworm therapy). At a given time these were the latest recommendations coming out of THE SCIENCE.
Contrast that FIXED, noun-based definition with all of the VERBS in this definition:
This is TRANSFORMATIVE: watching, measuring, doing, describing, studying…Instead of being FROZEN IN TIME, this approach to science is MOVING WITH THE TIMES. So scientists noted an increase in antibody production among those people in Israel who got the Pfizer injections first. That was the the entire purpose of COVID-19 vaccines. So they were excited and reported success. And yet, in the months that followed, those who CONTINUED WATCHING and MEASURING noted other results… a DECREASE in antibody production, and an INCREASE in illness, not to mention adverse side effects.
THE SCIENCE recorded BEFORE the three month time was:
These shots are safe and effective.
AND YET, scientists who continued doing their scientific work TO THIS DAY continually note that past the three month mark, these shots are NOT safe and effective.
Who is being “anti-science’?
and [the report is] anti-evidence,"
When someone presents you with evidence, how can you claim they are AGAINST evidence?
I am sharing with you Table 1 in Chapter 8.
In August 2022, Dr. Pierre Kory MD, MPA, published his analysis of the Pfizer trial data concerning pregnant women.248 Dr. Kory found that:
“According to the Pfizer “Cumulative Analysis of Post-Authorization Adverse Events Report” section 5.3.6 on page 12, two hundred and seventy pregnancies were reported during the trial. Of these two hundred and thirty-eight had no outcome
attached to them. No explanation in the document for the lack of reporting. Did they lose the chart? The remaining thirty-two had the following results:
Twenty-three spontaneous abortions
Two spontaneous abortions with intra-uterine death
Two premature births with neonatal death
One spontaneous abortion with neonatal death
One normal outcome
This means there was an 87.5% fetal/neonatal mortality for the thirty-two pregnancies they had reported an outcome for in their post authorization follow-up period. These are devastating results. Can anyone say, with a clear conscience, the Pfizer Covid -19 vaccine is safe in pregnant women based on this original Pfizer data?”
All that the Task Force did was to COMPILE EVIDENCE, in this case, evidence from the Pfizer trials that was ALREADY IN THE HANDS OF the Public Health Agency of Canada for a few YEARS before the Task Force put it into this report.
Unfortunately, your claim that a task force report pulling together EVIDENCE is ANTI-evidence cannot be taken seriously by anyone.
and its recommendations have the potential to cause harm.
Did you receive “talking points” from someone? Could you please refer to ANY of the recommendations in ANY of the chapters that have ‘the potential to cause harm’?
This should have been the FIRST question any journalist interviewing you should have asked.
For example:
In Chapter 1 - How is it harmful to recommend that the committee that provides scientific recommendations (SAG) eliminates process bias, source bias, and evidence weight bias? How is it harmful to recommend transparency of decision making, central collection of data at a provincial level, or to involve the professionals of the Alberta Emergency Management Agency in the case of future emergencies?
I will refrain from listing ALL the recommendations in the report here. But I re-iterate the request that if you are going to make a blanket statement that the recommendations have the potential to cause harm, you should specify where you see this potential.
"It advances misinformation.
The term “misinformation” was hardly used 20 years ago when there was still more balance in journalism, before it occurred to someone that to share multiple perspectives in reporting is a BAD THING. Journalism schools now WARN their students not to dare engage in ‘bothside-ism’. They are to “find where the consensus lies” and only report on that. In other words, any of the mavericks in the past who dared to figure out what was WRONG with the disastrous health recommendations listed above should never have been reported on. Science is to religiously remain FIXED or FROZEN IN TIME. To report on those doing transformative work, continually observing, measuring, revising and testing out previous hypotheses is to “advance misinformation”.
Let’s break down the concept of “misinformation” in a public health context. I wish to refer you to Data, Information, Evidence, and Knowledge: A Proposal for Health Informatics and Data Science, a 2018 publication by Dr. Olaf Dammann, Professor and Vice Chair Public Health and Community Medicine at Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston. Two years ago, I summarized his work as follows:
As we hear barbs being thrown across the way, with some commentators and experts claiming that other experts and commentators are “promoting misinformation” it may help to look for the data and the contexts in which data arise, to firstly verify the information being presented.
If the one side or the other of the argument is running on beliefs that are not fully grounded in CURRENT evidence (i.e. useful contextualized information - aka useful, accurate data in context) then, and only then, could a charge of “misinformation” stick. And then it would need to be followed up by joint presentation of the data in context coming from the other side. At no point in time should the scientific process be reduced to a static, linear exercise ending with a fixed conclusion.
At all points in the discussions it is essential to display mutual willingness to follow where the data/information/evidence lead, even if beliefs need to be broken. Science-informed public health officials NEED TO BE OPEN TO NEW EVIDENCE, remain “nimble” and be prepared to drop any firmly held beliefs in order to shift how they respond.
Your critique of the Pandemic Data Task Force Report also included this remark:
It speaks against the broadest and most diligent international scientific collaboration and consensus in history,"
It is at this point that I begin to assume you were definitely reading off talking points assembled by someone other than yourself.
Imagine weather forecasters huddled indoors with the blinds shut, working hard at ascertaining consensus among their various ways of defining a snowflake. Imaging them unaware that time has passed and it is now summer - their need to define a snowflake is no longer relevant to the context outside of their office. So too, the non-scientific “misinformation specialists” huddle trying to come up with a united front - struggling to find consensus among themselves as to what should and should not be included in the term “misinformation.”
In the meantime, outside of the ivory tower, real people are suffering and actual scientists are looking into Why, and into How to help them, and into How to avoid more harms in the future. Just like there is no consensus among “misinformation specicalists” and neither should there be, there is no consensus among the many different perspectives of the many different specialities on EXACTLY HOW WHAT HAPPENS WHY when these products enter the body. To insist on consensus would be to clamp down on creative perceptions, unique angles from which to undertake observations, enlightened ideas as to how to suggest investigations in which of the myriad corners of the totality of all the fields involved from nephrology to gynaecology, respirology, pathology… given that these products have potential impacts ANYWHERE IN THE BODY.
You might not be aware of the local, regional, national and international collaboative network of world class specialists, OUTSIDE OF GOVERNMENT OR CORPORATE funding, who are using collaborative tools and uncensored platforms (like Substack) to connect, share observations, analyze each others’ findings, authentically undertaking peer review of each other’s work, jointly creating new knowledge and developing the entire field related to SARS-CoV-2, mRNA technologies, lipid nanoparticle toxicity, potential treatment protocols for COVID-19, LongCOVID and vaccine injured patients, and so much more. Ever so slowly, they are combatting the corporate censorship which is rampant in the medical publishing industry to try to get their work to a wider audience. Here, for example, yet another victim of corporate censorship, the Canadian scientist whose work is having a major impact in Australia and the UK but who is likely totally unknown to you here in Canada. See Medical Journals as Gatekeepers: A Broken System.
I would say that THIS globe-spanning network of COVID-19 related scientists from all backgrounds and specialties is “the broadest and most diligent international scientific collaboration … in history.” And sadly, it is happening OUTSIDE of the public eye, BECAUSE top medical bureaucrats in positions like yours continue to support the gutting of the medical system and the persecution of fellow citizens. This recent example of Dr. Rochangé Kilian in Ontario, is being repeated all around the country, including in Alberta. Hers just happens to be the most extensively documented case (but you will note that there still is next to no truthful coverage of her case in mainstream media.) See all of the posts entitled ‘Dr. Rochagné Kilian: Her persecution, and what it means for you!’ documented by the independent Richardson Health Report.
the $2-million price tag could have gone toward badly needed hospital beds or medical treatment.
If I am correct, the AMA under your leadership is involved in “developing and implementing the physician payment strategy for the province”
To me this means you are in the exciting position of being able to access physician billing and payment records. You could direct your staff to run a tally….
$2 million for this report versus
a) what COULD HAVE BEEN billed for all COVID-19 related procedures if the Alberta Emergency Management Agency had been able to follow the Pandemic Management Plan reducing lock-down related costs to the health care system like addictions, delayed surgeries, etc. AND please include the costs of prescribing the various therapeutics that make up the antiviral preventive and treatment protocols that were already circulating in 2020 (See references to AEMA and McCullough Protocol and the FLCCC protocol in the report.)
and versus
b) what WAS billed for all COVID-19 related procedures
$___ per COVID-19 injection billed by physicians
$___ per hospitalization of all those who ended up with a negative immunity as a result of multiple injections (See the Cleveland Clinic study in Chapter 8 demonstrating with over 51,000 participants that the FEWER times people’s bodies were overrun with spike protein the BETTER their immunity)
$___ each time a contract was terminated and needed to be paid out for those staff who refused to allow themselves to be injected with the mRNA injections…
I am sure you get my point.. Much more than $2 million could have been saved had valuable evidence based information not been prevented from making its way to top level medical decision makers such as yourself at any point in the past 5 years.
Please do read the Task Force report with these red Xs in mind.
Why are you still under the impression that the GREEN line is the incorrect line? Who or what was keeping the green line news of the findings of people like Dr.Byram Bridle from you when it would have mattered the most (i.e. BEFORE harmful polices were enacted)?
(Source: Who is accountable for the blockage in the INFORMATION TRAIL by the Mainstream Media Bubble?
Consider that any material you encounter in the report that appears new or foreign to you, might appear so as a result of filtering, curating, manipulating or other censorship related techniques undertaken by those with the power to shut people up.
CMA code of ethics and professionalism
INTEGRITY. A physician who acts with integrity demonstrates consistency in their intentions and actions and acts in a truthful manner in accordance with professional expectations, even in the face of adversity
i.e. even if your colleagues question you when YOU stop referencing FIXED Science and open your mind to TRANSFORMATIVE Science
PRUDENCE. A prudent physician uses clinical and moral reasoning and judgement, considers all relevant knowledge and circumstances, and makes decisions carefully, in good conscience, and with due regard for principles of exemplary medical care.
ALL relevant knowledge encompasses more than “official” guidance that is FROZEN IN TIME
COMMIT TO THE WELL BEING OF THE PATIENT. Consider first the well-being of the patient; always act to benefit the patient and promote the good of the patient. Provide appropriate care and management across the care continuum. Take all reasonable steps to prevent or minimize harm to the patient; disclose to the patient if there is a risk of harm or if harm has occurred. Recognize the balance of potential benefits and harms associated with any medical act; act to bring about a positive balance of benefits over harms.
note the use of the singular in reference to the patient — the needs of each patient are to be assessed individually. Having a one-size fits all policy that mandates the SAME injection for EVERY DIFFERENT BODY is already unethical in itself
APPROPRIATE - physicians who saw a different risk/benefit profile for children, youth, young and middle aged adults than for the elderly and acted accordingly were to be disciplined. Are you aware of how many physician offices in Alberta were raided by police who were ordered to confiscate patient’s confidential medical records to hunt down possible proof of physicians’ vaccine or mask exemption notices?
DISCLOSE RISK and HARM. Are you aware of patients whose doctors have filed vaccine injury reports receiving phone calls from some office telling them that their doctor was wrong, their symptoms are purely coincidental and in no way related to COVID-19 vaccines?
COMMITMENT TO RESPECT FOR PERSONS. Always treat the patient with dignity and respect the equal and intrinsic worth of all persons. Always respect the autonomy of the patient. Never exploit the patient for personal advantage. Never participate in or support practices that violate basic human rights.
Does the name Sheila Annette Lewis ring a bell? As you listen to her sworn testimony from May 17, 2023 and this follow up interview with her son, please ask yourself whether she was treated with dignity and whether her autonomy and her intrinsic worth as a human being were respected.
COMMITMENT TO PROFESSIONAL INTEGRITY AND COMPETENCE. Practise medicine competently, safely, and with integrity; avoid any influence that could undermine your professional integrity. Develop and advance your professional knowledge, skills, and competencies through lifelong learning.
Are you aware of hospital staff being pressured to record deaths from other causes as COVID-19 deaths in Alberta? Do you know whether, as in many places in the US, Alberta hospitals were funded more, the more patients it coded as having died from COVID-19?
Does the AMA have a role in physician continuing education? How many Alberta physicians are able to score at least 8 out of 10 on this 10 question quiz? How up to date is your Doctor’s Knowledge really? (Hopefully your score is also near 8/10.) Who provides Alberta’s physicians with clinical professional knowledge on topics addressed in the Task Force Report? Can you use your influence to suggest to the Clinical Professional Education providers to connect with those at the Canadian Covid Care Alliance who have already developed teaching materials on related topics? A possible starting point could be the team behind “It’s Time to Stop the Shots”. Instead of reacting to material with this title as ‘Anti-Vax’, consider it as ‘Anti-Harm’
COMMITMENT TO PROFESSIONAL EXCELLENCE Contribute to the development and innovation in medicine through clinical practice, research, teaching, mentorship, leadership, quality improvement, administration, or advocacy on behalf of the profession or the public. Participate in establishing and maintaining professional standards and engage in processes that support the institutions involved in the regulation of the profession. Cultivate collaborative and respectful relationships with physicians and learners in all areas of medicine and with other colleagues and partners in health care.
When physicians know of therapeutics which lead to improved outcomes in other jurisdictions, do you at the AMA ENCOURAGE them to speak up? I am sure you agree that threats of licence removal are not conducive to speaking up.
COMMITMENT TO SELF CARE AND PEER SUPPORT. Value personal health and wellness and strive to model self-care; take steps to optimize meaningful co-existence of professional and personal life. Value and promote a training and practice culture that supports and responds effectively to colleagues in need and empowers them to seek help to improve their physical, mental, and social well-being. Recognize and act on the understanding that physician health and wellness needs to be addressed at individual and systemic levels, in a model of shared responsibility.
Consider what now needs to be done at a systemic level to reach out to the families of those physicians who experienced sudden or unexpected deaths. Are they being treated like pariahs if they ascertain a similarity in the death of their loved one with the deaths of others where autoposy findings indicate the overwhelming presence of spike protein? Have you even heard about research in this field? One excellent thing to do from your end would be to ensure that Canadians CAN access the proper autopsy staining protocols to ascertain (in the case of future sudden deaths) whether or not COVID-19 or COVID-19 vaccine induced spike protein played a role. It might be a mental relief for families if the deaths are definitely shown NOT to be connected to the mandatory vaccination/booster policies forced upon physicians as a condition of practice. That finding would free them from the niggling feeling that their loved one was the victim of draconian and deadly policies.
Are you aware of the living conditions of Alberta physicians who were pushed out of the profession when the vaccine mandates were implemented? How are they surviving financially? I am aware of at least two physicians in other provinces who had to drastically downsize in order to pay off residual student debt without a physician salary. This might be an area of inquiry for a provincial medical association that values its (former) members.
COMMITMENT TO INQUIRY AND REFLECTION Value and foster individual and collective inquiry and reflection to further medical science and to facilitate ethical decision-making. Foster curiosity and exploration to further your personal and professional development and insight; be open to new knowledge, technologies, ways of practising, and learning from others
The Pandemic Data Task Force Report is to be welcomed as an entry point for Alberta physicians and CPSA staff and executives as well as the academic community in the various medical and science faculties in the province to begin catching up with the findings they have been kept from knowing about. Like a person I know who spent decades in the limited confines of East Germany, once the dividing Wall came down and she was able to enter a West German supermarket for the first time, she actually fainted in the aisle. She was so overwhelmed at the bewildering and expansive array of breakfast cereals for sale, so also members of your profession who were kept inside of the mainstream media bubble since 2019, will now likely be overwhelmed at the findings of this new report. I heard that 14K copies were downloaded in the first 4 days since it was posted. As the magnitude of the harms done sinks in, the AMA (in tandem with the professional organizations of nurses and pharmacists) will need to prepare mental health support for those developing feelings of guilt at having been unknowing perpetrators of harms. A damming chart like the one in Appendix 1 of Chapter 9 comparing the ratio of deaths and adverse effects among the different types of treatments, including the mRNA injections, might trigger feelings of remorse in those who administered injections, especially if they have been made aware of the impacts such an injection had on the life of specific patients.
PATIENT PHYSICIAN RELATIONSHIP The patient–physician relationship is at the heart of the practice of medicine. It is a relationship of trust that recognizes the inherent vulnerability of the patient even as the patient is an active participant in their own care. The physician owes a duty of loyalty to protect and further the patient’s best interests and goals of care by using the physician’s expertise, knowledge, and prudent clinical judgment.
Fulfill your duty of confidentiality to the patient by keeping identifiable patient information confidential; collecting, using, and disclosing only as much health information as necessary to benefit the patient; and sharing information only to benefit the patient and within the patient’s circle of care. Exceptions include situations where the informed consent of the patient has been obtained for disclosure or as provided for by law.
I assume that physicians who have gained a level of expertise in evidence-based treatment and prevention protocols around COVID-19 matters are still not allowed to speak openly about this information to their patients. To support physician mental health, please clarify WHICH DOCUMENT SUPERCEDES WHICH DOCUMENT. Dr. Rochagné Kilian in Ontario is finding that her attempts to prioritize the Canadian Medical Association Ethics Code requirements to protect patient autonomy and medical privacy have run up against the requirements of the provincial college that she share patient data with them to assist them in their investigations. This dedication to patient medical privacy has cost her her practice, her home and thousands of dollars in legal costs. It would really help Alberta physicians who are aware of this case and worried about its implication for their practice to have a definitive ruling on this matter. You as the head of the AMA are perfectly placed to seek clarification. Would a physician’s obligation to facilitate an investigation by the CPSA into their practice SUPERSEDE the Canadian Medical Association Ethics Code? Is a college investigate procedure to be considered LAW?
Communicate information accurately and honestly with the patient in a manner that the patient understands and can apply, and confirm the patient’s understanding. Recommend evidence-informed treatment options; recognize that inappropriate use or overuse of treatments or resources can lead to ineffective, and at times harmful, patient care and seek to avoid or mitigate this.
If those setting policy (for example employers or sports team or music lesson coordinators) cannot understand the long range effects of a policy they are implementing (i.e vaccine mandates), and if physicians are not being taught about the effects of the policies, how then can physicians “confirm” the patient’s understanding?
Support the profession’s responsibility to act in matters relating to public and population health, health education, environmental determinants of health, legislation affecting public and population health, and judicial testimony…. Provide opinions consistent with the current and widely accepted views of the profession when interpreting scientific knowledge to the public; clearly indicate when you present an opinion that is contrary to the accepted views of the profession.
Are you aware of the inconsistency between the points highlighted here? IF CURRENT AND WIDELY ACCEPTED VIEWS OF THE PROFESSION lead to HARM, it must be possible for an ethical physician to indicate this WITHOUT having to PRETEND to align with the current and accepted views of the profession! As part of your role in supporting physician wellness (which would include mental health) I suggest you use your position within the medical profession to advocate for the availability among members of the profession of continually evolving free, open and uncensored scientific information and its implication for medical treatment and practice.
In closing, please consider these three “tools” as you transition your understanding of COVID-19 science that are FROZEN IN TIME to ones that are MOVING WITH THE TIME. And as you support your own colleagues within the AMA umbrella, along with all of Alberta’s physicians and, by extension, the entire beleaguered medical profession.
The Kuebler-Ross Change Curve. In this post, I added some cartoon images meant to demonstrate a supportive stance toward those whose first instinct in the face of drastically new information might be a sequence of Shock, Denial, Frustration, Depression before being able to move toward Experimentation, Decision and Integration. See: COVID-Concepts-Byte-Size Series: (Change Curve) What to do about this mishmash of news?
Concepts addressed by Susan Scott in her book Fierce Conversations. She once observed: Perhaps what we thought was the truth is no longer the truth in today’s environment! In her book she discussed the difference between “official truth” and “ground truth” as follows:
“Ground truth”is a military term referring to what is actually happening on the ground versus the official tactics. It’s the truth discussed around the watercooler, in the bathrooms or the parking lots. One of the challenges worth going after is getting to the ground truth in an organization. You have to get at ground truth before you can turn anything around.
We have to get at our own “ground truths” before we can ask it of others. This requires having fierce conversations with yourself. What is the official truth in your work, life, relationships? What is the ground truth for each of these?
(As recorded by an anonymous note taker here. See also these notes taken by someone else.)
I also invite you to revisit the concept of the Overton Window and find this description to be helpful https://www.mackinac.org/OvertonWindow. It would be fascinating to do an Overton Window analysis on both the “official” truth and the “ground” truth circulating around your offices at the AMA… What can “officialdom” now safely say about COVID-19 matters? (The CIA apparently now is open to considering Lab origins instead of Wet Market origins these. days. Watch how that might change some positions within the “official” messaging. And are you and your colleagues able to share on these matters around the water cooler or on the parking lot? I too used the Overton Window concept in 2023 comparing the state of public discourse from 20-21 to 22-23 in this post referencing some pathetic media coverage of Canadian ice skating heroine, Jame Salé. Alex Boyd's article on Jamie Salé is helping crack open the window of approved discourse on the C-19 vax
Thank you for giving all all of this some sincere thought.
In closing, I repeat my opening invitation to you:
I am writing to give you the opportunity to issue a second, more informed statement on the Pandemic Data Review Task Force Report.
Thank you.
…