Canada’s medical establishment melts down over Alberta’s report on COVID vaccine

Canada’s medical establishment is in an uproar after Alberta’s government published a report last month calling for an immediate halt to the experimental COVID-19 mRNA vaccine.

The $2 million report was commissioned by Premier Danielle Smith to review the province’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic. It was spearheaded by Dr. Gary Davidson, who led a task force of medical experts that included Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, President Donald Trump’s pick to head the National Institutes of Health.

Lockdowns

Unsurprisingly, the 264-page review found that lockdowns had a devastating effect on Alberta’s population and are “likely to leave behind a legacy of harm to be felt for decades by millions of people.” School closures caused damage to long-term academic achievement, and stay-at-home orders contributed to a rise in mental health conditions, substance abuse, government spending, and “an over-policed public aimed at deterring normal social behavior.” This finding aligns with other major studies on lockdowns. 

Masking

Mask mandates were also not based on scientific evidence, the report found. Not only did they not help infection rates, but they also carried potential harms. The futility of masks was known to public health authorities early on in the pandemic and has been confirmed by a large body of quality scientific research.

“Masking studies showed limited or mixed results, particularly in community settings,” the review stated. “The Task Force also observed potential harms of masking, such as self-contamination, discomfort, and a false sense of security. Despite the limited evidence and potential harms, Alberta implemented mask mandates in various settings, including schools, public gatherings, and businesses. The number of COVID-19 infections did not decrease despite these mandates and the widespread vaccination.”

Vaccination

What triggered backlash was the report’s finding that the mRNA vaccine should be immediately withdrawn from the market, especially from children and teen populations. The review cited several major concerns with the shots, such as “significant gaps” in the data supporting their use and the rushed approval to market. It also pointed to data which recorded 42,086 injuries within four days of vaccination and 1,223 fatalities within 90 days of the COVID vaccine rollout. Nearly half of these were among those 18-50, a population at low-risk of serious illness or death from the virus. Pfizer’s own randomized controlled trial revealed 38 all-cause deaths after six months, 21 of whom were vaccinated and 17 who were in the placebo group. Vaccinated subjects experienced a 3.7-fold increase in cardiac events compared to unvaccinated subjects. The report also cited an analysis of Pfizer’s clinical trial data showing that 87.5% of pregnancy outcomes after vaccination were mortalities. 

“Immediately halt the use of all COVID-19 vaccines without full disclosure to patients regarding both the safety and efficacy issues by their physician,” concluded the physicians. “End use of the COVID-19 vaccines for healthy children and teenagers as other jurisdictions have done. See Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, and the UK.”

Backlash

This sparked angry reactions throughout Canada’s medical establishment. Sixty-seven academics signed a letter dismissing the review as “inaccurate” but did not specify the inaccuracies. Instead, they claimed the vaccine’s safety is supported by “a large amount of evidence.”

“It inaccurately represents the scientific data as a whole,” read the letter, reported in the Edmonton Journal. “Instead, policy decisions should be grounded in the extensive evidence supporting vaccine safety and efficacy and the insights from the broader scientific and medical community.”

“Contrary to the report’s conclusions, a large amount of evidence is available about the benefits and risks associated with COVID-19 vaccines, and the evidence strongly favours vaccination as a preventative measure,” the academics claimed.

The letter also took aim at ivermectin, a cheap treatment for early COVID-19 recommended by prominent physicians. Although the drug was approved by the FDA in 1987 and has nearly 40 years of safety data, the academics tried to suggest it is harmful.

“There is now a large and diverse body of evidence, including numerous clinical trials, that have consistently shown that (ivermectin) is not an effective treatment for COVID-19 and that it is associated with potentially harmful side effects,” the letter stated.

The authors further complained that “[b]y halting vaccines and inaccurately demoting the evidence-based benefits of vaccination, choice is removed from those who want to be vaccinated and for whom their underlying health conditions would render an even greater benefit from vaccination.”

Dr. James Talbot, an adjunct professor at the University of Alberta’s School of Public Health, slammed the report for not citing government data and repeated the trope that the experimental mRNA vaccine is one of the most safe and effective in history.

“We’ve given literally billions of doses of this vaccine around the world with the best surveillance we’ve ever had. This is one of the safest, most effective vaccines that we’ve ever had,” Talbot said.

He said the biggest issue with the report is its support for drugs like hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, which he claimed are not effective despite evidence to the contrary. A 2022 peer-reviewed study, for example, found that ivermectin led to a 92% reduction in the COVID-19 mortality rate.

“Where the report really starts to fall apart is the bad science around the recommendations that they make for things like the use of the vaccine and the therapeutics, the drugs that were brought up (ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine) were supposed to provide protection, but didn’t and haven’t provided protection,” Talbot said. “They’ve included an entire chapter trying to defend them, when today, nowhere in the world are those drugs used for treatment or for protecting people, because they just don’t work.”

Albertan premier fires back

Premier Danielle Smith has not yet said whether she will follow the report’s recommendations but appeared to dismiss the criticism as part of a narrative that only exists by censoring alternative viewpoints.

“I know there’s been a narrative, and the narrative has been enforced by shutting down contrarian voices,” she said.

Shortly after she assumed office in October 2022, Smith issued a public apology to Albertans who had been persecuted for refusing the shots. She welcomed back unvaccinated government employees who had been terminated, saying the decision to fire them had been a political one.

"I’m deeply sorry for anyone who was inappropriately subjected to discrimination as a result of their vaccine status, I’m deeply sorry. For any government employee that was fired from their job, because of their vaccine status, and I welcome them back if they want to come back,” she said, adding: “My view has been that these were political decisions that were made. And so I think that they can be political decisions to offer a reversal.” 

“I don’t think I’ve ever experienced a situation in my lifetime where a person was fired from their job or not allowed to watch their kids play hockey or not allowed to go visit a loved one in long-term care or hospital, not allowed to get on a plane to either go across the country to see family or even travel across the border,” she added. 

‍