Alberta Doctors Criticize Provincial COVID-19 Task Force Report
Alberta Doctors Criticize Provincial COVID-19 Task Force Report
A provincial task force established by the UCP government to evaluate Alberta’s pandemic response has released its final report. While the government reviews the $2-million document, many Alberta doctors have expressed strong opposition, claiming it contains misinformation and endangers public health.
The report’s key recommendations include halting the use of all COVID-19 vaccines without “full disclosure” of potential risks, barring healthy children and teenagers from receiving COVID shots, and allowing doctors to prescribe alternative treatments like ivermectin. Critics argue these suggestions contradict established medical and scientific consensus.
Medical Community Pushback
The Alberta Medical Association (AMA) condemned the report as “anti-science” and “anti-evidence,” with AMA President Dr. Shelley Duggan emphasizing the role of science in saving millions of lives during the pandemic.
“It undermines the most extensive international scientific collaboration in history,” Duggan said.
The report was authored by Dr. Gary Davidson, former chief of emergency medicine at Red Deer Regional Hospital Centre, who previously accused health authorities of inflating hospital admissions during the pandemic—a claim Alberta Health Services refuted. Despite labeling Davidson a “contrarian,” Premier Danielle Smith defended his appointment, citing the need for diverse perspectives.
Politicians Weigh In
UCP MLA Eric Bouchard celebrated the report as a step toward uncovering “the truth” about Alberta’s pandemic response. In social media posts, he committed to ensuring past public health measures would not be repeated.
Public Health Concerns
Medical experts, including former Alberta Chief Medical Officer of Health Dr. James Talbot, have called for the report to be retracted.
“It was a waste of time and money. These recommendations should not be implemented without thorough public and expert review,” Talbot said.
Dr. Braden Manns, a professor at the University of Calgary, called the report “dangerous,” citing its potential to exacerbate public distrust in health officials. Infectious diseases specialist Dr. Lynora Saxinger echoed these concerns, warning the report lends credibility to poor-quality information.
Vaccine Misrepresentation
The report questions the value of COVID-19 vaccines, particularly for younger populations, and highlights concerns about myocarditis risk in adolescent males. However, experts like Manns argue the data is misrepresented.
“The risk of myocarditis from COVID is significantly higher than from vaccination,” Manns said, adding that vaccinations reduce severe illness and are already tailored to individual risk.
Dr. Sam Wong, president of the AMA’s pediatrics section, criticized the report for cherry-picking data and providing unsound recommendations.
Ivermectin and Alternative Therapies
The task force also advocates for legislative changes to allow doctors greater freedom to prescribe non-traditional treatments like ivermectin, despite its lack of efficacy against COVID-19.
“Good studies show ivermectin doesn’t work for early or severe COVID,” Manns explained, noting that several studies supporting its use have been withdrawn.
Calls for Accountability
Medical professionals stress that adopting the report’s recommendations would harm public health. Dr. Saxinger labeled the document a “public health threat” for presenting misinformation as credible, while Duggan warned of its dangerous implications.
As Alberta reviews the report, the medical community continues to urge caution, emphasizing the need for evidence-based policy decisions.
The report criticizes regulatory colleges, claiming that physicians who sought to treat patients with off-label drugs like ivermectin faced “disciplinary review.” It recommends amending the Health Professions Act to prevent colleges from restricting the use of such medications in the future.
Regarding pandemic-related closures and restrictions, the report asserts that these measures had limited impact on transmission but caused significant economic and social harm. It advocates for a more balanced approach to similar decisions in the future.
The authors also argue that Alberta placed excessive emphasis on vaccine-derived immunity over infection-acquired immunity. They call for more balanced government communication in the future and a move away from “coerced vaccination.”
To increase transparency in pandemic decision-making, the report recommends that decisions during public health emergencies be handled by the Alberta Emergency Management Agency or a designated individual rather than existing public health authorities.
