Shaun Newman Podcast - #788 - Dr. Gary Davidson

Episode Date: January 30, 2025

Dr. Gary Davidson is an Emergency Room physician who has spent 16 years at Red Deer Regional Hospital, where he also served as the head of Emergency Medicine for the central zone and Chief of the Emergency Department from 2016 to 2020. Additionally, Dr. Davidson holds the position of Associate Clinical Professor at the University of Alberta. He is the Author and Review Lead of Alberta's Covid-19 Pandemic Response, providing critical analysis and recommendations on the province's management of the health crisis. Cornerstone Forum ‘25 https://www.showpass.com/cornerstone25/ Contribute to the new SNP Studio E-transfer here: [e-mail] Get your voice heard: Text Shaun 587-217-8500 Substack:https://open.substack.com/pub/shaunnewmanpodcast Silver Gold Bull Links: Website: https://silvergoldbull.ca/ Email: [e-mail] Text Grahame: [phone]

This is Viva Fry. I'm Dr. Peter McCullough. This is Tom Lomago. This is Chuck Pradnik. This is Alex Krenner. Hey, this is Brad Wall. This is J.P. Sears. Hi, this is Frank Paredi.

This is Tammy Peterson. This is Danielle Smith. This is James Lindsay. Hey, this is Brett Kessel, and you're listening to the Sean Newman podcast. Welcome to the podcast, folks. Happy Thursday. How's everybody doing today? Did you know that holding physical gold and silver and registered accounts is possible?

And silver gold bull can help you with that. that potential of unlocking your RRSP, TFSA, RRIF, or kids RESP by adding physical golden silver, that is, to your account. This year's deadline is February 28th. I kept saying 29th, and it's still, I don't know. I kept saying 29th. And you, smarty pants, all of you, wonderful human beings, kept saying, you realize there's no 29th this year.

Yeah, I know. Oh, no. So February 28th is the deadline. and silver gold bull can help you make invested, or once the contribution is made, they can help you invest it into precious metals at any time. So silver gold bull is the company that I point you towards. They got their in-house solutions,

whether buying, selling, storing precious metals. All you got to do is text or email, Graham, down the show notes with any questions you have around investing in precious metals and or for feature silver deals exclusively offered to you, the SNP listener. If you're on SGB's website, make sure any purchases you reference the SNP.

They're tracking it, and it helps me, helps them, and it can help you. You know, when it's January in Lloydminster, there are two things you can count on, freezing cold weather and the Guardian plumbing and heating crew. These guys have been on keep at homes, farms, and businesses running smoothly since 2010. And one of the things that really sets Guardian apart is how they make life easier for their customers. They've got technicians on shift at a.m. to 8 p.m. every single day, including weekends, and they don't charge you anything as sure for evening or weekend service. That means you can get the help you need on your schedule without worrying about surprise costs and farmers.

This one's for you. Guardians efficient grain dryers and guardian power stations aren't just available here. They're available all across Canada. The power station is an absolute game changer giving you two-for-one utilities, heat and electricity from the same reliable system. It's an innovative way to keep your operations running efficiently and save on energy costs. And if you're looking to better understand your home's plumbing and heating systems, check out Guardian's YouTube page.

They've got insightful videos to help you understand and to help you understand and give you practical advice and tips to make you smarter. Just go to guardianplumbing.ca for all your plumbing and heating needs. Subsdack, free to subscribe to. Every Sunday we put out the week in review. That's going to help you get caught up on what's happening here on the podcast. We got the Cornerstone Forum heading to Calgary, May 10th this year, and we got a whole list of speakers.

I'm telling you, it's going to be an event to remember, and hopefully you come, you get to be a part of the community, and that's where some of the real magic happens, is the eclectic group that you all are, being under the same roof for a day, maybe even staying at the same hotel and getting to know one another and have some unique conversations on the world that is today and things going on.

You just never know. There's always been some electricity, you know, generated between all the conversations that happened, not only on stage, but out in the crowd as well. And we got a trade show happening this year. So if you want to showcase your business, bring it, you know, check out the substack. All the details are there. And honestly, it's affordable. We didn't price us out of anyone's price.

I don't think. Anyways, and if we did, let me know. Maybe there's a way we can work with you to help get you there. New Studio is coming here in 2025. We're looking for skills, labor, materials, money, and we want to do value for value. We're going to build a wall inside that's going to be the legacy wall, and we want your name on it.

Nancy Fleming, Donald Valiant, Ben Trudeau, Grant and Mellner and Kathleen Davis, Kirby Cohen, Lewis, Lewis, Lewis, Lewis, Lewis, Damon, Tom, I, Kurt. Oh, man, them are some of the individuals going up on it. But there's some companies that have been amazing as well, Danery Paving, McGowan, Chartered Recountant, Crude Master, Guardian Plumbing, and Eating, Harris Electric, AMC, Electrical, Noble Floor Recovery, Renegate Acres, T-Barr 1 Trucking, Genix. So you can have your company, you can have your personal name on there, and really want this to be, you know, it's, I don't know, all of you've been a part of this ride, I want you to be a part of it. So I would love to have you on the wall when it's finally all built and up and running.

So if you're interested, shoot me a text. Let's see if there's some things we can build together and be a part of this thing. If you're listening or watching on Spotify, YouTube, well, not YouTube. Everybody's been texting me, YouTube. So right now, YouTube removed me for the latest Maccas interview. No, that's a lie. It wasn't Maccas. It was Scott Marzlin.

Scott Marzlin got us removed for a week. So if you're wondering why YouTube things aren't up there, you know, we don't self-censor on here. Sorry, folks. That's what are you going to do? I didn't think there was anything too crazy in Scott Marzlin's interview, but YouTube certainly did. So if you're watching on YouTube, we're removed for a week. That's why Martin Armstrong isn't on there. That's probably why, you know, today's episode won't be on there.

But you can find us on Spotify, Apple, Rumble, X, Facebook, for the time being, make sure to subscribe and leave a review. If you like what's being said, make sure to share. Because it's things that happen with YouTube, they really screw us over. We're growing. We're growing. And then they cut us out at the knees because we said, you know, what did they say?

It was medical misinformation. That was the latest one. So I need all of you to continue to share on all the different social medias, on all the different ways that you can, like, subscribe, leave a review. All these things truly do help because when the juggernauts like YouTube just remove us, you know, that's, you know, we're cut out at the nays. We rely on you. We appreciate the help. All right, let's get on to that tale of the tape. He was a former head of emergency medicine for the Central Zone and chief of the emergency department at the Red Deer Regional Hospital from 2016 to 2020.

He has been an emergency room physician in the Red Deer Hospital for 16 years and is also an associate clinical professor at the University of Alberta. He was the author and review lead of Alberta's COVID-19 pandemic response. I'm talking about Dr. Gary Davidson. So buckle up. Here we go. Welcome to the Sean Newman podcast today. I'm joined by Dr. Gary Davidson. Sir, thanks for hopping on.

Sean, appreciate being here. Well, I mean, it's the first time you've ever been on the podcast, which is interesting. You know, I feel like me and you have danced around each other now for probably well over two years. If you wouldn't mind, I think most people know who you are, but maybe just a quick little backstory on who Dr. Gary Davidson is. Pretty straightforward story, I think. Live in central Alberta around Red Year. Worked its emergency position in the Redier Regional Hospital for a number of years.

Was the clinical lead in the emergency department as well as Emergency Medicine Central Zone for four years. And yeah, I have questioned some of the questions. some of the narrative around the pandemic response, which, yeah, which kind of, I would say got me in trouble, but yeah, definitely got me, got some attention. And for that reason, as well as how I probably got involved in sharing this task force that, then the review, the Alberta Data Review of our COVID-19 response that Premier Smith asked for and recently just was released.

Well, walk me through it because I mean, you're the, you're the man who is the author. I know you had lots of people that were helping with different parts of it, lots of names that I recognized. I certainly remember when this was announced that you were going to be kind of heading it. And I was like, well, this should be interesting. Walk everybody through, you know, report. It's lengthy. and in some context, maybe not lengthy enough, on my world where I read government documents.

I'm sorry, Gary, you didn't give me, I don't know, I chewed through it. I chewed through it. Lots of times when I read government documents, I'm like, this is going to be rough. But this one hits close to home, you know, this is Alberta doing it. I applaud the government for doing it. And I think, you know, I was saying to a friend the other day, I think if you're, You're Albertan, heck, maybe even Canadian, you probably owe it to yourself to read it, not listen to anything media is saying, not listen to anything I'm going to say,

and go read it for yourself and see what sticks out to you. But that's my thoughts right off the hop. You're the guy who's been in and out of this thing for well over two years. What sticks out to you? Well, we knew it was going to be a bit of a challenge to do for some. reason some of the folks involved in how it was done don't want to talk about and I don't understand that I would thought that if you were in charge of this that you would want to share how you made your decisions what they're based on and and

how you want would like to do it different next time or improve on it but we really had a hard time finding anybody willing to talk to us about it that's probably the biggest thing that stuck out at me I I'm with you. I think it's a very courageous thing for the Premier to ask for this. This, you know, like the other physicians on the team, this is like, called M&M rounds or morbidity and mortality rounds. So if something goes wrong in a procedure, we sit down and do a debrief. We're not looking to blame anybody. We just want to know how it happened. And then how do we manage it? it doesn't happen again and that's very common and everybody shows up the table and everybody's

completely honest um and it's just a normal thing in science and a normal thing in medicine so we didn't really find that as prevalent and um yeah so that those probably some of the things that really stuck out at me um doing the report itself was very interesting we you know read an awful lot of material as you can imagine like hundreds and hundreds of scientific papers and reviews from different jurisdictions. We looked at how other places all around the world did it. We did everything we could to try to find what was done somewhere else, what was done here, and as you know, it's a data review.

So our job was to look at all the information we used in Alberta to make the decisions we did. And so where did that information come from? Who is getting it? Who is producing it? How were they analyzed it and applying it? And then how did it look when they're all done? Did it work the way you figured it would? And those are the questions we wanted to answer.

I'm curious if you would agree with my thought. I read chapter one, governance and flow of information. And I wrote this as soon as I was done because I was like, it was just really irritating. Not anything you did, just I'll read it to you. And you can tell me if you agree with my sentiment or maybe I missed something. I said the flow of information is hardly a flow of information when the author points out. There's reluctance of key stakeholders to acknowledge and engage with our mandate and that there appears to be a fundamental lack of transparency and willingness to reveal information

and discuss decisions and actions taken by H.S. during the pandemic. I'm like, if it's going to be a flow of information, and immediately in the first chapter, you write essentially that they're not willing to cooperate. I'm like, well, everything you talk about in here, Gary, I think a lot of us have been pointing out we're talking about now for how many years. And yet, you've already pointed it out. The challenges of trying to do something this is great.

The Premier gave it to you. But when I read it, I'm like, heaven, you got nobody in Alberta that wants to step up, put their name forth and say, listen, this is why we did X, Y, Z. Am I wrong? Well, that's what you wrote on a synopsis of what we wrote is I think fairly accurate.

Yeah, it was surprising to us how difficult it was to get anybody to speak to us, to be honest with you, or share with us the information they used. You know, the biggest thing we ran into is it was always somebody above the person we were talking to that made the decisions, and it was very, very difficult. So we had to do a lot of digging, but yes, I think that's a pretty fair summary of that. Well, what conclusion then did you run into when, when, was somebody higher? Oh, there's somebody higher. Eventually, you start to formulate your conclusions, which I mean, if people go read it,

you can see a lot of them. But for the people that haven't read it, what, what conclusions did you start to see? Because, you know, one of the things that once again stick out to me, you know, is Colonel Redmond. I remember listening to him a few years ago, talk about, hey, we had this response plan. We had it. We took it. We threw it in the garbage. And then we did, by all accounts, anything and everything, humanly possibly complete opposite of what we recommended against. And so it's like, well, I can see where this is maybe heading. But regardless, what conclusions did you get to when it came to who was making the decisions? Like, was it, was it Premier Kenny? Was he the one saying, we're going to do these things? Was it, was it Hinshaw saying we're going to do these things? or did it go somewhere else, walk me through what, you know, it went somewhere higher. It went somewhere higher. Well, where did it end up at?

Where does the puck stop at, I guess? Yeah, that's a good question. As you can see, there's a court case in Alberta, Rebecca Ingram, the case in that or the judgment that came down and out. And they determined that Dean Hinchaw was supposed to be the one making the decisions, but in fact, she wasn't. It was the government that was making decisions and they weren't supposed to be. That's basically what that judgment shows. What we found was, though, the information being given to the government, that the data flow was very restricted, very limited. It was censored,

and nobody was getting the full picture. And so it was definitely not reports, mandate to determine whose fault anything was. Our mandate was to review the data and how it went. And in that, the data that the government was given to make decisions was entirely manipulated. And that was the problem. So who was doing all that? That's a good question.

We couldn't get a hold of those people to talk to them to ask that. So we wrote what we did, showing that it appeared that it was very manipulated, very restricted, very limited, and sometimes changed. And this is what the government had to use in a very stressful situation to try to make decisions on the fly. And yeah, it's hard to make a good decision when the information you're given isn't correct. If you were sitting with Daniel Smith right now, Premier Smith, and you were like, hey, we should do this again, maybe, just maybe, you should give this task force the authority to, and I don't know how this works, maybe you've had time to think on this. I hope you have. Maybe you should give them the authority

to just be like, hey, Hinshaw, you're coming in, you're sitting with us, and you're going to talk. I assume that's possible in a task force when you're investigating government employees. Is it not? That's an inquiry. And in that situation, you have judges and lawyers and affidavits and all things like that. We weren't that. We're a data review. And so typically with a data review, you review, you review the data, you review the information, and you see if it calls for an inquiry. An inquiry, yes, then people are, you know, who were required to show up and answer questions. And that would be a, that would be up to the government to do. And, yeah, that's one of the recommendations we make that a full inquiry needs to be done

so that we can answer all these questions fully. You know, I had thrown it out to Substack and Kevin Damon wanted to know, you know, was there anything in the report that was just a surprise to you that was you know you're going along and you know you got your own thoughts i sure we all do you know but uh when you go into different um well it doesn't matter anytime you're investigating anything if you have your mind made up that's not that's not a great way to be it's it's more of like okay let's see what the data says let's see what all the evidence points to let's see what the communications say let's let's build this thing and see what sticks out was there anything over the course of

investigating this and doing the deep dives that really stuck out to you. They're like, huh, that's strange or surprised you. Good or bad. Not really. You know, the thing that I guess disappointed us or maybe surprised us would be the fact that people were either not allowed to speak to us in some situations, were afraid to, or whatever reason they just wouldn't do it. When you say, sorry to cut you up, when you say they weren't allowed to,

You mean like their bosses said, no, you're not going to talk to these guys? That's what it appeared to be. Oh, man, that just makes you know there's more to this and it ain't good. Well, that's probably one of the things that I guess disappointed me more than surprised me. I thought that people would be very excited to share what they did. You know, if you did a really good job, you want to tell people how you did it. If you think that you ran into real roadblocks in trying to do your job, you would want to share that. so that wouldn't happen again, but we just, we put out quite a few requests for interviews and

gotten very few. And often the ones we got, we had, it seemed like somebody else wrote most of the responses. So, because they were all the same for everybody. So it was strange that that would be organic coming from a person to reply exactly how the person before them did. So that was not so surprising, I guess, but just disappointed. Just so I heard that correctly, your reach out to, I'm just going to say, a series of people, and the response that you keep getting back is identical.

I heard that, right? Yeah, yeah, often. Well, I don't know. I don't have to put words in Gary's mouth. I can sit here and ponder and go that folks would be a coordinated effort to make sure that they don't come talk to you. And probably they all searched out legal advice or went to their manager and said, listen, what do we do with this? Do we have to? No, you're not

compelled to do it. Here's what you say. Send it back. And so they all sent back the same thing. I'm just going to, I'm just going to take a stab at it and say that's what happened. Hmm. You know, like I sit here and I went through the document, you know, and when you say, is there anything that really spread? You're like, no, I chuckle. Because like, as it's being written and as I'm reading it, like, I found it very fascinating to have a government document say the things that I, on this show and others on different places, have been talking about for how long, you know, just the overdose statistics, let alone anything else. You're just like, that, that isn't good, folks, but nobody would listen to that. And to have that in a government document, and I asked Gary, before we started folks, if he'd been paying attention to anything in the media or if he'd had blowback, you know, and certainly, if you're in the media world, you're seeing a ton of people just absolutely slam this thing. And I'm

like, did they even read it? Like, did they even go take a look at what it says? Or are they that like, triggered by the fact that somebody would just be taking a look at this thing, that they just absolutely slam it. Because in it, I'm like, I actually doesn't say anything, I don't know, that extreme. But I guess I've been in this world for too long. Maybe, maybe I got a weird set of glasses on Gary when I see that overdoses, you know, were five, five year historical highs. You know, that doesn't shock me, but that obviously shocks other people. Yeah, I mean, yeah, overdoses and accidental deaths, go look that up on the Alberta, you know, government website and look at the chart over the last few years. And this is a thing that, you know, anybody can see.

Whenever we lock down, they spiked. Why? And so then if you look at the excess deaths, you know, so we, when they locked down, if you remember, I think, March 2020 was the first time. Well, if you look, we had this massive spike shortly after that, and accidental deaths and overdoses, to a record high and it's never come back to baseline since that day. So if you look at the number of deaths we had over baseline before we started this,

and you calculate how many are there, and then how many people died of, say, COVID, just have a look at it and compare it. And, you know, that's in the report. It's just, we, this is the thing, that we mentioned is a is a response we had laid out the lieutenant colonel david redmond was a huge part in putting together looked at all aspects of society we just didn't look like health we looked at economics and and you know mental health and everything else and um and took it all into play but in our response to this pandemic it was just health and we didn't look at anything else what what the

impact of unemployment or losing your business or or kids being at home without any social contact and things like, we didn't even look at that stuff. And or it didn't appear that we did, I should say. And so, you know, that's the problem is that if you look at those deaths and add them up, the excess deaths from baseline before we started and look at how many people died of COVID, I think he'll be surprised. When you say that, like that right there, right, all we did was look at health and we didn't

look at anything else. like in your conversations with like did you get to bring up that to I'm just curious like I don't know HHS like I know you got to sit with a few different people did they go oh yeah you're absolutely right or they're like no no no the most important thing is it health and nothing but and raw raw team we did the right thing um we got to speak to very few people in HHS so I you know I don't know we would really have like to spoken to the people that made the decisions to ask them you know did they, but we never even got to that. They weren't compelled to talk to us, and so they didn't.

So, you know, my fear was that it was going to be one-sided because I really wanted to hear what they, what was behind the scenes that we maybe didn't see. But we never got an opportunity. That's tough. It's frustrating. You know, on this side, like I'm, I'm sure I'm speaking to the choir, but, you know, you wait. You know, it was November 22, right? if memory serves me correct, I think I wrote that down this morning of when Premier Smith requests this.

You think about that. We're like, geez, we're almost three years since this thing got requested to when it's done. I mean, it's not quite three years, but you get the point. And most people that have been looking at, you know, was masking, was it needed? Was it, did it even do anything? Or, you know, were the vaccines, you know, effective in what they were. supposed to do. Was there any hidden harms in there? You know, like all these different things. All, all people want, maybe not all. But a bunch of us want, the other side just to come and

talk and explain their thoughts out. But what about this? What about that? And probably the most frustrating thing then, I assume for you, because me sitting here and listening to you say it, I'm like, so what are we going to do? We're going to have an inquiry and we're going to have to wait another five years to finally get to where maybe H.S. comes and says, oh, we got to go. We got to us it. And then what comes of it? Like what actually comes of this, Kerry? Does anything come of it? This data review? We have, as you've read through it, you know, many recommendations. Obviously, we want the government to read the recommendations. We've presented them to them. And with thoughtful discussion and open discourse and scientific debate, see which ones need

to be implemented. Obviously, if we recommend it, we think all of them should be. And then implement and let's make it so this doesn't happen again. I was just saying yesterday that, you know, the best way to guard against this happening again is public disclosure. If you, you know, on the vaccines, if people knew that the vaccines were never even tested to stop transmission, they were never shown to stop transmission.

And if everybody knew that before they took it, that you taken it won't help anybody else. Would everybody have taken it if they weren't. forced to to keep their jobs or what have you, I think it might have changed. But more importantly, in medicine, you know, full disclosure and informed consent is if it's taken away, that's not medicine anymore. That's that's not, that's not correct. So this is what we're saying. If we want this not to happen again, we can have an inquiry. That's a good thing for sure. And I think it should happen. It's one of our recommendations. But more importantly, this needs to be open public,

discussion and everybody needs to know it so that they can make their decisions based on full informed consent and uh you know as far as masking goes you know there's there's a lot of peer-reviewed studies mostly from before this pandemic on respiratory viruses you're looking the training manual for a hs from 2018 that the nurses had to do and it says uh to you know during a viral outbreak to protect your lungs which of these masks would work or what would the which of these things would do and i have this And it shows all these masks that we were told to wear in public. And then it had an N95 and things like that.

And when you flip to the next page, it had all the simple masks cross out. These won't do anything to protect your airway in a respiratory outbreak. So then how come all of them they did? And how did that make any sense? You know, and I know that there was one of the public health figures during the pandemic that was live on television and said, well, the masks will help remind us that we're going to help remind us

us that we're in a pandemic, you know, but then we are forced to and not allowed to do things. That's not reminding us. You know, there's some strange things done. And so to stop this from happening is a full disclosure and explanation of why decisions were made. We didn't get into the why. We just want to know the what. What data did you use to make the decisions? And, you know, who analyzed them and was analyzed and applied properly?

and what was it based on and then did it turn out. And that's what we were looking at. We didn't get into motives and why that's for an inquiry. But I think most of this could be dealt with with just full public debate and disclosure. When you looked into it, all the data, everything, would you give the Alberta government a passing grade on anything that they did through that time?

That was not part of our review whatsoever. Our review is, was the data they were given, right? Data. And our conclusion is that the data, the decisions makers were given was incomplete. It was impossible to make a good decision based on what to have. And, yeah, that's what we were told to look into. We weren't asked to review. The legislative review was done by the Preston Manning report.

And that was his, you know, what laws allowed this. That was more what he looked into. That wasn't our. part of our magic. I'll rephrase the question then. Looking at the data, was there any data that passed a passing grade where you're like, oh yeah, that actually makes sense? Well, there was lots of data that made sense.

It just had to be shared in a way that wasn't manipulated as it appeared to be often. You know, June of 2022, we were showing deaths in ICU occupants. by vaccination status. And it started when the vaccines rolled out. And of course, at the beginning, most of the people in ICU are dying from COVID, obviously weren't vaccinated because there was nothing available. But as the vaccines rolled out and they started to show it by one shot, two shots or three shots, things started to really change.

And in June of that year, all of a sudden, the vaccinated were the most common people in ICU are dying. even when age corrected or comorbidity corrected, it still showed that three shots was worse than having no shots is what the data showed. And then that was the last time they ever published it. And why? Why did they start? They were collecting it, why did they stop publishing it?

So it's really hard for a government to make a decision when this obvious data was just saying, wow, this something's not right here, was taken down and never put up again. And then it was never shared with them, just like it wasn't shared with us. they were given incomplete data. So was there good data?

Sure, it's all being collected. We have all the data of everybody, what day they had their vaccinations, their comorbidities, their age, their sex, and what day they died, what they died from. We have all of that. We don't. But it's kept somewhere.

We couldn't get at it. Nobody would give it to us. So we want to know. So we can analyze this. very clearly, but we weren't allowed to see the data. And so we weren't allowed to see it. And we had a mandate directly from the government to give it to us. And they wouldn't give it to us.

Could you imagine the government trying to make decisions in the middle of a pandemic when they weren't giving them the data? I, yeah, I think you can see the problem. Who wouldn't give you the data? Or do you know? Well, I don't know. The people that wouldn't give us the data, but the data is held in AHS and the Department of Health.

So, AHS and the Department of Health wouldn't release all the data regarding vaccinations, deaths, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, from COVID. We asked for the data by date of death and the date of each vaccination they had. So we could determine what the actual vaccination status was at the day they died. And we could not get that. We asked for that for a year and a half. And we changed the request multiple times to try to make it. So they give it to us.

And they would never give it to us in that manner. They'd give it to us. Also, it's a filter on it. It appeared, but we could never get that. And so we could get it. And we're scientists and physicians asking for, knowing what we're asking for. I can imagine that the people in government who aren't scientists and physicians necessarily wouldn't know even to ask for that. So how can you make a decision based on poor data?

Well, it'd be like being in a fight with one arm, maybe both arms tied behind your back, I assume. When looking at the data then, did you find any data that hadn't been, and I'm going to say manipulated, but I guess my thought is manipulated, there's a lot of different ways to take that word. And I mean, like, did you find any data that was actually the complete set where you could actually, you know, like, oh, actually, here is the complete set of what it looks. second you could start to paint a picture or was it always you know oops they they forgot to give that or they changed the this or they looked at that like every time you looked at data did you ever get like the complete set was that ever possible so that's for sure we we got uh i'll be honest with you almost all of our data came from people in the public that were saving it off of a hs website or wherever they could find it and storing it themselves and because

Because for some reason, they would take it down every once in a while or we could change it or whatever. And we actually had to rely on people like yourself. There were lots of people out there, keyboard warriors that were saving the data and they would give it to us. I'll be honest truth, too. We got most of it that way. And that's not how it should be. I don't think. So, yeah, that's the honest truth.

Did we find any that wasn't manipulative? Yes. But did we find any that we could, that if you were in government, you could make a, you know, a life and death decision based on. in a pandemic under pressure, well, we couldn't find that. I don't know what to say to that. Like, I don't know what to, I'm almost speechless at that, that, you know, like, you're given a government mandate from the Premier to go and gather the data, and they said, no, we're not giving it.

A part of the government, folks, says, no, we're not giving it. So who really is in control? You have to remember that AHS is not the government. And this is what people have to remember. The Department of Health is a few hundred people. They're the manager of all things health. AHS previous, you know, when I was working there was about 105,000 employees. That is not the government.

That is a solely self-directed entity that is given money by the government, but they are running their program themselves. The government is not running it. And so when people get mad at AHS and then they equate that with Daniel Smith or Jason Kenny or even Rachel Notley, they are different entities. So we have to remember that. Sure. But you just said that, I don't know, where do they get all their money from?

Am I missing something? So I'm not here to berate Daniel Smith. I applaud Daniel all the time when she does things right. And I told her once while she sat here is the day you get elected. you know we're we have to talk about things because you're the leader so if aHS isn't a part of alberta government fair gary fair where does all their funding come from hmm well i don't think it's coming from me right so you could pull it from them and make them give you things could you not could you not and i realize it wouldn't be a very effective uh i'm sure the the the onslaught of public opinion because of

media would not be fun. But if you really want to get information out of them when you're giving them billions of dollars, I mean, look at what the federal government does to the provinces all the time. Ah, if you're not going to play ball, you might not get that funding. I mean, there is a game, I mean, they hold the purse strings. Do they not? Am I wrong on this? No, you're right. It's just, you know, if the government gets in there and starts micromanaging them, now it's just a government entity and the protection of it being armed links, which is what the idea is, that it's not run by the government. When the government's changed, it doesn't change how health care is delivered now over to

every four years or whatever. I can see the logic for that. But yes, they can change. And I think we're watching HHS being changed as we sit here in quite traumatic ways. And so this is being addressed. And yeah, it's a very difficult. process because you have to remember that AHS operates you know all of our hospitals and all of our you know other than private doctors clinics they are

operating all the health in Alberta you can't just burn it down and rebuild it because you have people that are in there you know we have I believe around 8,500 beds hospital beds in Alberta and you know what how many are in there any one time you can't just fire everybody who's gonna look after them Because you have to remember, they all work for AHS. So it's a huge ship to try to change, to turn around. And you can't just torpedo the ship because you're not happy with what they're doing.

It's a, this is a big thing. But I think they're doing, in my own opinion, nothing to do with the task force. I think that's what they're doing. Well, I'll comment on that. And then I'll be curious about your thoughts on what they're doing so you can, enlighten me. I just look at it and I go, yep, okay, I agree with you. All right. You can't burn the ship.

But, okay, if we walked through it, they did everything wrong through a health emergency, everything. Like, I don't think we, you basically said none of the data points to anything that they did. Oh, yeah, they did. Smashing job at this. It's like, no, this, this, everything wrong. So although I go, you can't burn it down because there's people a part of the system right now. agree. I also go, we can't point to one thing they did right. They won't give you the data that would actually help. They won't come to the conversation. They won't come to the table. They're running rogue is what I would say from the Alberta government who funds them. I'm starting to get close to the burning point because it doesn't make any sense to me. I like, to me, I'm just like,

yeah, all right, well, we'll just give it a few more months, I guess, right? But when we're trying to get transparency and answers of COVID. Everything you just wrote in this document from the data, I like, I might applaud you because I'm like, this is what the world needs to read. We've been talking about it for so long for government to go and try and put its best foot forward to pull out some of this stuff. Yeah, I'm all for it. But when they don't cooperate one iota, I don't know. To me, I'm like, I'm obviously missing things. I'm sure the UCP will be texting my phone going, you're missing this and you're missing that, you're missing this. And so fine, okay, fine. Gary, what am I missing that they're doing so exceptionally right now

when it comes to AHS? Well, you have to remember that during a pandemic, which I don't care how we look at it was still a very stressful event. I don't care if we think they did everything wrong. It was still a very stressful time for people in healthcare. In that period, we still did surgeries we still if you had a heart attack and show up to hospital they still did the right thing they still you know did just what we did the day before if you had a stroke they still showed up and did the right thing I would work in emergency you broke your arm when you came in regardless the pandemic going on we still casted you and sent you the appropriate follow-up as needed we did all

of those things and you have to say that all of those things were done in age institutions during the pandemic so all of that kept going now so So that's what I'm saying is there were still some amazing people making sure the rest of the ship was still functioning while we dealt with this other thing. And so we can't forget that, that in the middle of that all, you know, the frontline people were still doing what they did the day before in the middle of a very stressful time. And so we can't forget that part. And as an emergency physician and as a zone lead, I worked directly for it.

for aHS that was my I was aHS and so um so some of it was done absolutely right and and we had amazing people showing up to work in a very stressful situation so we can't forget that right we can't we can't just throw everything because they did one thing wrong and this was a big one thing there's no arguing and it had a huge impact i agree but lots of health care was being done right in the middle of it all in a very stressful time so we can't forget that never never uh yes uh you point out a very good thing here like listen whether it's the schools it's the health care system um there's lots of wonderful people i know lots of wonderful people i know lots of wonderful people i know lots of wonderful people that left because they wouldn't go along with

some of the things that were going on but when we're talking about the data when we're talking about digging into what went wrong and you're met with i don't know every barrier known to man you'll forgive me a little bit when i get a little bit testy on like Listen, this isn't the nurse that's holding you up. This is something different. This isn't Gary, the doctor who did great things and tried doing different things through COVID that is doing something wrong. No, this is something much more nefarious. And I'm trying to get to the bottom of it.

I think a lot of us are. And I'm trying to give all the time in the world to fix this problem. I am. But, you know, at the end of the day, we had one size fit all approach to pretty much everything. on this list. All of them were wrong. Like all of them. And then it gets put out in the public and the media will do what it does. And I'm like, okay, but you didn't even get the full data cycle to show like, listen, this is actually, it's probably way more damning. Like to me, why would you not give off everything? I don't think it's like they got great data sitting there. So it gets worse.

So while I agree with everything he said, I'm getting testy on this subject because I want to move on with life, but then we try and do transparency and they screw it over. And then we go, well, they're doing great things. And I go, well, we're trying to do great things. You're trying. Like, I don't know. I don't mean to be testy. I'm trying not to be. I just want to move on from the stupid COVID thing. But then you walk back through this document and it just irritates me. It's like, they won't even give, you know, I wrote on the first chapter, they won't even give a name. I'm like, why can't they put their name to it? Right. Like Redmond will give his name. Why? Probably because he gave his name in the middle of COVID.

And it's like, at this point, what more can they do to me? You know, like they've roasted me through everything. They've dragged me across the coals. Media thinks he's a right wing whatever. And none of these other people will even give their name. Heck, half of them just send you an email saying, I can't talk to you. Well, that's great. It's great.

I'm with you, John. I, you know, my personal opinions aren't in this report. Yes, I know. Right? And so then I'm trying to answer questions about the report, not about the Gary Davidson review of the report, right? So, and we've talked personally, and you know where I stand on lots of things. But yeah, no, it was very frustrating. And, you know, the people we talk to that did talk to us in AHS. And in leadership, just said it was somebody overmerex. me sending me this and I was required to do it.

And they don't really know who made the decisions. And they just, and when we ask them, our job is to ask what data did you use to make that decision? Their answers were always, oh, I didn't make the decision and I didn't see the data. So, you know, that's unfortunate. I appreciate you bringing it back there. For once, Derry's being the calmer head on the SMP. today, folks. When you talk about data, okay, let's bring it back to data then. Let's talk about the document,

because you're right, I'm pulling you into personal opinion. And one of the things I think you did very well, right, if people go and read it, is this wasn't Gary's thoughts. This was, this was written from that stance. I thought very well, I didn't think, you know, that I heard, you know, all sudden, Byron Bridal come blurting out a bunch of things. I just looked at data and that's the way it read. We're at like a document that you're talking about. So let's talk about the data. When we're talking about masking, what did the data show? So there's data and there's research, right?

So data is when we one jurisdiction uses masking in schools, for instance, and one jurisdiction doesn't. And there's a similar population group. We can say, well, let's compare them. As long as the schools are the same, as long as we're not talking to school, you know, one room, schools with no ventilation and no central heat and then the other schools, you know, high-tech filtration system. As long as we're looking at schools that are similar, and one jurisdiction mass and doesn't, that's data. That's what I can use. Then you take that data and you do research and you analyze and you get rid of confounding factors and variables

and all these. Now that's research. Then we take the research and then the studies and they show what that data tells us. When we look at especially research that was done before the pandemic, because then everything got politicized and you didn't know whether they were there was confounding factors that they didn't correct for but if you look before where there was no politicization of masking there wasn't one ounce of data or research showing the mask made a difference in the situations we were told to use them in wearing one in a box store was never shown to be effective these people constantly when you breathe through a simple mask or a turtleneck or some other thing like that that's never been showing to do anything and you're constantly

touching it whatever is on your breath is all over that thing and you're constantly touching it then you're constantly touching the shopping card handle or the fruit and vegetables in in the grocery store like that's just be better enough to have the mask on because now you're concentrating everything in your airway on your fingers which then touches everything you know I remember being told oh I know but it's not it's not it's not transmitted by that. That was just made up. That's not even possible. We showed that the COVID virus, when you're in a place like ICU, there's studies showing that the biggest concentration

of the virus was on the floor. And when they swabbed the bottom of the staff's shoes, that was the highest concentration of anything in the whole department was the bottom of their shoes. And I remember reading that study and then going into the break room and people would be ending their shifts they'd take their shoes put them on the counter because of their lunch bag to get their stuff out of the fridge or whatever and i'd say why are you putting your shoes on you know this was a serious virus and i get charged for down payment that make no sense because it was serious and i'd say to them in all seriousness it's like don't you know that if there's virus floating around and all sticks on the floor then it sticks on the bottom of your shoes you put your shoes on the

counter for everybody's eating their lunch that doesn't sound like a good idea and well we were told that it didn't transmit on hard surfaces that just made up that there's one ounce of data saying that that i could that we could find um you know and then the six foot rule you know if it's only six foot from somebody you're fine anthony fouchy you know under testimony said he just made that up so there wasn't one ounce of data showing that was a good idea there was one study showing that one meter it's a logarithmic scale the closer you are to anything the more you're going to get of it so the farther you get better but they just pick six feet randomly or two meters in Canada. It was just made up. It was just, we just picked that number. So this is what we found

lots of times. There was, there was no research showing masking, what you asked about, worked in the setting we were told to use it. Now, we've used masks in in ICU. We can use masks in an emergency department. When somebody comes in with a really bad, you know, they're coughing up all sorts of things. We'll wear masks. You know, when, when my kids are taking down old buildings on the number of barn that could have hunt of them or any other number of horrible things and we have respirators i have an n-100 so it's a respirator with cartridges on it i'm not going to go up there with a with a with a mask we use um when i'm doing grinding dust or something in the shop i know that won't stop that virus to save its life so we use a one nine one an n-100 respirator for that kind

and i've been doing that long before korea-room look at we know that masks work when they're used in the situation they're shown to work in, but to tell people to wear a turtleneck in Walmart, it's just nonsense because there wasn't one ounce of research or data showing that was a good idea. There was tons of it showing it didn't help. And in some situations made it worse, you know, like the cloth mess, for instance, that people love to wear. They're filthy.

They're covered in all sorts of stuff. Then you hang when you're mirror now. They got fungus growing on them, which is not good for yourself. and then you're touching them, you know, but more importantly, some of them actually aerosolized the droplets that you, when you breathe out, the droplets are big enough to just drop to the ground with whatever is in them. And that's good thing. But what happens when it's through some of these masks, it was like it just dissipated it, it, aerosolize it. So now the particles are hanging in the air for a long time, which is way more dangerous. They're wearing no mask. These are studies that were done long before COVID. But we had all that. And I shared that with everybody. I could until I got in trouble for it for sharing it. And it's like, why? No, no, this is what science is. We share the information we have.

I wasn't sharing Gary's anecdotal evidence from four patients. I'm sharing huge studies with thousands of people. It's like, show me yours, what shows that's not right. That wasn't how it was working. So yeah, I got in a little trouble for that. And you had to go against your own conscience to go along with some of this, which I thought that in medicine that should never happen.

We should never be forced to go against what we know is best evidence and do something that's just seeming to me to be irresponsible. So when we're doing this and we're talking to people that have way more education than I do in masking and all the other things along without it, and we call them NPI, so non-pharmaceutical interventions, you know, I'm trying to find somebody with some solid research showing that this was a good idea and couldn't find it. How about vaccines? You had an entire chapter on it.

What did you find there? Well, the vaccines, so Pfizer had their study, their EUA study. So they had to do a study to get it approved, right? And there's 44,000 people enrolled, 22,000 in each arm. They didn't vaccinate anybody under 18, anybody over 65, anybody who was sick and anybody who was pregnant. Seriously. So they could never say it was safe and effective in a child because they never tested for it at that time. They never tested it in anybody sick and over 65. So on how we knew it was safe in the older folks.

And we didn't give it to anybody who was pregnant. So but out of that and you have something called all cause mortality. So I give you a vaccine for COVID. I want to see if it stops people from dying of COVID in the vaccinated arm comparison and vaccinated arm. But there's another thing you have to look at very carefully, and that's all cause mortality. Because what if there's a side effect you don't know about with this vaccine that caused people die from other things you weren't even thinking about? Say myoporiditis, heart disease, blood clots, any number of things. We don't know. So then you have to look at something all cause mortality.

Well, they all cause mortality in the vaccinated arms higher than the unvaccinated arm. It's like, we're done. This vaccine is not safe. I don't care what it does. But they just ignored that. that just blew me away. And I had that before 2020 was over, before we were ever rolling them out. And I printed it off.

I highlighted that says, guys, this is not a safe vaccine. And I got told to stop sharing scientific research from Pfizer on their own vaccine because it was causing hesitancy. It made no sense to me. I was just showing it. I was just like, you guys, you read it. We're scientists. We're doctors. We need to look at this.

Maybe I'm missing something. But I just got told stop doing it. That made no sense to me. And then if you look at the data that they didn't release at that time, there was actually 270 girls that got pregnant during the follow-up period. And they, you know, okay, that's interesting. Of the 270, they lost 238 charts. 88% of the charts they lost.

Well, they didn't lose 80% of anybody else's charts, any other demographic group. Why did they lose their charts and how did they lose their charts or lose them to follow up? That was confusing. But then out of the few, out of the 32 that they didn't lose, there was only one normal birth. Well, that's not safe. And that's just short-term follow-up. That's not even years long. You can't say it's safe unless you have years of follow-up to see if it's safe.

You can't say something safe in two months. It's just impossible. It's never been done before. Not only that, this is actually a gene therapy. This is number one, it's not a vaccine because the definition of vaccine by Canadian health is one shot that gives you lifetime immunity and minimal chance of side effects. Well, one shot, that was, that was, you know, Dr. Fauci's on TV saying, you only need one shot and you'll never get it again. You'll never give anybody. Well, that lasts a month or two before you need it two,

and then you need one every three months. So it doesn't, it's not a vaccine. Number one, and then it's a gene therapy because I'm giving you an mRNA and your body is making the protein. that's gene therapy. And that, by FDA's own guidelines, needed 15 years of follow-up before you could ever put it in humans because of the chance of bad things happening. So two months later, after two months of fall-up, we're good. That went against everything I could understand. And these are things I looked into before I was ever on this report.

And I just like, you can't, what are we doing here? This makes no sense. You can't say these things just off the top of your head because you want to. And just because Pfizer, who's trying to sell a product for billions of dollars, says the safe, that doesn't count. You have to have independent studies shown that. We didn't have those. So there are some huge problems with the vaccine that I brought up then.

And when we looked into it and, you know, we have vaccinologists. And we talk to others that aren't even on the list. you know, please share with us something we're missing. We never found it. Yeah, that's true. And that's true and that's true. The conclusions and recommendations you had at the end of this chapter, I'm just going to read, well, I can read all five.

But number one was immediately halt the use of all COVID-19 vaccines without full disclosure to patients regarding both the safety and efficacy issues by their issues by their physician. Number two was end the use of COVID-19 vaccines. for healthy children and teenagers as other jurisdictions have done see Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, and the UK and then there was a couple others. My question is you give the recommendations. Does this have to come from AHS or can the Alberta government step in and say no more

to kids? No more. I'm curious, Gary, if the recommendation has to be recommended from the government to AHS now or how does how does this play out? The government could tell AHS that this has to be the way it is. They could do that.

It's actually the Chief Medical Officer of Health that typically, from what I understood, tells what the childhood vaccine schedule is and the vaccine schedule in general. And so I know AHS has their recommendations or what have you. Right now you're supposed to give one COVID shot every

three months. So if you're talking about efficacy that is anything but efficacious and you know like I said a real vaccine is one shot lifetime immunity one every three months and especially in gene therapy is is not a vaccine any longer so the government could just say this we have to look at this before we do this further and we need to change how this is done yeah they could do that even though that it's the CMOH and AHS that are the ones that put it out there the government could have to tell them direct and we're lucky you. I'm very curious to see what, you know, because I, like, there's going to be people that

have done zero research and they're like, what, what's going on? They haven't been harmed by it or they don't think they've been harmed by it or, you know, they're just, what's going on? I took my two shots in the middle of COVID. That was the big deal, right? And, you know, the data would say otherwise, you know, from effective treatments given to people, all the things you just said, I can't say them as so eloquently. And I go, okay, so why are we waiting?

If the government can read this report and go, oh, yeah, we should probably do this. What is the next holdup? What's the next barrier from just seeing this done? Because I think a lot of people have been waiting a long time to see this done. And one of the things the report is showing once again, you know, is, and there's other jurisdictions that have done it, which I actually, you know, I didn't realize how many countries. And I guess they've taken them off for kids. Is that correct? In the Nordic countries, if you feel your child or somebody under 50 needs them, you need

a doctor, the doctor has to give you a full informed consent. So they would explain the risks and any benefits and then you have to agree to that and the doctor okays you to get the shot if you're under 50. So that's what we're asking for. If somebody really, really thinks their child needs it and they've read the risks and benefits, I don't see any benefit to do doing it, but if they do, that's between them and their doctor. And, yeah, that's our recommendation to follow the guidelines of what they put out. And then before I let you out of here, you know, like one of the things in the middle of COVID, and I think, and even now, right?

Like, I mean, I just think of some of the people I've just had on the podcast talking about like alternative medicine essentially, you know. And once again, in COVID, there was a one size fit all. get this or else. When you looked into therapeutics or alternative medicines, different off-label use of things, what did your research find? Well, in the therapeutic chapter, we show you meta-analysis done with hundreds of thousands of people on pretty much all the treatments allowed and disallowed in Alberta to show, you know, Again, this is, we have enough data to show.

Take ivermectin for one, you know, so it's been around for years. In 1985, it won the Nobel Peace Prize for being a medicine that had the most impact on humans worldwide for treating a particular disease. It's a, what the only medication I can give you a prescription for 30 days of it, and you accidentally take all 30 days today, and it doesn't hurt you. I can't give you Advil Tylenol, Benadryl, anything that would not hurt you if you took 30 days worth of today. Some of it kill you and some of it damage you severely. I've been that safe. I prescribe it hundreds and hundreds of times, and I don't remember having anybody with serious side effects that didn't resolve when they stopped taking it. And the only one I ever came across was upset stomach and things like that.

that just when you stop to fill better. But so the safest drug ever given, if you know the molecular operation of how Ivermectin works, it makes sense how it would stop a viral reproduction in how it worked. So that makes sense. In vitro, it showed that it worked. And so why not try it? And like I say, I prescribed it many times. And it seemed to have really good results.

But one of our recommendations in that chapter is whenever a doctor is using a medication off-label, which is done all the time for all sorts of medications, but in a novel situation like this, where we need this data, we need to know, is Ivermectin working or not. In Alberta, we recommend, or one of our recommendations is that you enroll in a study and that every patient you give it to, you enroll them in this study. I'm given this first hypermectin for this new, whatever it is. And it's uploaded live. And if the patient has side effects, it's recorded. If they get better or don't get better, if it makes them worse, it's recorded. And we would very quickly know whether this is helping or not. That's one of the recommendations we say.

So instead of limiting what doctors can do, if you can have research that backs it and safety profile that allows it, so a risk benefit ratio. And you do, we want you to then. enter the study so we can know real quickly whether this is making a difference because if it's not if we get 100,000 al burdens taken and it's not making any difference whatsoever let's tell people that you know guys we tried it might be a good idea but it doesn't seem to be helping or it is helping and we should do that with all these medications you know then on the other side of the medications that we're told to use some of them that appeared that all we're using is that the

the manufacturers monograph to okay them well that's like you use that's like you using a sales brochure to tell you that's the only vehicle you should ever drive. You can't use that kind of thing. You have to use proper scientific research and data to back or disallow medication. But like we say in there, you know, 75% of medications used for pediatrics are off-label because most of them aren't studied in pediatrics. But after a while, we say, well, it seems to help with this, doesn't seem to hurt them, so we think that they're safe. And you give it a score on how safe it is. So there's an A, B, and then you should never use it.

So it's easy to do and this is what we recommend. Why didn't we just do that? We had a number of years. Why didn't we just, everybody wanted to use Ivermectin? Please enroll in study. And we would have known real fast with real Alberta data that we could analyze whether it worked or not. And that's how we should have done it instead of just saying, you know, it's not good for you. And when we read the recommendation against the Ivermectin and read the studies that were used for that recommendation,

The studies themselves didn't actually support that recommendation. The studies themselves showed that it might actually help. But the recommendation put out was, don't use it because we don't know enough. Oh, my goodness, we didn't know anything about the vaccine, but we told everybody they had to give one. It was just, that stuff was, things like that were confusing to me. And I don't know. We don't look at motive and all that, but it just seems strange. if you could go back to the start of this process knowing what you know now is there anything you

would have changed in your approach or or um you know i don't even know just maybe some of the questions he asked is there anything you would have like man i wish i would have known this because i would have tried doing x in the pandemic or in the report sorry in the report okay well yes it was frustrating not being able to talk to the people we want to talk to you, but like I say, that's that's an inquiry and that's judges and lawyers and different people involved than us. So I couldn't have changed that. And you couldn't, you can't just coerce people into talking to you, then that's not correct either, right? That's what we are saying is we want people to have free choice.

That's the point of the report is we want open disclosure, full informed consent on anything you do. Well, then it's hard for us to then dictate that everybody has to come and talk to us and share everything they know. We just thought everybody would do it voluntarily. So what would I change? Yeah, nothing really, to be honest with you. It was a lot of work with a very small team, and we put a lot of hours in. Yeah, I think in the end, I think it's a good report. You know, there's no reports that have come out in other jurisdictions.

You know, we have the select subcommittee report that came out in the United States, 570 pages. The Florida Grand Jury report that came out just a few weeks ago. It was 120 pages. New Hampshire's report was 37 pages. So very small. I wish we could have done it in that short of time, but didn't seem to be able to. And there's other ones. And I wish that we could say, wow, we really got it wrong.

Everybody else said the exact opposite. I haven't seen that. Gary, I appreciate you giving me time this morning and talking about it. And, you know, once again, my hat's off to you and the group of people who put in the time and effort to write it, to do all the research into it, to dig and dig and probably get frustrated and keep digging and everything else. I hope things come of it. I really do. I guess we'll wait and see. Either way, thanks again for hopping on and doing this.

and well, hopefully it's not the last time. Thanks, John.