Edmonton-based “investigative reporter” and former CBC propagandist Charles Rusnell is upset because Dr. Roger Hodkinson continues to spread what Mr. Rusnell sees as “misinformation.”In November 2020, Dr. Hodkinson spoke to Edmonton City Council at a public hearing about a mask bylaw. Dr. Hodkinson said that “masks are utterly useless” and that there is no evidence to support their effectiveness. During the years of lockdowns and vaccine passports, Dr. Hodkinson also stated that “nothing works to control the spread of this virus.” He said the new COVID-19 vaccine was not necessary, and had not been proven safe. He argued that it was medical malpractice to claim without any qualification that the new COVID vaccine was safe.Facing disciplinary proceedings before the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta, Dr. Hodkinson did not withdraw any of his statements, nor was he accused of making statements that are misleading or untrue. The College was provided with abundant evidence in support of his claims about COVID, masks and vaccines..The College asserted — and Dr. Hodkinson agreed — that his comments were unprofessional for one or more of the following reasons: (1) They were disrespectful towards some of his medical colleagues. (E.g. “You’re being led down the garden path by the chief medical officer of health for this province.”)(2) They fell outside of the scope of his practice as a pathologist.(3) His opinions were “not consistent with the current and widely accepted views of the profession when interpreting scientific knowledge to the public.”The College did not engage in any scientific inquiry about COVID, masks, lockdowns, or vaccines, nor did the College deem Dr. Hodkinson’s comments to be “misinformation.” The title of Mr. Rusnell’s article is therefore highly misleading: “Sanctioned for Misinformation, This Doctor Keeps Spreading It.” .When lambasting Dr. Hodkinson, Mr. Rusnell repeatedly quotes University of Alberta law professor Tim Caulfield, who is not a medical doctor and whose CV does not reveal any formal medical training.When attacking Dr. Hodkinson for having described masks as useless, Mr. Rusnell and Professor Caulfield don’t try to explain what evidence their pro-mask viewpoint is based on. Instead, they simply rely on the utterly unscientific assumption that the Chief Medical Officer and the College of Physicians and Surgeons must be right, because they are authorities. Mr. Rusnell and Professor Caulfield use these same political tactics for every issue: COVID, lockdowns, masks, vaccines, and mandatory vaccination policies. They peddle knee-jerk authoritarianism, which is the antithesis of science.For Mr. Rusnell and Professor Caulfield then, “science” is whatever the government declares it to be. Had they lived during the Middle Ages, they would not have engaged Galileo in debate about whether the Earth is round or flat. Rather, Mr. Rusnell and Professor Caulfield would have “known” that the Earth was flat because the authorities said it was. They would have called on the authorities to censor or punish Galileo for spreading “misinformation,” without seriously considering what Galileo had to say. .There are credible, peer-reviewed scientific studies which show that masks did not reduce the spread of COVID-19. Mr. Rusnell and Professor Caulfield won’t try to debunk or discredit the scientific research that shows masks to be useless, because they already “know” that these reports must be false, because the Chief Medical Officer or other authorities have said so, and anyone who disagrees with the government is spreading “misinformation.”Neither Mr. Rusnell nor Professor Caulfield would last more than a few minutes in a debate with Dr. Hodkinson before being completely humiliated by Dr. Hodkinson’s use of facts and logic. I would be extremely surprised if either gentleman was willing to debate Dr. Hodkinson — or anyone else — about the merits of masks, lockdowns and mandatory vaccination policies. .Science is rarely settled. It consists of ongoing inquiry and debate that is conducted in a spirit of truth-loving humility. Sadly, there are doctors, journalists and academics who blindly follow the current consensus, failing to understand that the dominant viewpoint is not necessarily the correct one.For example, 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 in deformed babies, many of whom were missing limbs. The consensus was wrong. Many suffered and died, until the consensus was eventually overthrown by science, consisting of skepticism, inquiry, debate and analysis, all of it grounded in humility.For many centuries, the “consensus” amongst scientists was also that doctors need not wash their hands before delivering babies. This resulted 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 handwashing. He was initially mocked and ridiculed, but fortunately science eventually prevailed over majority consensus..Section 41 of the Canadian Medical Association Code of Ethics is hostile to science, because it requires doctors to “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.”Even if Dr. Hodkinson had been dead wrong in opposing mandatory masking and mandatory vaccination policies, he would still have performed a great service for humanity by provoking debate about policies that inflicted so much harm on so many people for such a long time.History will recognize Dr. Hodkinson as a friend of science who dared to challenge the dominant consensus. Apologists for blind obedience to authoritarian government will soon be forgotten.John Carpay is president of the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (jccf.ca)
