Backlash to Alberta’s COVID-19 review report proves public health needs independent scrutiny

Mainstream media and their echoed ‘experts’ dismiss the report’s critical findings, but the need for accountability and evidence-based policies, rather than baseless conjecture, has never been more urgent.

Once again, mainstream media outlets are echoing the voices of so-called "experts" who have labelled Alberta's recently released COVID-19 review report as anti-science and harmful to public health. But in reality, it is the public health establishment that has damaged itself with the lack of transparency, flawed decision-making, and failure to engage in open, evidence-based debate.

The 269-page report has sparked a meltdown among health officials and media commentators, with some claiming it contradicts "medical consensus."

After five years of unquestioning faith in this so-called consensus, isn’t it time for a critical re-evaluation? The damage caused by misguided policies — spanning from the mental health crises to the economic fallout — cannot be ignored. It’s time to question the blind adherence to a ‘consensus’ based on illusion and restore robust scientific inquiry and balanced reasoning.

The illusion of consensus is one of the most dangerous concepts that took hold during the pandemic. It justified policies that lacked proper scrutiny and marginalized dissenting voices. This was further amplified by government-imposed isolation and social media censorship, which suppressed debate and discussion. Now, organizations like the Alberta Medical Association, which helped push this one-sided approach, are avoiding accountability by dismissing the report that highlights the negative consequences of COVID-related decision-making.

Instead of engaging with the evidence presented in the report, those in power are resorting to deflection and name-calling. British Columbia’s Chief Medical Officer Bonnie Henry, who enforced the longest-standing vaccine mandates for healthcare workers, dismissed the entire report as misinformation, despite its foundation in credible research and data. This reaction is a perfect example of the bullying tactics used to suppress dissent and avoid genuine conversation about the mistakes made – including how to prevent them in future.

It’s not about attacking public health — it’s about demanding accountability. As Premier Danielle Smith pointed out, these tactics have been used to stifle free speech and close down authentic inquiry since the pandemic began. If facts can’t stand the test of scrutiny, then the public will perpetually live in a reality shaped by government agencies and powerful, conflict-of-interest-riddled bureaucracies.

The time has come for an open, honest conversation about the role of the pharmaceutical industrial complex and the unchecked power of medical authorities. Science thrives on debate, scrutiny, and evolution, not artificial consensus. The emotional dismissal of the report, instead of addressing it with facts, is fundamentally anti-science, hindering the progress that drives innovation and improved outcomes.

In this critical moment, a well-researched, evidence-based report challenging public health policies isn’t an attack, it’s a vital independent perspective. As Canada (or, at the very least, Alberta) moves forward, the status quo must be challenged and it can only be done by engaging in open discussions, ensuring that public health decisions are rooted in transparency and proper risk-benefit analysis, not the pursuit of control.

Tamara Ugolini

Senior Editor

Tamara Ugolini is an informed choice advocate turned journalist whose journey into motherhood sparked her passion for parental rights and the importance of true informed consent. She critically examines the shortcomings of "Big Policy" and its impact on individuals, while challenging mainstream narratives to empower others in their decision-making.

COMMENTS

Showing 4 Comments

Please check your e-mail for a link to activate your account.
  • Em Loloy
    commented 2025-02-01 10:38:14 -0500
    An experimental “vaccine” should have been studied thoroughly to determine its efficacy and safety.
  • Bill Nicholson
    commented 2025-02-01 09:25:18 -0500
    All Smith has to do, is suggest they have a PUBLIC debate…The barking seals promoting “safe and effective” will immediately stop barking.
    “Hear no Evil, See no Evil, Know no Evil.”…This why these so call MS “experts” will not listen to contrarian views…or…They’re corrupt and taking the money.
  • tony lai
    followed this page 2025-01-31 23:55:30 -0500
  • Alex alex.schuchardt30@gmail.com
    commented 2025-01-31 23:17:18 -0500
    Great report Tamara!
    Thank you for keeping us all informed. Keep up the great work.
  • larry Anderson
    followed this page 2025-01-31 21:16:55 -0500
  • Rick Navackas
    followed this page 2025-01-31 21:15:29 -0500
  • Bruce Atchison
    commented 2025-01-31 16:48:10 -0500
    Here we go again with more leftist projection of their own anti-science views. They, not contrarians, are the anti-science pushers. And censoring dissent shows that they lack the proof of their assertions. The so-called vaccine proved to be unsafe and ineffective. COVID-19 was politicized by our misleaders. China also lied and people died. Sadly, we still have true believers in that MRNA concoction. Remember this when politicians try to lock us down again.