Alberta’s medical establishment feels very threatened by the Final Report of the Alberta COVID-19 Pandemic Data Review Task Force.Commissioned by Alberta Premier Danielle Smith, this 269-page report by eminent medical doctors and other distinguished scientists was released on January 24. The report is highly critical of the Alberta government’s lockdowns and vaccine passports as the response to COVID-19 and recommends different policies be used in future public health emergencies.Three days after the Final Report was released, the Alberta Medical Association (AMA) issued a very short statement, just 64 words, denouncing the entire report as “biased, anti-science, anti-evidence, spreading misinformation,” and advancing “fringe approaches.” I have written about this in a previous column.Two days after the AMA released its science-free rhetorical statement, 48 physicians and university professors endorsed an open letter to Smith and Alberta Health Minister Adriana LaGrange, calling on both to dismiss the Final Report in its entirety. The number of signatories has reportedly grown, since this open letter was released on January 29. One might hope that this open letter from doctors and other scientists would refute and rebut the Final Report’s voluminous contents and its detailed review of the government's response to COVID-19. One might expect that scientists would explain why each and every one of the Final Report’s numerous recommendations are deeply flawed. After all, these experts have publicly called on the premier and health minister to dismiss all of the findings, conclusions and recommendations in a 269-page report.Sadly, the substantive contents of the doctors’ letter take up only two pages. The authors assert that the mRNA COVID-19 vaccine is very safe and very effective. They denounce ivermectin as ineffective and dangerous. They added footnotes and sources for their claims.This letter does rise to a higher scientific standard than the AMA statement, by making some specific assertions and citing 29 sources. However, the doctors’ open letter relies primarily on appealing to various government bodies and global health authorities, as though science consists of submitting to consensus. A true scientific response would require a thorough analysis and review of the Final Report, providing Smith with specific feedback as to which of the numerous findings and recommendations should be rejected, and why they should be rejected.While the medical doctors and the one Mount Royal University political science professor who endorsed the letter to Smith want to be seen as “scientists,” their letter inaccurately claims that the Final Report called for the complete halting of the mRNA vaccine. In fact, the Final Report only recommends that children not be injected, and that adults be fully informed about mRNA risks. Based on their highly misleading claim, the letter’s signatories go on to make the ridiculous accusation that the Final Report is somehow guilty of “impeding access to vaccination,” undermining “personal choice,” and violating “the principles of public health.”In summary, the two-page letter briefly touches on ivermectin and the mRNA vaccine, topics to which about 50 pages were devoted in the Final Report. The doctors’ letter says nothing about the many other topics in the remaining 210+ pages of the Final Report. Yet these doctors expect Smith to dismiss the Final Report in its entirety, based on their cursory, superficial criticisms of only two topics. This is pure arrogance, not science.Like the AMA’s 64-word statement, this two-page letter to Smith argues as follows: we are the majority, we hold positions of authority, those who disagree with us should be dismissed as “fringe,” and there is no need for us to look seriously at evidence or to engage in scientific debate. The authors seem to believe that the government’s response to COVID-19 was perfect, and that we have nothing to learn about doing better the next time a virus arrives.Hopefully, these doctors will have a change of heart, and take the time to read the Final Report and respond thoughtfully to all its findings and recommendations. That would be the scientific approach, one that would benefit all of society. John Carpay, B.A., LL.B., is president of the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (jccf.ca).
Alberta’s medical establishment feels very threatened by the Final Report of the Alberta COVID-19 Pandemic Data Review Task Force.Commissioned by Alberta Premier Danielle Smith, this 269-page report by eminent medical doctors and other distinguished scientists was released on January 24. The report is highly critical of the Alberta government’s lockdowns and vaccine passports as the response to COVID-19 and recommends different policies be used in future public health emergencies.Three days after the Final Report was released, the Alberta Medical Association (AMA) issued a very short statement, just 64 words, denouncing the entire report as “biased, anti-science, anti-evidence, spreading misinformation,” and advancing “fringe approaches.” I have written about this in a previous column.Two days after the AMA released its science-free rhetorical statement, 48 physicians and university professors endorsed an open letter to Smith and Alberta Health Minister Adriana LaGrange, calling on both to dismiss the Final Report in its entirety. The number of signatories has reportedly grown, since this open letter was released on January 29. One might hope that this open letter from doctors and other scientists would refute and rebut the Final Report’s voluminous contents and its detailed review of the government's response to COVID-19. One might expect that scientists would explain why each and every one of the Final Report’s numerous recommendations are deeply flawed. After all, these experts have publicly called on the premier and health minister to dismiss all of the findings, conclusions and recommendations in a 269-page report.Sadly, the substantive contents of the doctors’ letter take up only two pages. The authors assert that the mRNA COVID-19 vaccine is very safe and very effective. They denounce ivermectin as ineffective and dangerous. They added footnotes and sources for their claims.This letter does rise to a higher scientific standard than the AMA statement, by making some specific assertions and citing 29 sources. However, the doctors’ open letter relies primarily on appealing to various government bodies and global health authorities, as though science consists of submitting to consensus. A true scientific response would require a thorough analysis and review of the Final Report, providing Smith with specific feedback as to which of the numerous findings and recommendations should be rejected, and why they should be rejected.While the medical doctors and the one Mount Royal University political science professor who endorsed the letter to Smith want to be seen as “scientists,” their letter inaccurately claims that the Final Report called for the complete halting of the mRNA vaccine. In fact, the Final Report only recommends that children not be injected, and that adults be fully informed about mRNA risks. Based on their highly misleading claim, the letter’s signatories go on to make the ridiculous accusation that the Final Report is somehow guilty of “impeding access to vaccination,” undermining “personal choice,” and violating “the principles of public health.”In summary, the two-page letter briefly touches on ivermectin and the mRNA vaccine, topics to which about 50 pages were devoted in the Final Report. The doctors’ letter says nothing about the many other topics in the remaining 210+ pages of the Final Report. Yet these doctors expect Smith to dismiss the Final Report in its entirety, based on their cursory, superficial criticisms of only two topics. This is pure arrogance, not science.Like the AMA’s 64-word statement, this two-page letter to Smith argues as follows: we are the majority, we hold positions of authority, those who disagree with us should be dismissed as “fringe,” and there is no need for us to look seriously at evidence or to engage in scientific debate. The authors seem to believe that the government’s response to COVID-19 was perfect, and that we have nothing to learn about doing better the next time a virus arrives.Hopefully, these doctors will have a change of heart, and take the time to read the Final Report and respond thoughtfully to all its findings and recommendations. That would be the scientific approach, one that would benefit all of society. John Carpay, B.A., LL.B., is president of the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (jccf.ca).
