All Episodes
Previous Next
March 10, 2025 - Epoch Times
22:26
New Official Pandemic Report Recommends Against Use of COVID Vaccines: Dr. Gary Davidson
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Doctors felt pressure to do things they didn't agree with.
We need to have good autonomy where a physician is doing things safely, but they're allowed to treat their patients in what they believe is the best for them.
It still has to be regulated.
You can't just have everybody off on their own, but it has to be done.
In January, the Canadian province of Alberta released an extensive 269-page report, the first of its kind, assessing the province's response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
I was asked to form a task force.
There's people on the task force that are more aligned with how I saw it or how I think.
And then there was people we invited to join who are not aligned with how I think or see it.
In this episode, I sit down with Dr. Gary Davidson, who led the task force that made the report.
There's just so much data out there.
The Nordic countries did a huge study, millions of people, showing that if you're under 50 years old, you probably shouldn't get this vaccine.
And so that's what we recommend doing in Alberta.
This is American Thought Leaders, and I'm Jan Jekielek.
Dr. Gary Davidson, such a pleasure to have you on American Thought Leaders.
Thank you for having me.
It's a privilege.
You were the head of a task force that looked at...
The province of Alberta and Canada's pandemic response.
And one of your findings was that the response, if I may say, wasn't grounded in science.
What would you say are the most significant findings, the most important things for people to know?
Well, I think the important points that come out of it that people are picking up on the most are the talk about therapeutics, so how it was treated or how it wasn't allowed to be treated.
The vaccines, how they were done or what they were supposed to do or what they did.
How they're developed and maybe any side effects to them.
And then probably the third largest thing people talk about is the effect of the lockdowns, and we call them NPIs, non-pharmaceutical interventions, masking, lockdowns, closures, that kind of thing.
So those are the three big areas that people seem to want to talk about the most.
Well, so then let's start with that.
Let's start with lockdowns or NPIs.
You know, you were actually a signatory of the Great Barrington Declaration, so clearly you had some thoughts about lockdowns ahead of being commissioned to do this report.
Tell me about what you found.
Well, of all of the three I've mentioned, lockdowns are the ones that I probably, from a scientific or medical standpoint, knew the least about.
And so I had to do a lot of reading.
And early on, probably the first thing, before we talked about lockdown, I believe it was March 17, 2020, Alberta was kind of locked down.
We closed the borders and instituted some kind of lockdown.
Masking actually didn't, it was starting to be talked about.
We'd been told the whole time that masks didn't actually help, like a simple mask or especially a cloth mask or something like a turtleneck.
They didn't help from that.
You can look in the training manual from Alberta Health Services 2018 and you can look in there and it talks about how to protect yourself from respiratory illness and it shows four masks, two simple masks or a surgical mask and two N95s.
And it just, if you turn the page in the manual, next page just says, don't waste your time using a simple mask or a surgical mask.
They don't protect you.
So that was what we knew.
And then as we watched it, as we started from a municipal standpoint, bringing in mask mandates or mask bylaws in the cities and then the counties and then the whole province.
And the argument that went around, there were some people that worked in the area.
Occupational Health and Safety that says, these masks don't work.
You're wasting your time.
And N95s only work for a very short period of time.
They have to be fitted to you, and they have to be used in the environment they're meant to.
You take an N95, fit it to me, and if I talk to you while I'm doing it, it'll probably break the seal every time I say something.
So they can only be used in certain places, in certain ways, and under the proper guidance.
And you have to put them on right and take them off right.
You can hang them on your rearview mirror and use them again tomorrow.
In our report, we looked at that, and we actually asked Worldwide experts on this that have written papers on masking, whether they work in this environment or not, on lockdowns, whether they actually help or not.
We looked at triangulation, so we'd compare, how did our outcome compare to Sweden, where they had none of these things?
They didn't close any schools.
They didn't mandate anybody to do anything, because legally they couldn't, I understood.
I've talked to the chief medical officer of health, who was for Sweden at the time, Anders Tegnell, a great guy.
If you look at it, their outcomes are better than ours.
And they have social medicine, so you can compare apples to apples.
You know, it's hard to compare Alberta to somewhere in the States sometimes because the medical system is very different.
But you can compare us to a Nordic country, I think, fairly clearly and showing that they didn't really have much impact.
And you could look county to county in the states.
There's lots of states that let different counties or different regions do whatever they felt was best.
And if you look county to county, many of these states showed there's really no difference whatever the county did.
And then they would start talking about the best thing was to have good filtration, good air movement.
You know, putting things up on kids' desks actually stopped the air movement, caused air to swirl, didn't clear out properly, and actually caused worse outcomes in some studies.
What came of it is it didn't really seem to matter what people did as far as lockdown and masking.
It didn't have much impact.
Before the decisions were made in Alberta, there was two large studies.
That were both peer-reviewed in medical journals.
That just showed that it didn't really have any difference.
In fact, if you wore a fleece mask, like a turtleneck or a neck warmer like we have in Canada when you're skiing, it actually made it worse.
Because then it took droplets and broke them smaller, aerosolized them, and they hung in the air longer, making it more dangerous.
But I personally was skiing during this time, and if you just pulled up your neck tube and you went up the ski lift, you could get on.
If you didn't have it on, they'd throw you off and take your ticket away.
It was completely anti-science, but this is what was pushed.
So this is what our study talks about.
It didn't really appear that these things made much difference.
Having said that, there are times when masks are absolutely important.
Respirators, which are in 100s, which we use them for very serious things.
We use them.
N95s, we use them in the hospital, and that's where they're meant to be used, in a controlled medical environment, and they have their place.
To say that masks don't work is not true, but how masks...
Don't work for some things at different times, right?
Right, yeah.
They have to be used how they were studied to be used for, more importantly.
And they just were kind of willy-nilly, it seemed, and that's not how you do things like that.
That's not scientific.
But, so, essentially, your finding was that...
This broad use of masks and this broad use of lockdowns was used, but it didn't have the desired impact in somehow affecting the transmission or the virus or the infection rates and so forth.
But it did have some other kinds of effects, obviously, right?
You know, we heard from lots of people with respiratory illness that couldn't wear masks.
They just couldn't breathe well.
I know that from people firsthand, people who had been traumatized in the past, felt very afraid or felt overwhelmed wearing a mask.
You know, I was talking to a speech therapist in Alberta, and the increase in speech therapy consults when the masks rolled out were substantial, to say the least.
Because children learn from watching you, listening to you, and learning how to speak.
They mimic us, and they lost that and the impact that had.
It's interesting, whether related or not, but the CDC moved the milestones for children back after all of this because our kids were back, weren't meeting milestones.
They just shifted them back.
That's interesting.
Is that because of what we did?
Or what other confounding factor could it be?
But there's also this element of shutting down the economy, I thought I should mention.
If you're running a small business and you could...
Leave open Walmart and Costco and Home Depot, but shut down the smaller entities.
It was horrible.
So you, and I've mentioned this before, you can go on Alberta government's dashboard and look at accidental deaths and suicides on there and watch every time we lock down and look what those numbers do.
It's a massive impact.
You can't ruin somebody's life and it not impact.
It's interesting.
It's very easy to find.
There's a study that shows that Related in the United States, for every percentage of number increase in unemployment, the suicide rate goes up substantially.
So that's an unintended consequence of the lockdowns that I don't think we considered, to be honest with you.
I find it quite interesting, one, that this study was commissioned at all because I'm not aware of many governments having done anything like this.
Perhaps I'm literally, I looked, I'm not aware.
But in the second part, that you were chosen to head this task force.
So tell me a little bit about that.
Yeah, I find that amazing myself, to be really honest with you.
I'm just an emergency room physician from a small city and small province and small part of the world.
And I... At the time, our current premier was in the media.
And we met at a political function where she was doing media, and my wife was towing me into every political event she could because we knew we had to be involved because of where our province was going.
And so we actually connected and conversed a lot.
We had meetings with decision-makers that she was part of.
When she became our premier, she asked me to do this.
And I believe she knew that then I would do what was honest, regardless of what it showed.
Because not everybody wants to know.
And I'm sure she knew the report wouldn't come out saying, we did just a smashing job.
And that's a lot of courage for a politician.
I had way more courage than I had.
Dr. Davidson, one moment, we're going to take a break, and we'll be right back.
And we're back with Dr. Gary Davidson, Task Force Chair of the Alberta COVID Data Review.
Let's talk about therapeutics.
So what did the report find about the use of them?
And just to be clear, therapeutics are things that you would use just to treat the disease, right?
So there's two parts of therapeutics.
There's the things that we were...
Allowed to use, the things that we were told we could use, things that were used by the medical establishment, and things we couldn't use.
So we looked at them.
Not all of them, of course, there's lots of things.
But we looked at the ones everybody knew about.
So the medications we weren't allowed to use were things like ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, fluvoxamine.
Vitamin D was even discouraged, which I don't even understand that.
And we looked at the recommendations against them.
And anybody can look up the recommendations against ivermectin, for instance, and there's, I think, 10 studies they used to recommend against it.
And none of them actually said you couldn't use it.
They just said more study needs to be done.
So they said, well, we think because it's dangerous, and I don't even know what that's based on because it's by far the most safe drug I've ever prescribed.
They recommended against it.
I was...
Taken back by that.
Because if you read the studies they use, it doesn't actually say that.
But the recommendation does.
And that confuses me.
In a time when we had people dying and needing something, why wouldn't we try?
It's so safe.
You know, I could give you a 30-day prescription for ivermectin, and you could accidentally take it all today, and it probably wouldn't hurt you.
You might get a tummy ache and some GI symptoms, but tomorrow you'd never know you did it.
Not good.
I don't recommend you doing that.
But that's how safe it is.
If you did 30 days worth of Tylenol or Advil or Benadryl or anything you could find at 7-Eleven or at the corner store, it wouldn't work out well for you.
I can promise you that.
I don't know of another medication over-the-counter or prescription I could do that with.
I can give it to just anybody that interacts with almost no medications and has almost no side effects at crazy dose overdoses.
So there was a false story that came out.
Somebody was interviewed in the States that went into Rolling Stone saying that the emergency department in some state was overrun by ivermectin overdoses.
Completely fabricated story.
Completely retracted.
It wasn't true.
There's a famous short clip of a video of two physicians in the UK talking about an ivermectin study.
And it's on YouTube right now.
And I watched that, and they talked about this study and how it seemed to be the results were co-opted by whoever's paying for it by the study.
That one's quoted often, that study, even though it's probably not true.
So I knew all of these things, and so why we stopped ivermectin and why we keep telling today even that it's a dangerous drug, I don't even understand where that comes from.
Well, it's...
It's also odd because, you know, me having worked in many other parts of the world, including in Africa, it's just a very common thing that a lot of people take available in unlimited quantity across the counter because it saves a lot of lives.
I mean, that's how I knew it before all this happened.
Yeah, you know, I mean, if you recall recently, the FDA actually had to recant all of their social media stuff about, you're not a horse.
If you remember that one, they actually had to take it all down.
They didn't lose the lawsuit, but they agreed to take it all down over a lawsuit.
Why did they ever do that in the first place?
I don't have any idea.
You know, so those are the drugs that we couldn't use.
Then there's drugs that we were supposed to use, like remdesivir, which has a long history, that first came out as an AIDS drug many years ago that had a horrible safety profile.
You know, and that's one of those studies that showed 53% of the people given ended up with kidney failure.
Then it was rolled out as a treatment for this that I don't understand.
And so when it was recommended to use it, we just used a drug company's material to say, here, just use it.
It's safe.
It's like their sales brochure using it as science.
Well, that's a strange way of doing that.
Vitamin D they recommended against.
I have no idea why.
Vitamin D, you know, people are all...
Probably everybody in Canada should be on it just because we're so north.
Those are just some examples.
What's the bottom line finding?
The bottom line finding is that we stopped the use of medications that are safe, very safe.
We recommended medications that are probably not safe, and I don't know why.
And the science we used for it didn't seem to even show that.
Hydroxychloroquine, the dose recommended for COVID, was exactly the same dose that thousands of people in Alberta get every day for the rheumatoid arthritis.
But it was also incredibly dangerous.
I don't even understand how you can even say that.
But there was this fraudulent study done where they gave toxic doses of hydroxychloroquine and showed it was deadly, which of course I would expect.
There was a false study done that was put in Lancet, it was completely fabricated, that was used to shut it down in Alberta.
It was retracted two weeks later, but it was used and it still circulated like...
People forgot that it was retracted.
And then what about the COVID vaccine usage?
This was the third thing you mentioned as being a very significant finding.
Well, I believe down here in the United States, they just had a committee just published a 570-page report on the vaccines, and fairly critical of them.
And what we found was...
Pfizer's own research data, so if you look in their data, and it's publicly available, 44,000 people enrolled, 22,000 people were vaccinated, 22,000 people weren't.
They didn't vaccinate anybody who was pregnant, anybody over 65, or anybody who was sick.
That's nobody that's going to have problems with COVID. That doesn't make any sense.
Those aren't our target audience.
But that's who they did.
In that, if you look at it, more people died of all causes in the vaccinated arm than the non-vaccinated arm.
Which should shut it down.
All-cause mortality is huge in vaccines because sometimes we're not thinking that might even be a side effect, cardiac or what have you.
But it turns out it is.
That's why you have to do all-cause mortality in a vaccine study.
And then 272, 270 young women got vaccinated who weren't pregnant and became pregnant during the surveillance period.
And of the 270, it appears that 238 from their own data, 238 charts were lost.
So over 80% of them.
88% of the other charts were lost.
Why'd they lose these charts?
Why would you do that?
That seems very strange.
But then even out of the 32 that they didn't lose, from what we can see from Pfizer's own data, there's only one normal birth.
I don't know how you'd say that was safe.
I don't know about effective, but you couldn't say safe from either of those things, from their own data.
So I have that paper before we put a shot in anybody's arm in Alberta.
And I got a little bit of trouble for creating vaccine hesitancy.
I'm thinking, well, let's just take a sober second look at this if it's any good.
And then now we can look at Pfizer's surveillance data that had to be released.
You know, they had 44,000 problems shortly.
Most things happened.
Four days after the shot, there was 1,123 deaths in their own surveillance data.
They withdrew a rotavirus vaccine not too many years ago, over four deaths.
The V-safe data from CDC. 10,000 people who got the shot were voluntarily asked to record all their symptoms and side effects after the shots.
7.7% of the people that got vaccinated in this, CDC's own data, needed medical attention, some of them severe.
But more importantly, the vaccines were never studied to stop transmission, and I think we all know now they didn't.
Everybody who got vaccinated probably got COVID, as far as I know.
So they didn't stop transmission.
So my question is, why did I give it to a child who, in Pfizer's own data, Incredible number of kids that got myocarditis.
And the V-SAVE data, and there's a Thailand study doing cardiac MRIs even on children that have no symptoms, showing a massive number of them actually had myocarditis, didn't know it.
There are some real problems with that vaccine.
And so if it didn't stop transmission and it had any risk of poor outcome for a child, and it didn't...
You know, the chance of them dying from COVID was so low.
Why did we do that?
And why are we still doing that?
I don't understand that.
So that's what we found.
And that's just looking at their own data.
And that's looking at our data, Alberta surveillance data.
And, you know, there's a Cleveland Clinic study, which I know people have talked a lot about, but massive study.
And they show that the more vaccines you had, the more likely you were to have a poor outcome.
There's just so much data out there.
The Nordic countries did a huge study, millions of people, showing that if you're under 50 years old and if you don't have any really good reason, you probably shouldn't get this vaccine.
In fact, you need to go to your doctor and talk about the risks and benefits to see if you actually need it or not.
And so that's what we recommend doing in Alberta.
The Nordic countries are very similar to us geographically in every way, so I think that would be fairly reasonable to use their study or do it ourselves.
Explain to me how this team worked.
You know, to reach these conclusions that you did.
So I was asked to form a task force.
There's people on the task force that are more aligned with how I saw it or how I think.
And then there was people we invited to join who are not aligned with how I think or see it.
But the premier thought it would be very important to have a balanced task force so that we're not criticized by being over here or over there.
Most of the people we invited didn't want to be part of it.
So we ended up with a little bit smaller group than we wished.
And I'll be honest with you, it was a huge job.
And I don't know how we'll do this.
So very fortunately, we were able to reach out to world-renowned people in their field and say, can you help us with this?
So they shared with us a massive amount of studies, a massive amount of research and data in the NPI area, in different areas.
So we were able to...
Resource, world-renowned people in those areas.
And you can look at our references, hundreds of references we quoted.
Many people are in there that we're very grateful to.
And so our little team was able to tap into a broad group.
And we sat down with people that agreed with us in this area and didn't agree in that area.
That's how it should be.
And there's a disclaimer.
Even the people that we list in our contributor list, it says right there, just because they're a contributor, agree to have their name, doesn't mean they agree with the whole study.
That's so important.
I'm not going to say whether I agree with the whole study or not.
I'm the final author, but there's times when I defer to somebody that knew much more than I did.
As long as they had the references, they could show me the studies, and we could quote them.
We could use it.
I didn't want anybody's opinion.
And that was the only criteria.
So, yeah, that's how we kind of expanded our team.
I really enjoyed this conversation.
Any final thoughts as we finish?
No, I really appreciate taking the time.
It's been a lot of work writing this report.
I really enjoyed it, and I hope that it makes a difference.
I really do.
And I hope it opens public scientific discourse, above all.
Well, Dr. Gary Davidson, it's such a pleasure to have had you on.
Thank you.
I appreciate your time.
Thank you all for joining Dr. Gary Davidson and me on this episode of American Thought Leaders.
▲
Export Selection