ALBERTA'S DAMNING COVID-19 REPORT: What's In it & What's Missing
A frank assessment of how the report needs to be leveraged but also strengthened
The recent report on Alberta’s COVID-19 pandemic response is a welcomed first step, hopefully of many, towards an open and honest dialogue about the COVID-19 debacle. While much of the information presented isn’t new to those who weren't lobotomized by the relentless gaslighting, politicians and public health authorities have, until now, been able to keep such inconvenient facts from being officially recognized. This overdue recognition is, in itself, a very BIG deal.
The Alberta report is a damning indictment of the government’s pandemic response that needs to be leveraged to the fullest extent possible, but also reinforced.
The report made clear that it was the federal government who was in the driver’s seat when it came to the province’s pandemic response. Ultimately, decisions were based on federal and international recommendations as opposed to Alberta’s pre-existing pandemic response plan. However, the report doesn’t address WHY the Albertan government was so quick to hand over the keys and WHY they abandoned their own emergency plans. That question was outside the scope of the project.
The report did acknowledge that regulatory bodies essentially acted like mindless thugs, decrying any information that departed from the political narrative as misinformation and punishing any physician who refused to jeopardize their patients' wellbeing by playing along.
“They (Colleges) passively accepted and followed other bodies without critically examining the information, thereby perpetuating a false consensus…
It appears that the Colleges deemed any information that differed from what they determined to be scientific consensus as “misinformation”, even if the information was or could be accurate…
Regulators actively sought to intimidate, threaten, and discipline medical professionals… The chilling effect was pervasive, instilling a climate of fear and caution that deterred providers from utilizing their full expertise… (disciplinary actions) often obstructed healthcare providers from performing their duties in good faith.” — The Alberta Task Force
The report also offered up some pretty obvious findings that, until now, have largely been denied by the Establishment.
Mask mandates weren't scientific. There is no evidence whatsoever that they reduced infections. As it turns out, cloth masks are not immune to the laws of physics.
Non-pharmaceutical interventions (lockdowns, school closures & social restrictions) were based on very weak evidence. These measures were ineffective, had high costs both socially and economically, minimal benefits and diminished returns. And once one set of measures had been introduced, others followed within days to weeks (such is the slippery slope of authoritarianism). Why not? No one was stopping them.
Natural immunity was downplayed during the pandemic. Alberta Health spread misinformation about the vaccines having superior immunity. They clung to that falsehood even after ample evidence emerged that they were wrong. Imagine that!
Regulatory bodies adopted inconsistent double-standards when it came to therapeutic treatments of COVID-19. They favored more expensive, less effective treatments with questionable safety (like Paxlovid & Remdesivir). They opposed cheaper, repurposed drugs with proven safety records that showed considerable promise (like Ivermectin & hydroxychloroquine). Why would they do that? 🤔
The report noted that, outside COVID-19, it is common practice to prescribe off-label (re-purposed) drugs at the physician’s discretion. The Task Force made two recommendations that, in a properly functioning democratic system, wouldn't have been necessary: They recommended actions to strengthen physician autonomy and to safeguard physicians against politically motivated disciplinary actions.
The COVID-19 vaccines are toxic and ineffective gene therapy products. Health Canada was solely responsible for approving COVID-19 vaccines in Canada and, according to FDA guidance for industry, mRNA vaccines are human gene therapy products (which should undergo up to 15 years of safety monitoring prior to widespread use).1
The report presented select safety data, discussed the toxicity of lipid nanoparticles, and listed some of the unconcealed shortcomings with the clinical trials that any diligent regulator or health care professional should've known before these experimental jabs were rolled out to the public. Of key importance: the trials never established that the vaccines reduced transmission, hospitalization nor death. That was the case for all three of the originally approved vaccines: Pfizer, Moderna and Johnson and Johnson. The report stopped short of blurting out the obvious — that these facts necessarily mean that vaccine mandates weren’t justified.
The report acknowledged that medium and long-term evidence on vaccine safety is limited, and that the premature unblinding of placebo subjects in the clinical trials ended any and all unbiased evaluations of possible adverse events. It highlighted that COVID-19 vaccination carries a risk for developing myocarditis and pericarditis, especially in males 12 to 29 years old; these heart conditions have lifelong and potentially fatal consequences. Moreover, for children and teenagers, the vaccines don’t appear to be effective against anything at all (amongst all trials for young children the greatest net reduction in symptomatic COVID-19 infection was a mere 4.6%). The report also called attention to the unsettling fact that pregnant women in the Pfizer randomized controlled trial did not fare well.
The above considerations were presented alongside the risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes. The report noted that age and comorbidities played the dominant role in severe outcomes, with risk of death amongst the elderly being several orders of magnitude higher than that of children. It was clear early in the pandemic that children and teenagers had an exceedingly low risk of serious illness.
Ultimately, the report recommends halting the use of COVID-19 vaccines in healthy children and teenagers. Based on the information presented in the report, one is left to question why these toxins were ever approved for them in the first place. All risk. No benefit (well, at least not for these youngsters; there’s been plenty of benefit for pharmaceutical companies and those incentivized for pushing the jabs).
“The tag line ‘Safe and Effective’ was repeatedly used to assure the population and encourage vaccination against COVID-19. Based on the evidence that has emerged to date, it cannot be concluded that these COVID-19 vaccines are safe.” — The Alberta Task Force
The report also recommends full disclosure of all potential COVID-19 vaccine risks — which is basically another way of saying authorities should adhere to the principle of informed consent. It is unclear why the report didn’t recommend halting the genetic vaccines for pregnant women, given the safety concerns that were highlighted for this group. The report openly questioned why vaccines were aggressively pushed for people under 60 who have a very low risk profile, but again stopped short of recommending that vaccination be halted for this group.
A third recommendation calls on the Alberta government to establish support for vaccine injured individuals. Only a heartless society would oppose that. Yet, several organizations have already condemned the report, such as the Canadian Pediatric Society (CPS), Alberta Medical Association (AMA) and the Canadian Medical Association (CMA).
Mainstream Reception of the Report
Mainstream media outlets have published numerous opinion pieces, most of which have been highly critical of the report since the findings go against much of what these outlets have been publishing.
In addition to letters by the aforementioned groups (CPS, AMA, CMA), there has been one other open letter that has received much attention:
A group letter spearheaded by the feds misinformation czar, Timothy Caulfield, and signed by over five dozen professionals (including physicians) has been sent to Premier Smith, the Minister of Health, and to members of the Legislative Assembly of Alberta, calling on them to dismiss the report in its entirety! Why? Because the group doesn't like the findings — it goes against the so-called scientific consensus that has served their best interests.
WHO IS TIMOTHY CAULFIELD?
In 2020, law professor and non-scientist Timothy Caulfield entered the lucrative business of amplifying the government’s COVID-19 talking points and schooling scientists about “scientific misinformation.” His ScienceUpFirst initiative was the result of conversations with cofounder Senator Stan Kutcher about ways to counter misinformation about COVID-19. This initiative has received over $6.3 million from the Government of Canada’s Immunization Partnership Fund and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research IN ADDITION TO an undisclosed amount for pandemic preparedness.
See a sample of Timothy Caulfield Communications.2
About ScienceUpFirst3
Record of ScienceUpFirst funding from the Immunization Partnership Fund4
Record of ScienceUpFirst funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research5
It’s little wonder the Alberta report has been met with resistance. After all, for the province to get everything diametrically wrong for such a sustained period of time, it takes a real team effort. This is especially so when even the most obtuse individual could see the government’s pandemic response was, for the most part, nonsensical and harmful. Nonetheless, the report treads lightly in assigning blame. It focuses on the (poor) quality of scientific evidence that supported various pandemic policies, while avoiding discussion on the deceptive tactics used to justify the measures. The federal government’s funding of fraudulent research, the massive propaganda and censorship efforts required to control the narrative, and the media’s buy-in were likewise omitted.
What’s Missing & Why it’s Important
The report doesn’t address the most pressing question regarding Canada’s backwards pandemic response: HOW were authorities able to toss aside well-established protocols to implement draconian measures?
As laid out in the report, the pandemic response was, for the most part, absent of any scientific justification. Yet the federal and provincial governments were able to by-pass the Charter and impose extreme restrictions on civil liberties. So, while the report makes recommendations to strengthen decision-making processes, what’s to stop authorities from just tossing those aside next time around?
Without understanding how authorities were able to circumvent well-established protocols and the law, how can we hope to stop it from happening again?
It has became clear that the pandemic response had little to do with health and wellbeing and was all about politics and power. Three pillars of Canada’s COVID-19 scandal were:
The “follow the science” scheme: A statistical game of deception that needs to be laid bare to the public;
The communication strategy: The use of censorship, propaganda and malignant behavioral science techniques;
The captured judiciary who turned a blind eye to massive Charter violations while refusing to hear evidence that went against their personal and political ideology.
These three components worked together throughout the pandemic to push a unified political agenda. They also formed a shield of protection for those people deceiving and extorting Canadians.
Unfortunately, the modeling chapter of the Alberta COVID-19 report completely missed the mark — it failed to recognize the HUGE role manipulated statistics and bogus modelling played in the “follow the science” scam. Towards that end, statistics served three primary functions during the pandemic: (1) propaganda, (2) to justify unconstitutional measures, and (3) a way for authorities to skirt accountability.
The “follow the science” scheme has allowed perpetrators to escape responsibility while downplaying the harms they caused, so this issue must be addressed. As documented in Fisman’s Fraud: The Accomplices (2nd edition), top research institutions continue to fund and endorse faux pandemic studies that perpetuate false claims regarding the safety and effectiveness of the genetic vaccines, as well as other interventions like mask mandates. So while the Task Force anticipates a resurgence of model use with the potential arrival of a new pandemic, the statistical games haven’t actually stopped.
Needless to say, calls to dismiss and diminish the Alberta report are likely to continue. There are far too many influential individuals and organizations who are hopelessly involved in the debacle and they have too much to lose. For the report to get the traction it deserves, it will be necessary to address the large body of poor-quality studies that is providing cover for inexcusable policy decisions that were made during the pandemic. The statistical game must be revealed in a way that completely obliterates the political narrative and exposes the key players. While this may seem like a daunting task, it is achievable if done strategically.
It must be acknowledged that the “follow the science” scheme was only made possible through extreme censorship efforts. The media’s role was instrumental in disseminating falsehoods and driving fear, hatred and division. Massive government spending went into studying and implementing behavioral science techniques in order to placate the public while stealing their civil liberties. Government-funded misinformation czars, such as Timothy Caulfield, acted like political mouthpieces, stifling scientific debate and gaslighting the public. Their funding and influence requires greater scrutiny.
The Alberta report doesn’t delve into issues concerning the HUGE propaganda campaign funded by the federal government, nor all the research money funneled to individuals and organizations with clear conflicts of interest to combat so-called vaccine hesitancy and misinformation. While this may have been outside the scope of the report, it certainly played an integral part of the government’s pandemic response.
Why was messaging prioritized over conducting the necessary studies to ensure the vaccines were safe & effective?
The third pillar — the capture of our judiciary — is a tricky topic. Few are willing to go there. But go there we must.
Throughout the pandemic, Chief Justice Wagner of the Supreme Court of Canada repeatedly met with Trudeau’s Attorney General, David Lametti, behind closed doors to discuss how to implement pandemic measures into the courts. The Supreme Court even brought in their own vaccine mandates — in lockstep with Trudeau’s vaccine mandates for the federal public sector.
The courts also misused judicial notice, often taking claims about the seriousness of the COVID-19 threat to the general population, or the safety and effectiveness of the novel genetic vaccines, as undisputed truths.
Recently, the new Attorney General, Arif Virani, took to X bragging that the Trudeau government had appointed over 825 judges since Trudeau was first elected. Meanwhile, there are only 960 appointed judges holding office in the country!
How can we pretend the courts are impartial and independent of the executive branch of government given these actions? Again, this topic was outside the scope of the report. Nonetheless, it’s important to consider this issue when making recommendations. It is prudent to build in protections that minimize reliance on the courts to do the right thing in times of emergency.
There are other gaps in the Alberta report. The contamination issue and quality control problems in the manufacturing process need to be addressed, for one. Secondly, while the report mentions COVID-19 testing, it doesn’t discuss how testing can be manipulated to increase or decrease the number of reported cases. Nor does it discuss the unreliability of COVID-19 statistics. Thirdly, a comprehensive risk-benefit analysis should be undertaken. The report did recommend that, going forward, all pandemic “countermeasures” should undergo real-time evaluation before being implemented, including risk-benefit analyses. However, it appears this was not done during the COVID-19 pandemic — it needs to be done now. Such an analysis would require a TEAM with diverse expertise given the enormous amount of risk in the system from many different sources. I am in full agreement with the Task Force’s recommendation that these evaluations should be overseen by a panel of peers, representing different faith, societal, and socio-economic groups.
On a final note, while the focus of the report was on reviewing the data used to inform pandemic decisions, we should not lose sight of one very important question: Even if a vaccine is proven safe & effective and even if a pathogen emerges that poses the kind of threat media had made COVID-19 out to be, would it be acceptable for the state to lockdown healthy individuals or mandate that a healthy individual take a pharmaceutical in order to carry out normal daily living? How can that ever be acceptable in a free and democratic society? This requires much discussion that, so far, has been overshadowed by the focus on science and completely lost on our public officials.
The report recommends safeguarding people’s autonomy to ensure that every adult has the individual right to make informed decisions about their risk behaviour — even in the face of a pandemic. Normal social functioning should be minimally disrupted. This fundamental pre-pandemic concept was lost during the COVID-19 fiasco.
Bottom Line
The Alberta report is a damning indictment of the government’s pandemic response. It marks the first time views outside the dominant narrative have been explored in an official capacity, and it needs to be leveraged to the fullest extent possible in order to push for necessary change.
Premier Danielle Smith should be commended for her willingness to take a critical look at Alberta’s pandemic response with a view to resolve obvious shortcomings.
Next steps should include: reinforcing the report as outlined above, strengthening Charter rights and freedoms, and addressing the question of HOW authorities were able to get away with tossing aside well-established procedures and protocols.
My sincerest gratitude for Natali Morris of Redacted in bringing international awareness to this bombshell report! Please share widely and help get the word out!
Thanks for reading!
Dr. Regina Watteel is a Canadian statistician and author of the bestseller Fisman's Fraud, an exposé on the rise of Canadian hate science that was used to vilify unvaccinated Canadians and prop up COVID-19 vaccine mandates and travel restrictions.
This research is self-funded. Any support is greatly appreciated!
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Long Term Follow-Up After Administration of Human Gene Therapy Products - Guidance for Industry. 2020. (Accessed April 7, 2024, at https://www.fda.gov/media/113768/download.)
Yep and some people andborgs. are tryingnto shoot it down….go figure! You don’t want to interfere with the depopulation agenda of the U.N.