A working group created by the UCP Government to review the Pandemia response of the province has issued its final report and, although it is currently being reviewed by the province, Alberta doctors are withdrawing, saying that it contains erroneous information and proposes a threat For public health.
Among the key recommendations of the $ 2 million report are called to the provincial government that “immediately stops” the use of all COVID-19 vaccines without “total dissemination” of potential risks and prohibit healthy children and adolescents .
Uploading the 269 -page document there are a number of statements, which doctors argue to go against a medical and scientific consensus, criticizing the use of vaccines and a variety of other pandemic protections while recommending doctors to be prescribed Alternative medications, including ivermectin.
Calling it “anti-science” and “anti-evidence”, the Alberta Medical Association (AMA) states that the document advances bad information.
“He speaks against the broader and more diligent international scientific collaboration and the consensus of history … science and evidence took us through [the pandemic] And he saved millions of lives, “said the president of AMA, Dr. Shelley Duggan, in a statement.
The review of the working group was directed by Dr. Gary Davidson, former head of emergency medicine at the Center of the Regional Hospital Red Deer.
During the apogee of the fourth wave in 2021, Davidson said that the hospital’s admission numbers were exaggerated and be manipulated to justify public health restrictions: the accusations of Alberta Health Services rejected as false.
Calling him an “contrary”, Alberta’s prime minister, Danielle Smith, defended his decision to appoint Davidson last year, saying that the province wanted to know more diverse points of view.
MLA Eric Bouchard, a politician of the United Conservative Party (UCP) who represents Calgary-Loucheed, published news of the completion of the report on social networks on Friday. He promoted the report as approaching Alberta “one step closer to the truth.”
In a subsequent publication, which received hundreds of “like” in X, previously known as Twitter, Bouchard said he is committed to working with Alberta’s inhabitants to “ensure that the historical pain caused by the response to COVID-19 no It is repeated. “
But the publication of the document on a website of the Alberta government has also been received with strong criticism from the members of the medical community.
‘It’s dangerous’
A former Alberta Health Director is going back against the report.
“I think it was a loss of time. It was a loss of money. And under no circumstances should the recommendations be implemented until there has been a complete and expert public discussion of the report,” said Dr. James Talbot, attached professor at the University of Alberta
Duggan, with the Ama, said he listens to colleagues’ concerns about “deficiencies and prejudices” in the report and totally agrees with those concerns.
“It is dangerous, frankly, that this report now exists on a government website,” said Dr. Braden Manns, professor of Medicine and Health Economics at the University of Calgary.
“The distrust of public health officials is at its highest point. This will not help.”
The report must be retracted, according to Dr. Lynora Saxinger, a specialist in infectious diseases at the Hospital of the University of Alberta.
“I would classify that as a threat to public health. Because I think it actually gives a lot of low quality information an appearance of respectability and trade,” he said.
Both Manns and Saxinger were involved in the scientific advice group, which reviewed the emerging evidence, as well as national and international orientation and provided recommendations to Alberta’s health services during the worst of the pandemic.
The working group is sometimes criticizing the group’s work, claiming that their rapid response times prevented “a complete critical evaluation of evidence.”
Value of vaccines questioned
The report states that COVID-19 mainly affects the elderly, questions the value of vaccines and asks the government to control its use.
“[The] The working group recommends to stop the use of COVID-19 vaccines without the total dissemination of their potential risks, put an end to use in healthy children and adolescents, carry out more research on their effectiveness, establish support for individuals with vaccine injuries and provide a Exclusion mechanism outside the Federal Public Health Policy, “he says.
According to Talbot, the recommendations, if adopted, would eliminate the right of a father to vaccinate their children as they seem better.
“This is a vaccine that has occurred in the billions of doses. It is one of the safest and most effective vaccines that we have had and, nevertheless, they are questioning [its] Security, “he said.
The authors point out concerns about the risk of myocarditis in adolescent men and claim that there are no long -term safety data for RNM vaccines in minors.
Dr. Sam Wong, president of the Pediatrics section with the Alberta Medical Association, does not agree with the recommendations. He maintains that the group selected their data.
“It is based on bad science and its recommendations are not really what it would consider valid … if the government follows, then it is poor public health,” Wong said.
“The risk of myocarditis … is much greater and much more serious with Covid than with vaccination.”
Manns also refutes the numbers in the report.
“The risk of myocarditis is not 50 percent. It is less than one in a thousand. It usually occurs within the first doses. [impacts] younger guys. You have to adapt vaccines to the type of individual, “he said.
The National Immunization Immunization Committee already uses a risk -based approach, said Manns, added that there is solid evidence that shows that COVID immunizations reduce the risk of serious diseases.
Ivermectina discussed
The report refers to the lack of transparency during the Covid-19 pandemic and demands legislative changes that would provide doctors with more freedom to prescribe “non-traditional” therapies during future pandemics.
Describing Alberta’s approach to drugs such as Ivermectin as “restrictive”, the working group demands protection against complainants for doctors who raise concerns about public health measures or the so -called “emerging therapies.”
Ivermectin is an antiparasitic medication, both for veterinary and human use, which is not authorized for the treatment of COVID-19 in Canada.
“During the Covid-19 Pandemia, federal agencies, health services providers and regulators discouraged the use of tag treatments that potentially saved lives.
Manns has serious concerns about how data on ivermectin in the report is represented and what information is included.
Several studies have been withdrawn that examine the efficacy of ivermectin during pandemic, he said.
“When you later put the good studies, unfortunately, the Ivermectina simply did not work. It did not work in Covid early. It did not work in Covid Severo,” he said.
The report points to regulatory universities, saying that doctors who wanted to treat albertans with outside drugs, such as Ivermectin, were “subject to a disciplinary review.”
Ask for changes in the Law of Health Professions that would prevent universities from obstructing the use of such medicines in the future.
When it comes to closures and restrictions related to pandemic, the report states that they did little to prevent transmission and had negative economic and social consequences. Ask for a more balanced approach for future decisions.
The authors argue that Alberta puts too much emphasis on immunity derived from vaccination instead of immunity acquired through infection, and they say that the government should be more balanced in its future communication and avoid “coercive vaccination.”
Requesting more transparency on decision making related to pandemic, the report also recommends that future decisions related to a public health emergency should take the Alberta Emergency Management Agency or a designated person.
Questioning ‘consensus’
CBC News could not reach the president of the working group, Dr. Gary Davidson, to comment.
However, during a podcast organized by Chris Scott, an owner of an Alberta restaurant who was accused of violating public health restrictions and then his positions remained, Davidson retired against the idea of ”medical consensus.”
“There is no consensus in science. That makes no sense,” he said.
“Science is about questioning everything, experiencing and demonstrating whether or not it is. That is science. Consensus is an idea of religion and I do not believe that it belongs to this field, personally.”
A spokesman from the Minister of Health told CBC News that the provincial government received the provisional report in August, for the initial review, and a final report was received in December.
The government is reviewing it, but it has not yet made any final policy decision, according to the statement.
“The working group was designed to include health professionals from various areas of practice, including infectious diseases, public health, general practice, acute care, immunology, analysis and emergency medicine,” said the spokesman in an email.
“His recommendations offer a perspective on how the government can be better positioned to protect the health and safety of Albertanes in the future.”
Meanwhile, Duggan with Alberta’s Medical Association, cares about the implications of the report, arguing that “sowing distrust.”
“Criticism proven measures of pretrial public health while moving marginal approaches. Makes recommendations for the future that have real potential to cause harm.”
