Alberta Premier Danielle Smith speaks during the fall meeting of Canada's premiers, in Toronto on Dec. 16, 2024.Nathan Denette/The Canadian Press
Premier Danielle Smith defended a highly criticized report on Alberta’s COVID-19 response by saying it is important to listen to a broad cross-section of doctors, including those with contrarian views, to prepare for any future pandemics.
Ms. Smith said Wednesday she was pleased that the report identified issues that are “under question,” such as the efficacy of masks and vaccines for children, and the right of doctors to speak freely without being disciplined by their professional colleges. She said the report is still under review and no decisions have been made regarding its recommendations.
“I will always seek out contrarian voices just to make sure I make the best decisions,” said the Premier at an unrelated news conference. “We always have to make sure that, in a world where we care about science, all voices are heard. That’s what science is. You actually hear different viewpoints, so that you can make solid decisions on what you hear.”
The Premier’s office was provided the government-commissioned report roughly eight months ago but it was not publicly released until last Friday.
Details about the $2-million task force that was created to review Alberta’s pandemic data and decisions were first revealed by The Globe and Mail last April. It was led by Gary Davidson, a physician who claimed the province manipulated statistics to introduce restrictions and exaggerated pressure on hospitals during the height of the pandemic.
The final report has come under intense criticism, including from the Alberta Medical Association and its national counterpart, in addition to individual doctors across the country, for promoting misinformation. The 269-page document is filled with suggestions that go against mainstream scientific consensus regarding, for example, public health measures and masking.
Final recommendations from the task force included that Alberta halt the use of COVID-19 vaccines without full disclosure of their potential risks and end their use in healthy children, in addition to protecting health care workers from disciplinary action for promoting or using alternative medical treatments (such as the antiparasitic drug ivermectin) and refraining from any future mask mandates.
On Tuesday, the report was updated to remove the name of one of the people listed as a contributor, Alberta physician John Conly, who told The Globe that he demanded his name be removed and disagreed with its findings. He said he did a one-hour interview with the task force. Dr. Davidson, and other task force members, have defended their conclusions.
Ms. Smith, during her Wednesday remarks, pushed back against opponents of the task force and its report. She said contrarian voices have been left out of the conversation.
“That’s not what we’re going to do,” she said. “We’re going to make our best assessment based on what we’re seeing with the evidence. And the evidence has changed. The information that we’ve had over time, and what we were told at the beginning, is a little bit different than what we’re hearing today, so we’ve got to adjust to that.”
Ms. Smith became Leader of the United Conservative Party in 2022 in large part because of her opposition to public health restrictions implemented under her predecessor Jason Kenney and skepticism of COVID vaccines. The report supports many of Ms. Smith’s positions, including her embrace of purported remedies such as ivermectin, which scientists determined was ineffective in warding off and treating the virus.
Also on Wednesday, nearly 70 medical doctors, research scientists, health law and policy experts released an open letter calling on the province to dismiss the report in its entirety “as it inaccurately reflects the body of scientific evidence.”
The group stressed that evidence strongly favours vaccination as a preventative measure and does not support therapies like ivermectin to treat COVID-19. Additionally, the signatories questioned the credentials of some of the report’s authors, but did not mention anyone by name.
“We strongly advocate for use of the most current and representative scientific knowledge and best practices when developing reports to inform the public and guide policy development,” reads the letter.
“While ongoing research continues to refine and enhance available options, improve benefit-to-risk ratios, and boost health outcomes, it is essential that policies are founded on ongoing robust and well-established scientific evidence, rather than misrepresented data.”