During cross-examination, Chief Medical Officer of Health(CMOH) Dr. Deena Hinshaw claimed she was “following published evidence” for outpatient treatments that indicated no therapies were effective in treating COVID-19 at the time..Hinshaw was again on the stand for day four of the civil trial against the Alberta government and its public health measures instituted throughout the first and second waves of the pandemic..Hinshaw is one of the main witnesses for the Alberta government in the lawsuit in which three people are named as applicants, along with two Alberta churches..Jeff Rath with Rath & Company, one of the lawyers representing the applicants, continued his cross-examination of Hinshaw on Thursday..Rath inquired about several therapeutic treatments for COVID-19 including the use of ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, fluvoxamine, monoclonal antibodies and the use of Vitamin D and aspirin..With the exception of fluvoxamine, which was recently found to be successful at reducing mortality rates for those with COVID-19 infections, Hinshaw said all the data around the efficacy of the other therapeutics showed they were not an effective treatment for COVID-19..“Did you ever talk to the scientific advisory group with regard to coming up with an outpatient treatment program for COVID-19?” asked Rath..“So, I asked the scientific advisory group to provide advice on the state of the evidence with respect to treatments for COVID-19 and that was something that they did,” said Hinshaw..“That evidence again, there were, unfortunately, no therapies for the first part of the pandemic that were licenced and approved for use in patients prior to those who needed hospital care.”.“So, again, we were following the published evidence and outside of clinical trials, the therapies that had been suggested for use in patients with COVID-19 did not have the quality evidence to indicate that they were effective and so again what I had asked for them to do is provide the state of the evidence on therapies for COVID-19 and that’s what they did.”.Rath referenced a number of other studies and jurisdictions where outpatient therapies were being used to treat COVID-19, although Hinshaw indicated she was unaware of any of the references Rath mentioned..“As the chief medical officer of health of Alberta, did you look at any other jurisdictions that were providing outpatient treatment to patients suffering from COVID-19?” asked Rath..Hinshaw said it was not her role to explore outpatient therapeutics..“To be really clear, the use of therapeutics in treating patients with COVID-19 is something that is overseen by Health Canada in terms of their licensing of medications for use for specific indications as well as the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta which has the standards by which physicians would need to follow if they were utilizing medication that’s off label, so not approved for a particular use,” said Hinshaw..“And so, it’s again in my role as a single individual, I’m reliant on partnerships with other organizations and the work that they do in their areas of expertise and so in my role as chief medical officer of health I relied on those organizations as well as the scientific advisory group to continue to monitor the state of the evidence and to keep apprised if there were any therapies that had shown to be effective when used in early treatment.”.Hinshaw indicated there are now effective treatments that are currently in use in the province..Inquiring about the scientific advisory group Hinshaw consulted with, Rath asked if any of the members were medical practitioners who actively treated patients for COVID-19 with ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine or other off-label therapeutics..Hinshaw confirmed there were medical practitioners within the group but could not confirm if any were involved in treating patients with COVID-19 with any of the therapies Rath asked about..Pointing to the most high-risk groups of those vulnerable to severe outcomes due to COVID-19 infection, those being of the population over 65 years of age and those with underlying health issues or other comorbidities, Rath asked why Hinshaw wouldn’t have focused more on directing health measures to those groups specifically..Hinshaw said those vulnerable groups are “deeply connected” with other individuals whose risks are lower and said those limitations wouldn’t be possible to manage..Hinshaw, after citing projections based on Alberta-specific data, indicated she believed the lockdown measures the government implemented throughout the pandemic were “successful in achieving the desired impact which was protecting the hospital system, limiting severe outcomes and preventing deaths.”.“Dr. Hinshaw can you name one person whose death you prevented through these measures?” asked Rath..The Crown objected on relevance..Calling Hinshaw’s claims “pure hypothesis” Rath proceeded to ask Hinshaw what evidence she could produce to show the “measures had any appreciable effect on hospitalizations or COVID outcomes.”.Justice Barbara Romaine told Rath his question was inappropriate..“You’re asking the witness to prove a negative. It’s not a fair question,” said Romaine..“That’s my entire point, my lady,” said Rath..“Everything that this witness has been saying in this regard is on the basis that no one can prove a negative. We can’t prove that she is wrong, she can’t prove that she’s right. And I’m glad that you picked up on that my lady because I think that’s extremely important.”.After a short lunch break, Rath questioned Hinshaw on the topic of immunity..Hinshaw said the term “natural immunity” in her opinion is “misleading” and said she prefers to use the term “post-infections immunity.”.Rath posed the comparison that the length of post-infection immunity is unknown just as the duration of post-vaccine immunity is unknown, to which Hinshaw agreed..With regard to PCR tests, Rath asked Hinshaw if PCR tests will detect an infected person but could also produce a positive test in someone who is recovering from COVID-19 and is no longer infectious. Hinshaw indicated this was true and said it’s why Alberta Health changed its testing policy and no longer required self-isolation for those who have tested positive within 90 days of a previous infection..Rath also asked Hinshaw about the number of deaths within the province related to COVID-19.Hinshaw confirmed there was an increase in all-cause mortality in the province for 2020 and 2021 and also confirmed COVID-19 was the “largest contributor to acute care strain” during the first and second waves of the pandemic but said other patients had other care needs as well..After Rath finished his cross-examination of Hinshaw around 2 p.m., Justice Romaine proceeded to ask Hinshaw three to four questions privately in order to determine if public interest immunity or cabinet privilege applied to her answers. Romaine will advise counsel of her decision on the questions on Friday..At that time, it will be determined if any further cross-examination of Hinshaw is necessary. If not, counsel for both sides will work on writing their final arguments to be presented at a later date..Rath, along with Leighton Grey, a lawyer contracted by the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, together are representing the applicants in the case and have been cross-examining Hinshaw since Monday..The Alberta government is in court to defend its public health measures in the civil trial arising from a constitutional challenge launched more than a year ago. The hearing is expected to continue through Thursday..During Monday’s testimony, Hinshaw refused to take responsibility for provincial lockdowns and mandates, repeatedly stating she made recommendations to cabinet and it was cabinet that made the orders..On Tuesday, Hinshaw confirmed her public health orders were a factor in negative outcomes for Albertans. She also again made a statement regarding the orders being “policy decisions of cabinet” after Rath questioned whether she had recommended AHS direct more money to deal with hospital capacity issues..“In the context of issuing your CMOH orders, did you have these very specific appointed discussions with [AHS] about putting more money into increasing capacity as opposed to stripping Albertans of their civil liberties?” said Rath..“It’s important to remember that the orders were the legal instrument to implement the policy decisions of cabinet and so there was a group of people who deliberated and who ensured again that everything that could possibly be done to expand acute care capacity was being done,” said Hinshaw..During testimony on Wednesday, Hinshaw acknowledged the “new normal” she referenced to Albertans on several occasions would include complying with restrictions on certain freedoms..Melanie Risdon is a reporter with the Western Standard.,.mrisdon@westernstandard.news
During cross-examination, Chief Medical Officer of Health(CMOH) Dr. Deena Hinshaw claimed she was “following published evidence” for outpatient treatments that indicated no therapies were effective in treating COVID-19 at the time..Hinshaw was again on the stand for day four of the civil trial against the Alberta government and its public health measures instituted throughout the first and second waves of the pandemic..Hinshaw is one of the main witnesses for the Alberta government in the lawsuit in which three people are named as applicants, along with two Alberta churches..Jeff Rath with Rath & Company, one of the lawyers representing the applicants, continued his cross-examination of Hinshaw on Thursday..Rath inquired about several therapeutic treatments for COVID-19 including the use of ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, fluvoxamine, monoclonal antibodies and the use of Vitamin D and aspirin..With the exception of fluvoxamine, which was recently found to be successful at reducing mortality rates for those with COVID-19 infections, Hinshaw said all the data around the efficacy of the other therapeutics showed they were not an effective treatment for COVID-19..“Did you ever talk to the scientific advisory group with regard to coming up with an outpatient treatment program for COVID-19?” asked Rath..“So, I asked the scientific advisory group to provide advice on the state of the evidence with respect to treatments for COVID-19 and that was something that they did,” said Hinshaw..“That evidence again, there were, unfortunately, no therapies for the first part of the pandemic that were licenced and approved for use in patients prior to those who needed hospital care.”.“So, again, we were following the published evidence and outside of clinical trials, the therapies that had been suggested for use in patients with COVID-19 did not have the quality evidence to indicate that they were effective and so again what I had asked for them to do is provide the state of the evidence on therapies for COVID-19 and that’s what they did.”.Rath referenced a number of other studies and jurisdictions where outpatient therapies were being used to treat COVID-19, although Hinshaw indicated she was unaware of any of the references Rath mentioned..“As the chief medical officer of health of Alberta, did you look at any other jurisdictions that were providing outpatient treatment to patients suffering from COVID-19?” asked Rath..Hinshaw said it was not her role to explore outpatient therapeutics..“To be really clear, the use of therapeutics in treating patients with COVID-19 is something that is overseen by Health Canada in terms of their licensing of medications for use for specific indications as well as the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta which has the standards by which physicians would need to follow if they were utilizing medication that’s off label, so not approved for a particular use,” said Hinshaw..“And so, it’s again in my role as a single individual, I’m reliant on partnerships with other organizations and the work that they do in their areas of expertise and so in my role as chief medical officer of health I relied on those organizations as well as the scientific advisory group to continue to monitor the state of the evidence and to keep apprised if there were any therapies that had shown to be effective when used in early treatment.”.Hinshaw indicated there are now effective treatments that are currently in use in the province..Inquiring about the scientific advisory group Hinshaw consulted with, Rath asked if any of the members were medical practitioners who actively treated patients for COVID-19 with ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine or other off-label therapeutics..Hinshaw confirmed there were medical practitioners within the group but could not confirm if any were involved in treating patients with COVID-19 with any of the therapies Rath asked about..Pointing to the most high-risk groups of those vulnerable to severe outcomes due to COVID-19 infection, those being of the population over 65 years of age and those with underlying health issues or other comorbidities, Rath asked why Hinshaw wouldn’t have focused more on directing health measures to those groups specifically..Hinshaw said those vulnerable groups are “deeply connected” with other individuals whose risks are lower and said those limitations wouldn’t be possible to manage..Hinshaw, after citing projections based on Alberta-specific data, indicated she believed the lockdown measures the government implemented throughout the pandemic were “successful in achieving the desired impact which was protecting the hospital system, limiting severe outcomes and preventing deaths.”.“Dr. Hinshaw can you name one person whose death you prevented through these measures?” asked Rath..The Crown objected on relevance..Calling Hinshaw’s claims “pure hypothesis” Rath proceeded to ask Hinshaw what evidence she could produce to show the “measures had any appreciable effect on hospitalizations or COVID outcomes.”.Justice Barbara Romaine told Rath his question was inappropriate..“You’re asking the witness to prove a negative. It’s not a fair question,” said Romaine..“That’s my entire point, my lady,” said Rath..“Everything that this witness has been saying in this regard is on the basis that no one can prove a negative. We can’t prove that she is wrong, she can’t prove that she’s right. And I’m glad that you picked up on that my lady because I think that’s extremely important.”.After a short lunch break, Rath questioned Hinshaw on the topic of immunity..Hinshaw said the term “natural immunity” in her opinion is “misleading” and said she prefers to use the term “post-infections immunity.”.Rath posed the comparison that the length of post-infection immunity is unknown just as the duration of post-vaccine immunity is unknown, to which Hinshaw agreed..With regard to PCR tests, Rath asked Hinshaw if PCR tests will detect an infected person but could also produce a positive test in someone who is recovering from COVID-19 and is no longer infectious. Hinshaw indicated this was true and said it’s why Alberta Health changed its testing policy and no longer required self-isolation for those who have tested positive within 90 days of a previous infection..Rath also asked Hinshaw about the number of deaths within the province related to COVID-19.Hinshaw confirmed there was an increase in all-cause mortality in the province for 2020 and 2021 and also confirmed COVID-19 was the “largest contributor to acute care strain” during the first and second waves of the pandemic but said other patients had other care needs as well..After Rath finished his cross-examination of Hinshaw around 2 p.m., Justice Romaine proceeded to ask Hinshaw three to four questions privately in order to determine if public interest immunity or cabinet privilege applied to her answers. Romaine will advise counsel of her decision on the questions on Friday..At that time, it will be determined if any further cross-examination of Hinshaw is necessary. If not, counsel for both sides will work on writing their final arguments to be presented at a later date..Rath, along with Leighton Grey, a lawyer contracted by the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, together are representing the applicants in the case and have been cross-examining Hinshaw since Monday..The Alberta government is in court to defend its public health measures in the civil trial arising from a constitutional challenge launched more than a year ago. The hearing is expected to continue through Thursday..During Monday’s testimony, Hinshaw refused to take responsibility for provincial lockdowns and mandates, repeatedly stating she made recommendations to cabinet and it was cabinet that made the orders..On Tuesday, Hinshaw confirmed her public health orders were a factor in negative outcomes for Albertans. She also again made a statement regarding the orders being “policy decisions of cabinet” after Rath questioned whether she had recommended AHS direct more money to deal with hospital capacity issues..“In the context of issuing your CMOH orders, did you have these very specific appointed discussions with [AHS] about putting more money into increasing capacity as opposed to stripping Albertans of their civil liberties?” said Rath..“It’s important to remember that the orders were the legal instrument to implement the policy decisions of cabinet and so there was a group of people who deliberated and who ensured again that everything that could possibly be done to expand acute care capacity was being done,” said Hinshaw..During testimony on Wednesday, Hinshaw acknowledged the “new normal” she referenced to Albertans on several occasions would include complying with restrictions on certain freedoms..Melanie Risdon is a reporter with the Western Standard.,.mrisdon@westernstandard.news
