Connect with us

AlbertaCOVID-19Review

Dr. Gary Davidson on the Alberta COVID-19 Pandemic Data Review Task Force

Published

less than 1 minute read

From the Shaun Newman Podcast

Dr. Gary Davidson is an Emergency Room physician who has spent 16 years at Red Deer Regional Hospital, where he also served as the head of Emergency Medicine for the central zone and Chief of the Emergency Department from 2016 to 2020. Additionally, Dr. Davidson holds the position of Associate Clinical Professor at the University of Alberta.

Dr. Davidson is the Author and Review Lead of Alberta’s Covid-19 Pandemic Response, providing critical analysis and recommendations on the province’s management of the health crisis.

 

 

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Alberta

Trudeau “Played Doctor” With Children

Published on

Conspiracy Facts With Jeffrey Rath

Alberta Health hides data against the wishes of Premier Danielle Smith

Prior to the vaccine roll-out for children, PFIZER’s OWN DATA in Table 14 of its Emergency Use Authorization, admitted that COVID would only notionally kill 1 child per million from original virulent strain COVID but PUT 34 CHILDREN PER MILLION INTO ICU WITH MYOCARDITIS. Pfizer in that same table made the remarkable, but highly questionable statement that they posited 0 DEATHS in children from the vaccine. The table claiming no children would die from the vaccine also only focused on myocarditis and ignored potential deaths from transverse myelitis, anaphylaxis, and RSV which are all well-known potential side effects of the Pfizer COVID shot. Trudeau, Tam, Kenney and Hinshaw were all personally warned by the author of this Substack of those risks. Did they pause the childhood COVID injection roll-out to even investigate if the concerns about the shots killing more children than COVID were accurate? Of course not. It has become apparent that Trudeau’s obvious Narcissistic Personality Disorder leaves no room for self-reflection or ever admitting that he is wrong.

Don’t forget that from a “vaccine” approval perspective if Pfizer put any digit other than “0” on the “DEATHS FROM VACCINE” column the Pfizer shot could not be approved for use in children. Even admitting to 1 death per million from the vaccine would mean that the vaccine was as deadly or more deadly than COVID and could not be approved or justified for an age cohort at statistically zero risk of COVID Mortality. Also, the recent high powered JAMA Cardiology Study referred to below shows that the Moderna shot has an almost 300% greater risk of increased myocarditis risk in children than the Pfizer shot that already increases myocarditis risk in children by 500%. The mixing of the shots which “Doctor Trudeau” recommended exponentially increased the risk of IN-PATIENT myocarditis in children by a shocking 3600%.

Appendix 6 of The “ALBERTA COVID 19 PANDEMIC RESPONSE Alberta COVID-19 Pandemic Data Review Task Force FINAL REPORT” reads in part as follows :

“Nordic countries have restricted use of vaccines in children, referencing a large Nordic population-based study which showed that the 28-day risk of IN-PATIENT MYOCARDITIS wash higher in the vaccinated component compared with the unvaccinated. For males aged 16-24 years the risk of myocarditis was 5x higher following 2 doses of Pfizer, 14x higher following 2 doses of Moderna and 36x higher WITH A PFIZER FOLLOWED BY A MODERNA VACCINE.”

This study was massive. It reviewed health outcomes post COVID vaccine roll out for 23.1 million people. It can hardly be dismissed as “misinformation.”

The same Appendix of the Alberta Government Task Force report notes:

“A US Lancet-published study assessing the long-term health quality of life effects of adolescents and young adults diagnosed with myocarditis following vaccination found that they were unable to complete their usual activities (21%), had pain (20%), and had anxiety or depression (46%) in the 90 days following their diagnosis.” …

The ALBERTA GOVERNMENT TASK FORCE FINAL REPORT In APPENDIX 3 of Chapter 8 on vaccines cites that other well-known source of “anti-science”, “misinformation” and “anti-evidence, the JOURNAL OF MEDICAL ETHICS in a 2023 Bullen, Heriot and Jamrozik article on “Herd Immunity, vaccination and moral obligation” showing data at Table A3.2 that demonstrate that in children, COVID related “severe adverse events” were orders of magnitude higher in vaccinated children as opposed to children who just got COVID and recovered.

The TASK FORCE FINAL REPORT is now being attacked by self-appointed “expert” Gary Mason in the Globe and Mail on February 4th, 2025 as being “misinformation” that “is an insult to health care workers and officials”.

Notably Mr. Mason’s scientific credentials are unknown. It is also notable that Mason attacks a reference to a Substack in the Task Force report without acknowledging that the Substack author was likely better educated and accomplished than Mr. Mason or that the Substack in question was simply citing government published data and reports. None of the critics of the TASK FORCE FINAL REPORT including the AMA, CMA, or Trudeau pal “Little Timmy” Caulfield EVER identify specifically what they allege is “anti-scientific”, “anti-evidence”, “misinformation” that takes us back to the “dark age”.

This is reminiscent of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta persecution of Dr. Eric Payne. Last year, the CPSA quietly dismissed “misinformation” complaints brought against Dr. Payne. This followed 4 years of the CPSA steadfastly refusing or being unable to identify a single statement made by Dr. Payne that CPSA or its “investigators” and “experts” could identify as “misinformation”.

Gary Mason in the Globe and Mail takes the same “drive by smear” approach and goes so far as to suggest that:

“Dr. James Talbot an adjunct professor at the University of Alberta School of Public Health, told the Edmonton Journal that Ms. Smith’s Government was sitting on data that showed who got immunized, how many of them developed COVID and whether any developed any rare medical conditions after being inoculated. Yet that information remains a state secret.”

What Mr. Mason ignorantly refuses to acknowledge is the number of times that Dr. Gary Davidson an “Assistant Clinical Professor of Medicine at the University of Alberta” in good standing, repeatedly stated in the Report that a PUBLIC INQUIRY with subpoena powers is required. The reason for this is that a Government Task Force ORDERED BY THE PREMIER OF ALBERTA was repeatedly refused access to data by Alberta Health and Alberta Health Services bureaucrats who appear intent on continuing to play hide the ball on vaccine safety and efficacy. Mr. Mason also refuses to acknowledge data and tables scrubbed from the internet by these same ALBERTA BUREAUCRATS—opaque, nameless, faceless bureaucrats—which confirm the high-powered Cleveland Clinic study that demonstrates that the greater a person’s vaccine and booster uptake, the worse their health outcomes, including COVID related hospitalization and death.

The Mason hit piece and Talbot quote above demonstrates the degree of dirty propaganda being promulgated in the legacy press. The statement that “The Government was sitting on data that showed who got immunized, how many of them developed COVID and whether any developed any rare medical condition” is largely true. The problem for the pro-pharma propagandists is that the information is being withheld AGAINST THE STRICT INSTRUCTIONS OF PREMIER SMITH in the TASK FORCE MANDATE.

While it may be slimy and underhanded for these Vaccine Propagandists to try to smear Premier Smith’s reputation for integrity with these underhanded insinuations, its simple defamation to suggest that Premier Smith has anything to do with evidence being withheld from her own TASK FORCE.

There is absolutely no way that if AHS or Alberta Health bureaucrats had evidence to refute AHS tables showing increased hospitalization and death among the vaccinated as opposed to the unvaccinated—confirmed by the 56,000-person Cleveland Clinic Study, JAMA Cardiology, Lancet and Pfizer Studies referred to in this column—those same self-serving, insubordinate, bureaucrats would have either gleefully provided the data to Dr. Davidson’s Task Force team or have leaked it to the media long before now.

Premier Smith and Dr. Davidson need to name by name the bureaucrats that are actively smearing both of their reputations by making scurrilous statements to the media that suggest that THEY are the ones hiding the truth as opposed to all the pro-vaccine cultists in AHS and Alberta health.

I know Premier Smith is really busy trying to save Alberta and Canada from the trade war provoked by Justin Trudeau’s despicable degradation of Canadian sovereignty. Howver, she needs to hold a press conference accompanied by Dr. Davidson to defend her own reputation against the faceless, disloyal minions in her own government who continue to hide the truth from Albertans by fraudulently parroting the words “safe and effective”.

Jeffrey R.W. Rath B.A. (Hons.), LL.B. (Hons.)

Foothills, Alberta

February 5th, 2025

Subscribe to Conspiracy Facts With Jeffrey Rath.

For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.

Continue Reading

Alberta

AMA challenged to debate Alberta COVID-19 Review

Published on

Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms

Justice Centre President sends an open letter to Dr. Shelley Duggan, President of the Alberta Medical Association

Dear Dr. Duggan,

I write in response to the AMA’s Statement regarding the Final Report of the Alberta Covid Pandemic Data Review Task Force. Although you did not sign your name to the AMA Statement, I assume that you approved of it, and that you agree with its contents.

I hereby request your response to my questions about your AMA Statement.

You assert that this Final Report “advances misinformation.” Can you provide me with one or two examples of this “misinformation”?

Why, specifically, do you see this Final Report as “anti–science and anti–evidence”? Can you provide an example or two?

Considering that you denounced the entire 269-page report as “anti­–science and anti–evidence,” it should be very easy for you to choose from among dozens and dozens of examples.

You assert that the Final Report “speaks against the broadest, and most diligent, international scientific collaboration and consensus in history.”

As a medical doctor, you are no doubt aware of the “consensus” whereby medical authorities in Canada and around the world approved the use of thalidomide for pregnant women in the 1950s and 1960s, resulting in miscarriages and deformed babies. No doubt you are aware that for many centuries the “consensus” amongst scientists was that physicians need not wash their hands before delivering babies, resulting in high death rates among women after giving birth. This “international scientific consensus” was disrupted in the 1850s by a true scientist, Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis, who advocated for hand-washing.

As a medical doctor, you should know that science is not consensus, and that consensus is not science.

It is unfortunate that your AMA Statement appeals to consensus rather than to science. In fact, your AMA Statement is devoid of science, and appeals to nothing other than consensus. A scientific Statement from the AMA would challenge specific assertions in the Final Report, point to inadequate evidence, debunk flawed methodologies, and expose incorrect conclusions. Your Statement does none of the foregoing.

You assert that “science and evidence brought us through [Covid] and saved millions of lives.” Considering your use of the word “millions,” I assume this statement refers to the lockdowns and vaccine mandates imposed by governments and medical establishments around the world, and not the response of the Alberta government alone.

What evidence do you rely on for your assertion that lockdowns saved lives? You are no doubt aware that lockdowns did not stop Covid from spreading to every city, town, village and hamlet, and that lockdowns did not stop Covid from spreading into nursing homes (long-term care facilities) where Covid claimed about 80% of its victims. How, then, did lockdowns save lives? If your assertion about “saving millions of lives” is true, it should be very easy for you to explain how lockdowns saved lives, rather than merely asserting that they did.

Seeing as you are confident that the governments’ response to Covid saved “millions” of lives, have you balanced that vague number against the number of people who died as a result of lockdowns? Have you studied or even considered what harms lockdowns inflicted on people?

If you are confident that lockdowns did more good than harm, on what is your confidence based? Can you provide data to support your position?

As a medical doctor, you are no doubt aware that the mRNA vaccine, introduced and then made mandatory in 2021, did not stop the transmission of Covid. Nor did the mRNA vaccine prevent people from getting sick with Covid, or dying from Covid. Why would it not have sufficed in 2021 to let each individual make her or his own choice about getting injected with the mRNA vaccine? Do you still believe today that mandatory vaccination policies had an actual scientific basis? If yes, what was that basis?

You assert that the Final Report “sows distrust” and “criticizes proven preventive public health measures while advancing fringe approaches.”

When the AMA Statement mentions “proven preventive public health measures,” I assume you are referring to lockdowns. If my assumption is correct, can you explain when, where and how lockdowns were “proven” to be effective, prior to 2020? Or would you agree with me that locking down billions of healthy people across the globe in 2020 was a brand new experiment, never tried before in human history? If it was a brand new experiment, how could it have been previously “proven” effective prior to 2020? Alternatively, if you are asserting that lockdowns and vaccine passports were “proven” effective in the years 2020-2022, what is your evidentiary basis for that assertion?

Your reference to “fringe approaches” is particularly troubling, because it suggests that the majority must be right just because it’s the majority, which is the antithesis of science.

Remember that the first doctors to advocate against the use of thalidomide by pregnant women, along with Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis advocating for hand-washing, were also viewed as “advancing fringe approaches” by those in authority. It would not be difficult to provide dozens, and likely hundreds, of other examples showing that true science is a process of open-minded discovery and honest debate, not a process of dismissing as “fringe” the individuals who challenge the reigning consensus.”

The AMA Statement asserts that the Final Report “makes recommendations for the future that have real potential to cause harm.” Specifically, which of the Final Report’s recommendations have a real potential to cause harm? Can you provide even one example of such a recommendation, and explain the nature of the harm you have in mind?

The AMA Statement asserts that “many colleagues and experts have commented eloquently on the deficiencies and biases [the Final Report] presents.” Could you provide some examples of these eloquent comments? Did any of your colleagues and “experts” point to specific deficiencies in the Final Report, or provide specific examples of bias? Or were these “eloquent” comments limited to innuendo and generalized assertions like those contained in the AMA Statement?

In closing, I invite you to a public, livestreamed debate on the merits of Alberta’s lockdowns and vaccine passports. I would argue for the following: “Be it resolved that lockdowns and vaccine passports imposed on Albertans from 2020 to 2022 did more harm than good,” and you would argue against this resolution.

Seeing as you are a medical doctor who has a much greater knowledge and a much deeper understanding of these issues than I do, I’m sure you will have an easy time defending the Alberta government’s response to Covid.

If you are not available, I would be happy to debate one of your colleagues, or any AMA member.

I request your answers to the questions I have asked of you in this letter.

Further, please let me know if you are willing to debate publicly the merits of lockdowns and vaccine passports, or if one of your colleagues is available to do so.

Yours sincerely,

John Carpay, B.A., LL.B.
President
Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms

Continue Reading

Trending

X