Chiropractor Curtis Wall has been facing up against an investigation and looming disciplinary action after Alberta Health Services complained to the College of Chiropractors of Alberta (CCA) about him not wearing a face covering in December of 2020.
This came at a time when the province of Alberta had instituted cloth mask mandates throughout the COVID-19 pandemic pandemonium. The provincial mandate always stipulated that mask exemptions existed, yet they were not always honoured.
As Dr. Wall himself struggled to wear a facial covering, he did not force his patients to, either.
His lawyer, James Kitchen from Liberty Coalition Canada, had previously joined me to discuss the rigorous tribunal proceedings that heard from reputable experts testifying to the credibility of Dr. Wall’s position.
The tribunal recently issued their decision to rule in favour of the CCA who brought one lone expert to the hearing, in direct contrast to the robust testimony provided by Dr. Wall’s experts – Respirologist Dr. Bao Dang, Viral Immunologist Dr. Byram Bridle, Infectious Diseases consultant Dr. Thomas Warren, and Occupational Health and Safety consultant Chris Schaefer.
The lone expert featured by the CCA was public health physician Jia Hu.
Dr. Hu is CEO and Co-Founder of 19 to Zero. It’s a conflict-of-interest-riddled group that focuses on COVID-19 behaviour change and vaccine uptake with the goal of building vaccine confidence, while receiving research grants from pharmaceutical companies.
The organization previously listed pharmaceutical giants Pfizer and Moderna as sponsors on their now-removed Who We Are page and was previously tasked with convincing Canadians to overcome vaccine hesitancy.
Kitchen explains in detail how the tribunal displayed incompetence, leaving their decision riddled with errors of fact and law.
One glaring error was in the examination of Schaefer, who stated that he “would comply with wearing a mask,” but “would not wear a breathing barrier.” This came as Schaefer reiterated that “there’s a big difference between what’s currently been mandated and what an engineered mask is.”
The college disregarded the nuance around mask terminology and opted to note in their decision that all of Dr. Wall’s experts testified that they would comply with a mask mandate to practice their profession.
“Obviously I expected the tribunal to rule the way that they did. I expected them to rule in favour of the narrative… but I set out for the world to see a contest between the real science and the politicized nonsense that is the pro-COVID narrative. Now that the tribunal ruled the way that they have, it’s really difficult for them to be able to say that they didn’t have access to the science or the expert evidence or it just wasn’t clear. They can’t get away with that,” explains Kitchen. “It's sad that this is the state of the law in this country.”