Item: “Premier Danielle Smith criticised over choice of doctor who criticised lockdowns and vaccine mandates, to review Alberta’s pandemic-era health data.”Indeed? Given that the governmental response nationwide to COVID-19 doubled the national debt, caused emotional trauma and learning loss to a generation of children and crippled the Canadian economy, you’d think only those with something to hide would object to a sober examination of anything ordered by governments from 2020 through 2022.The question is, in the face of all the 'experts' asserting their ownership of the (often contradictory) 'science,' who has the credibility to do it? For myself, I'm prepared to give Dr. Gary Davidson a chance. He was, after all, chief of emergency services in Red Deer, so he's that much of an expert to begin with. Certainly with responsibilities of that nature, he cannot be labelled as one of those anti-vaxx, internet lone rangers regularly dismissed by all the other 'experts' as nutters. (Not that those who object to his line of enquiry won't try.)That is, Davidson is operating under the imprimatur of a senior level of government. If it chooses to accept his report, the government owns it. That doesn't make it necessarily correct, but if it differs from the narrative, it's not just Dr. Zipper from Moosebreath, Sask., who's saying so. It's the Government of Alberta.This issue of official sanction was the problem with (for example) the National Citizens’ Inquiry into the Appropriateness and Efficacy of the COVID-19 Response in Canada.The NIC report is thousands of pages of carefully annotated evidence, based upon sworn evidence. Importantly, it received no government support and was funded entirely by public subscription. And among its many observations was this:“Our country underwent a dramatic transformation within a short timespan. Sweeping lockdowns and restrictions on rights and freedoms that would once have been considered unthinkable in our country were adopted with incredible speed and with no room for public comment or debate. This was, in and of itself, a phenomenon.”But, while I have the deepest respect for the integrity of those who conducted and reported from the inquiry, the group has no official standing. Its important findings — notably that “an unprecedented attack was carried out on the basic rights, freedoms and way of life of Canadian citizens… not since World War II have so many lives been lost due to measures imposed on Canadians by their government” — are therefore easily dismissed by those who don’t care to deal with them.When Preston Manning reported last November on the legislation that guided Alberta's response to COVID-19, he recommended changes to improve the handling of future public health emergencies for Albertans. This at least, was official.But reporting on the legislation is not the same as reporting on what the government knew, what it told people and how it dealt with dissent. For, here in Alberta — for all that it was the best billet in the barracks during the emergency — we were told many things that later turned out to be just not so. For example, that the vaccines were effective... Manifestly they were not. Despite a vigorous — some would say 'aggressive' — vaccination campaign, more people died of COVID in 2022 here and elsewhere, than in any other year.Meanwhile the health system's great reticence to talk about the extent of vaccine injuries suggests there may indeed be something to talk about.Whatever Dr. Davidson concludes, somebody will object to his conclusions. But, they cannot be ignored.Meanwhile, in pursuit of ultimate truth, here’s what you don’t do.You don’t have a report written by the people who made the rules.Back in June 2022, a group of researchers writing in the Canadian Medical Journal declared that Canada’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic was superior to that of other countries with similar medical and political systems. They credited Canada’s aggressive lockdowns and vaccination policies.Well, they would, wouldn’t they? It turned out the researchers offering this enthusiastic account were the very people who were involved in the development of the policies they were now applauding. And they proudly admitted Canada’s COVID-19 response included ‘some of the most restrictive public health measures across a broad range of domains, including restrictions on public gatherings and school closures.’In Alberta, we can do a little better than that.
Item: “Premier Danielle Smith criticised over choice of doctor who criticised lockdowns and vaccine mandates, to review Alberta’s pandemic-era health data.”Indeed? Given that the governmental response nationwide to COVID-19 doubled the national debt, caused emotional trauma and learning loss to a generation of children and crippled the Canadian economy, you’d think only those with something to hide would object to a sober examination of anything ordered by governments from 2020 through 2022.The question is, in the face of all the 'experts' asserting their ownership of the (often contradictory) 'science,' who has the credibility to do it? For myself, I'm prepared to give Dr. Gary Davidson a chance. He was, after all, chief of emergency services in Red Deer, so he's that much of an expert to begin with. Certainly with responsibilities of that nature, he cannot be labelled as one of those anti-vaxx, internet lone rangers regularly dismissed by all the other 'experts' as nutters. (Not that those who object to his line of enquiry won't try.)That is, Davidson is operating under the imprimatur of a senior level of government. If it chooses to accept his report, the government owns it. That doesn't make it necessarily correct, but if it differs from the narrative, it's not just Dr. Zipper from Moosebreath, Sask., who's saying so. It's the Government of Alberta.This issue of official sanction was the problem with (for example) the National Citizens’ Inquiry into the Appropriateness and Efficacy of the COVID-19 Response in Canada.The NIC report is thousands of pages of carefully annotated evidence, based upon sworn evidence. Importantly, it received no government support and was funded entirely by public subscription. And among its many observations was this:“Our country underwent a dramatic transformation within a short timespan. Sweeping lockdowns and restrictions on rights and freedoms that would once have been considered unthinkable in our country were adopted with incredible speed and with no room for public comment or debate. This was, in and of itself, a phenomenon.”But, while I have the deepest respect for the integrity of those who conducted and reported from the inquiry, the group has no official standing. Its important findings — notably that “an unprecedented attack was carried out on the basic rights, freedoms and way of life of Canadian citizens… not since World War II have so many lives been lost due to measures imposed on Canadians by their government” — are therefore easily dismissed by those who don’t care to deal with them.When Preston Manning reported last November on the legislation that guided Alberta's response to COVID-19, he recommended changes to improve the handling of future public health emergencies for Albertans. This at least, was official.But reporting on the legislation is not the same as reporting on what the government knew, what it told people and how it dealt with dissent. For, here in Alberta — for all that it was the best billet in the barracks during the emergency — we were told many things that later turned out to be just not so. For example, that the vaccines were effective... Manifestly they were not. Despite a vigorous — some would say 'aggressive' — vaccination campaign, more people died of COVID in 2022 here and elsewhere, than in any other year.Meanwhile the health system's great reticence to talk about the extent of vaccine injuries suggests there may indeed be something to talk about.Whatever Dr. Davidson concludes, somebody will object to his conclusions. But, they cannot be ignored.Meanwhile, in pursuit of ultimate truth, here’s what you don’t do.You don’t have a report written by the people who made the rules.Back in June 2022, a group of researchers writing in the Canadian Medical Journal declared that Canada’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic was superior to that of other countries with similar medical and political systems. They credited Canada’s aggressive lockdowns and vaccination policies.Well, they would, wouldn’t they? It turned out the researchers offering this enthusiastic account were the very people who were involved in the development of the policies they were now applauding. And they proudly admitted Canada’s COVID-19 response included ‘some of the most restrictive public health measures across a broad range of domains, including restrictions on public gatherings and school closures.’In Alberta, we can do a little better than that.
