Alberta, Canada: Scathing Review Of The Pandemic Policy - Part 1

03/12/25

Terje Hansen
Foreningen Lov og Helse

In January this year, a report was released that evaluated Canada's handling of the so-called Covid-19 (C19) pandemic. The full report is 269 pages long and can be read here.

This report carries weight for several reasons. Firstly, it is an evaluation that the provincial authorities in Alberta commissioned themselves, so you could say that this is partly the public sector butchering itself. The Task Force group consisted of 12 people with broad interdisciplinary backgrounds in statistics, medicine, research, law, and other areas relevant to such an evaluation, and they appear to have done some serious work. In many ways, this group's work and report are the antitheses of the Norwegian Corona Commission, whose sole task was to whitewash the authorities' C19 policy, i.e. a cover-up operation.

Canadian Dr. Regina Watteel, who holds a PhD in statistics and who reviewed the Norwegian vaccine study from the NIPH, has also discussed and summarized the findings in the report from the provincial authorities in Alberta. For those who find it a bit difficult to read a 269-page report, I will extract some of what is stated in the report and also what Dr. Watteel has written about this.

NB I must first emphasize that it is not the actual findings in the report that are sensational. Anyone with at least some independently functioning ability to think critically will have figured out most of this on their own a long time ago.

In this sense, much of the content of the report is old news to many, but the important element here is that these things are confirmed by a government-appointed commission in the West.

The report's findings and conclusions

On the subject of pandemic policy, the report says that Alberta was like everywhere else in the West; the local C19 policy was essentially overridden by national policy, which in turn was overridden by international policy, and the way it was handled went against existing guidelines. In the words of Dr. Watteel:

💬 Ultimately, decisions were based on federal and international recommendations, which contradicted Alberta's pre-existing pandemic response plan.

Furthermore, and this is a hefty admission - these are not Dr. Watteel's words but direct quotes from the evaluation report:

💬 “They (responsible government bodies) passively accepted and followed other bodies without critically examining the information, thereby maintaining a false consensus..."

💬 It appears that the bodies considered any information that differed from what they determined to be the scientific consensus as “misinformation”, even if the information was or could be accurate..."

💬 Regulatory bodies actively sought to intimidate, threaten, and discipline medical professionals... The chilling effect was pervasive, creating a state of fear and restraint that discouraged professionals from using their full expertise... (disciplinary measures) often prevented health professionals from performing their duties”

What you see here, then, is a description of the strategy and methods used to get entire health systems, public bodies, and bureaucracies, indeed entire nations, to agree to, support, and even carry out illegalities and/or crimes. In other words, this shows the propaganda and psychological operation that was at work to make this happen.

The Alberta Task Force also briefly discusses the psychological operation that was in place to trick people into taking the vaccines, although they use less direct rhetoric than I do when describing the phenomena:

💬 "The slogan "Safe and effective" was repeated to reassure the population and encourage vaccination against COVID-19. Based on the evidence that has emerged to date, it cannot be concluded that these COVID-19 vaccines are safe." - Alberta Task Force.

Using coordinated slogans for medicine cannot be called a profession, there is nothing professional about slogans - it falls under the term propaganda or psychological operation.

Furthermore, the evaluation report lists a number of devastating (though not entirely unknown) findings:

1. The face mask ban was not scientifically based: There is no evidence whatsoever that they reduced the spread of disease/infections (and cloth masks are not immune to the laws of physics...),
2. Non-pharmaceutical interventions (lockdowns, school closures, and social restrictions) were based on very weak evidence. These interventions were ineffective, had high costs both socially and economically, and had minimal benefits and little return. And once one set of measures had been introduced, other new ones followed within weeks or even days. (The authoritarian currents discovered that no one was stopping them, they just kept on going),
3. Natural immunity was downplayed during the pandemic. Alberta Health spread misinformation that the vaccines had superior immunity. They stuck to this falsehood even after ample evidence emerged that they were wrong!
4. Government agencies adopted inconsistent double standards regarding therapeutic treatments for COVID-19. They favored more expensive and less effective treatments with questionable safety (like Paxlovid and Remdesivir) and opposed cheaper, repurposed drugs with proven safety data that showed great promise (like Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine).
5. Covid-19 vaccines are toxic and ineffective gene therapy products. Health Canada was solely responsible for approving Covid-19 vaccines in Canada, and according to FDA guidance for industry, mRNA
vaccines are human gene therapy products (which should undergo up to 15 years of safety monitoring before widespread use).

Dr. Watteels describes more about the vaccines featured in the report:

💬 The report presented selected safety data, discussed the toxicity of lipid nanoparticles, and listed some of the hidden shortcomings of the clinical trials that any conscientious responsible government agency or health professional should have known about before these experimental shots were rolled out to the public.

💬 Of particular importance: the clinical approval studies never established that the vaccines reduced infection, hospitalization, or death. This was the case for all three originally approved vaccines: Pfizer, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson.

In an article called Bought Science, Research Cheating and False Placebos, I described how the medical field is largely bought and corrupted, and how the “medical cartel” uses its “tricks” to deceive us. A key factor in the vaccine crime in the C19 pandemic was to unblind the placebo group in the clinical trial studies; getting rid of this placebo group was the absolute most important single measure to prepare for the later violent cover-up of the vaccine killings. This is also mentioned in the Alberta report, which said:

💬...that the premature unblinding of placebo subjects in the clinical trials terminated any and all objective evaluations of possible adverse events. It highlighted that COVID-19 vaccination carries a risk of developing myocarditis and pericarditis, especially in men 12 to 29 years old; these heart conditions have lifelong and potentially fatal consequences.

In the article The incredible willingness to risk people's lives and health for “Big Pharma”, I wrote about the Norwegian authorities' spectacular willingness to risk the lives and health of pregnant women and fetuses. In some parts of Dr. Watteel's review of the Alberta report, she addresses important elements that the report does not adequately address, including the issue of pregnant women:

💬 It is unclear why the report did not recommend stopping the genetic vaccines for pregnant women, given the safety concerns highlighted for this group. The report openly questioned why vaccines were being aggressively pushed for people under the age of 60 who have a very low risk profile, but stopped short of recommending that vaccination be stopped for this group.

The medical-industrial corruption complex with a furious counterattack

In a five-part series of articles on Norwegian "science", I introduced the concept of the Medical-Industrial Corruption Complex, of which John Arne Røttingen is one of Norway's most important representatives. All countries in the West seem to be completely dominated by such a cartel/complex, including of course Canada. Without having the opportunity here to describe this complex in its full breadth (but feel free to read the aforementioned 5-part series), I can briefly say that it consists of a fusion of the corporate media, politics, bureaucracy, public health systems, academia, NGOs, interest groups and professional organizations and course the money elite and "Big Bank" and "Big Finance". The business of this complex is to crush or tarnish all professional voices of dissent (by any means) and maintain (false) consensus, so that the money elite, e.g. represented by the Rockefeller dynasty, maintains its fierce control and financial income from the Big Pharma sphere.

Thus, it is no surprise that the Alberta report was naturally attacked, including from so-called professional and interest organizations, also something that Dr. Watteel mentioned in his review after the report became known:

💬 (...) several organizations have already condemned the report, such as the Canadian Pediatric Society (CPS), the Alberta Medical Association (AMA), and the Canadian Medical Association (CMA).

Of course, the currently thoroughly corrupt corporate media have only one task in such a crisis situation:

💬 Mainstream media have published a number of opinion pieces, most of which have been highly critical of the report since the findings contradict much of what these outlets have published.

If one considers Røttingen to be an obvious and important leadership figure for the Medical-Industrial Corruption Complex, he may (if possible) have his equal in Canada, in Timothy Caulfield.

💬 A group letter led by Timothy Caulfield, and signed by over five dozen professionals (including doctors) has been sent to Premier Smith, the Minister of Health, and to members of the Alberta Legislature, urging them to reject the report in its entirety!

Timothy Caulfield is such a glaringly obvious example of an agent of influence for this medical corruption complex that I recommend using him as the subject of a case study, should you have an interest in such things.

However, the slightly inattentive reader will quickly think something like: "Well, one group of experts produces a report and another group of experts contradicts them - so we have a professional debate, and the scientific aspect is taken care of here to the highest degree".

It is an illusion. In the same way that corporate media use all their means to maintain their own narratives, it is the consensus conclusions (or the false narratives) that are the argumentation foundation that haunts the background throughout the criticism of the Alberta report. To be clear, the criticism is per se that the Alberta report speaks against the consensus, which Dr. Watteel also points out is the reason for the criticism:

💬 Why? Because the group doesn't like the findings - it goes against the so-called scientific consensus that has served their own interests.

This reminds me of a case Foreningen Lov og Helse published in January 2022. You, dear reader, may also use this as a case study. In other words, it is Faktisk.no (an important body for the medical-industrial corruption complex) that is supposed to “fact-check” Kjetil Elvevold.

My challenge to you here, and feel free to spend some time on it, is to carefully identify and assess Kjetil Elvevold's line of argumentation, i.e. his academic foundation and reasoning, and then compare it with the foundation and reasoning (if you can find such a thing) of Faktisk.no in this case.

If you do this, I find it hard to believe that you will conclude anything other than that the position of Faktisk.no has been blown completely apart. And you'll find that these propaganda agents, Even Fossum and Anne Spurkland, well, you'll find that there's nothing whatever left of their position. They stand naked, as it were, and there's nothing left for them here. Yet, incredible as it is, Faktisk.no concludes that what Kjetil Elvevold's case has been refuted (!).

I don't think I've seen a more intense and clearer exposure of what Faktisk.no and its activities actually represent than this case. Had the topic not been so serious, this would have been great humor!

What is missing or wrong in such analyses as the Alberta report is also very important to look at, and Dr. Regina Watteel also addresses a number of things that the Alberta report does not address, which I will go more into in Part 2.

Translation: DeepL (free version) + Grammarly (free version)

____________________________________________________________________________________________

AWIP: https://a-w-i-p.com/index.php/aU4H

 
Health topic page on womens health Womens health our team of physicians Womens health breast cancer lumps heart disease Womens health information covers breast Cancer heart pregnancy womens cosmetic concerns Sexual health and mature women related conditions Facts on womens health female anatomy Womens general health and wellness The female reproductive system female hormones Diseases more common in women The mature woman post menopause Womens health dedicated to the best healthcare
buy viagra online