Dr. Gary Davidson
Day 4 · September 11, 2026 · 0:32:22
Key points Dr. Gary Davidson was an emergency physician at Red Deer Regional Hospital for over 16 years and chief of its emergency department, and chaired Alberta's government COVID-19 data review task force. He explains the review, commissioned by Alberta's Premier and Health Minister in 2022, examined what data informed the province's pandemic decisions, delivering its report in January 2025. He says that of 109 decision-makers they sought to interview, only eight agreed, and many admitted they never read the primary research behind the edicts they implemented. He argues the policy against ivermectin was based on papers that actually showed it worked, and says he prescribed it extensively and lost no COVID patients. He says he lost his professorship partly for prescribing ivermectin and for showing colleagues Pfizer's own research on poor pregnancy outcomes, which was labeled creating vaccine hesitancy. He describes the report's recommendations to halt COVID vaccines without full disclosure and to end their use in healthy children, citing a 23-million-person Nordic study. He argues informed consent was lacking, that trust in the medical profession has been damaged, and that many physicians were coerced from above by fear of losing their livelihoods.
Speaker 1
0:01 Our next witness is Dr. Gary Davidson. 0:05 Dr. Davidson, will you take the Bible in your right hand? 0:12 Dr. Gary Davidson, do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? 0:19 So help me God. Speaker 1
0:21 I understand that you just flew in from Seoul, South Korea. 0:27 That's true. 0:28 Are you reliving the same day or? 0:30 Um, no, I lost, I think I lost it. 0:34 No, I don't know. 0:35 I have no idea. 0:36 I appreciate though, that you're going to be very fatigued, but you were down there, you had meeting with the minister of health there and likely some other government officials. 0:44 Right. 0:45 I won't ask you about that. 0:46 Um, but most Canadians don't understand that actually there was a government inquiry into COVID-19 and COVID-19 issues. 1:00 And that was in the province of Alberta. 1:01 And I just, I'm going to introduce you to the inquiry. 1:05 And then my question after that is simply going to be, can you explain to me kind of like how did that come about and what were the terms of reference and the purpose? 1:15 And then we'll go a little further. 1:18 So for the inquiry, Dr. Davidson was an emergency physician at the Red Deer Regional Hospital for over 16 years. 1:26 Dr. Davidson was the clinical lead of emergency medicine for the central zone and chief of the emergency department at Red Deer Regional Hospital from 2016 to 2020. 1:38 He was also an associate clinical professor at the University of Alberta when his position was terminated due to his stance against some public health measures. 1:48 I live in Alberta. 1:49 I know that Dr. Davidson has an extremely good reputation and 1:54 and is called upon to assist the government at times with advice. 1:59 Dr. Davidson, how did it come about? 2:02 Just because whenever there's an inquiry, it seems that the last name of the person heading the inquiry, so I think of it as the Davidson Report, but that's not the name. 2:12 It's like people think of this as the Allison Inquiry. 2:15 Can you share with us how this government task force came about and what its mandate was and what it did? Speaker 3
2:23 Sure. 2:25 The Premier wrote a letter to the Health Minister in November 2022 and asked the Health Minister to set up a, it actually ended up being a data review. 2:36 And the difference between a data review and inquiry, an inquiry, a formal inquiry, you can subpoena people that show up and they have to show up and testify. 2:43 And now the choice of data review is we were allowed to ask anybody. 2:50 We could ask questions, but people weren't. 2:53 made to answer our questions necessarily. Speaker 1
2:56 But I'll just stop you because this is the Minister of Health asking you guys to do this. 3:02 So surely all the departments, I'm being facetious because I know they didn't, would share information with you. Speaker 3
3:07 Yeah, you would have thought. 3:10 Yeah, so we did get a lot of information for sure, but it wasn't a formal judicial inquiry. 3:17 So people had to volunteer or be willing to share with us. Speaker 3
3:23 So yeah, the Premier asked for it, the Ministry of Health, then I was asked to chair the task force that then set up the committee and we were given two years to write the report of which we handed in January 24th, 2025, I think. 3:40 And what was the purpose of this? Speaker 1
3:48 task force, like what we've got to pass today. Speaker 3
3:50 Yeah, her mandate was to review the, Alberta's response to the COVID-19 pandemic was the, you know, what our scope was. 4:02 And what we, in the end, when we finished writing it all, the terms of reference that I was obviously involved in writing was, it's a data review. 4:11 So we want to know what data was used, what information was used to make the decisions Alberta made. 4:17 in everything they chose to do during the COVID-19 response. 4:22 So we looked at what data they used, where they got it from, who gave it to them, who interpreted it, whether they were qualified to interpret it. 4:30 Did they do a jurisdictional review or a jurisdictional scan? 4:34 Did they look at other places doing similar to see if it worked or didn't work? 4:38 We looked at how it was implied or applied and then did it turn out the way they thought? 4:43 So these were the, the, 4:47 the questions we had. 4:48 And then we had different areas we looked into. 4:51 So we looked into data flow, data and governance. 4:56 So how did the information get shuffled around? 4:58 Where did it come from and who is in charge of that? 5:02 We looked at the vaccines, the therapeutics, which included any treatment. 5:06 We looked at masking, specifically lockdowns, things like that. 5:10 So we looked at nine different areas, but we asked those questions. 5:14 What data did you use? 5:16 And that's what the data review was. Speaker 1
5:18 And I assume the purpose was to assist the government, if they find themselves in a similar situation, to basically be able to make changes so that decisions are made as best decisions possible. Speaker 3
5:32 Right. 5:32 Yeah, that's right. 5:33 So we interviewed as best we could and researched all the data to see if, 5:39 What they did worked. 5:40 Could it be done better? 5:41 Was there something that wasn't done well? 5:43 And what do we need to do to make sure it works better next time? 5:45 Because that always can be done. Speaker 1
5:48 And I'm just going to ask, I'm just going to read some of the people involved and I'm really sticking my, limiting myself because with a project like this, and I also know that there'll be a ton of people that aren't listed in the report that contributed heavily. 6:04 And I'm just limiting myself to medical doctors and researchers. 6:09 but this is just the biography list in the report itself. 6:15 You're listed Dr. Gary Davidson, MB, Dr. Blaine Atchin, MD, Dr. David Vickers, PhD, Dr. Justin Chin, MD, Dr. David Speaker, PhD, DTM, Dr. Byron Bridle, PhD, 6:36 Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, MD, PhD, and he's currently the director of the U.S. National Institutes of Health, a very high-ranking position within the U.S. government. 6:49 Dr. Kevin Bardosh, PhD. 6:52 So these are just the medical doctors and researchers with PhDs that I listed. 7:00 I just limited it to that, but 7:02 The point I'm trying to make, Dr. Davidson, is we're really talking about a high caliber, the world-class people and experts that have come together to assist you in putting this together. 7:15 And I imagine you were highly impressed with the team. Speaker 3
7:19 Yeah. 7:19 I mean, you know, I said to everybody on the team, I wanted to surround myself with people way smarter than me, because if I'm the smartest person in the room, we're in a lot of trouble. 7:28 And so I think we did that, as you just read the list of people. 7:32 you know, yeah, people had a lot of experience and a lot of training in the area. 7:37 And I wanted to make sure that everybody could bring something that was, yeah, world level investigation. Speaker 1
7:46 And that's what we have. 7:47 And I just, David, can I just pull up the slide of just the title page? 7:52 So I just want, because Dr. Davidson, it's a story in itself that a provincial government has 8:02 had a task force, evaluate what a province did and come up with some recommendations on how to do things better or what to look into, that the rest of the country isn't aware that there was a government task force. 8:18 And so we're very pleased that you're here because any inquiry into vaccine injury should include things that governments have already done so that we're aware of them. 8:28 And I will let everyone know that 8:30 This is the full report as an exhibit at this inquiry. 8:35 And so eventually we'll have a webpage for you and of your testimony and this marked as an exhibit so that anyone can access it. 8:43 But if you have the title, you can find this online. 8:46 It is an official government report that is on the Alberta government website. 8:52 It's not a secret. 8:53 It's just for whatever reason, the mainstream media didn't report on it. 8:59 So Canadians don't know. 9:02 Can you kind of share your thoughts about what do you think were the major lessons learned? 9:09 And what, I guess, do you wish you could have done differently? 9:17 Because I know you had some informational challenges. 9:20 And maybe perhaps what the biggest surprise was? 9:24 Because we're always surprised when we're doing a project. Speaker 3
9:26 Yeah. 9:29 I'm not, yeah, I'm not sure if we had any big surprises. 9:32 The biggest thing we learned, I think probably was data flow. 9:36 Like, so where was the information coming from? 9:39 Because, you know, I was reading stuff in 2020, you know, late 2019 that, that was all there. 9:48 Just like we heard earlier that anybody could have found this information. 9:52 Um, the gentleman from CBC, you know, the reporter was sharing it and was like, yeah, I, we, we knew that. 9:58 And, um, 10:01 Yeah, why it got pushed down, that's above my pay grade. 10:08 But the data flow, when we talked to the people involved in Alberta, what they said was that Health Canada told them how to set up their dashboard. 10:21 Then Health Canada would take harvest data from their dashboard, make a presentation and give it back to them and told them, you take this to the 10:29 your people and this is the information you share with them. 10:32 So it was just a circular thing that really wasn't being done in Alberta. 10:36 And that was, I found that quite interesting. 10:40 Um, we, uh, asked to interview 109 people everywhere from the top to the bottom. 10:48 I, we want to know who was making the decisions because that's, everybody said somebody else was that that's what we ran into. 10:55 And, um, 10:56 So in the end, we interviewed a couple MLAs that had vaccine injuries, a couple people in the department that were asked to speak with us because they had a job in the government, and they did, and they were very helpful. 11:09 Then we interviewed, in the end, eight people total out of the 109 that we wanted to interview that were decision makers in the health system in Alberta. 11:24 And we always started the same way. 11:27 Share with me how it went. 11:28 How do you feel it went? 11:30 What did you do well? 11:31 What could you have done different? 11:32 What was your thoughts? 11:34 And they shared stuff. 11:36 And then it was a data review. 11:38 So I just said, so I had all of the things that they had done in their job, all the edicts that they had put out. 11:48 And I said, so in this one here in particular, can you share with me the primary literature you read to back up that decision? 11:55 And these were all doctors. 11:57 some with PhDs and other things like that. 12:00 So well-educated and all in positions of leadership. 12:03 And they said, oh, I didn't. 12:06 I said, what do you mean you didn't? 12:08 Like, you can see that there is a mandate that came down from up top and it was given, you know, and so when you implemented it, did you read the information? 12:21 And they says, we didn't have time. 12:22 And some of them even said, we didn't know how to read that stuff. 12:26 And it wasn't shocking, but it was just sad because people trusted that they were actually reading the information. 12:35 And when they told you to do it, they thought that they had read it because they're a doctor could understand it and were sharing it as the best information they had. 12:43 But in the end, it was just, they were given something. 12:45 They just handed it to somebody else to do and just make this happen. 12:49 And it wasn't shocking. 12:50 It was just sad to actually hear it because I watched it happen. 12:54 I knew it was happening like that. 12:57 That was the part that most people don't realize happened, that these people that were telling, that were implementing these edicts didn't know why. 13:09 None of them read any of the primary research behind it. 13:13 And then, you know, I was a primary author on the therapeutics chapter on the treatments. 13:19 And so on ivermectin, there was a, 13:22 thing that came out of Alberta Health Services, a scientific advisory group, and it said, you know, you shouldn't use ivermectin. 13:28 And I said to the people making decisions on this one in particular, when you told everybody they couldn't use ivermectin, did you read the primary research on that edict that was passed down? 13:41 Of course they hadn't. 13:42 I said, did you realize that the primary research that they use, there's 10 papers that they use to back up their decision, actually said ivermectin worked. 13:50 But in the end, they said, well, we're not really that sure, so probably shouldn't do it. 13:53 And that was the edict that was passed down. 13:56 And I said, so you didn't read it. 13:58 You didn't realize that actually the papers that you showed it actually could work and definitely didn't hurt anybody. 14:05 And none of them would write. 14:07 Nobody would write. Speaker 1
14:08 I'm just going to slow you down on this one, but then I want you to keep going because I think everyone is finding this as fascinating as I am. 14:15 So in Alberta, I mean, definitely the policy became 14:20 don't use ivermectin. 14:21 So really it's a policy directive towards doctors. 14:25 And tell me if I'm exaggerating, but I mean, Alberta doctors understood that they could be facing misconduct if they were to prescribe ivermectin for anything, but the two listed parasites that Health Canada had approved them. Speaker 3
14:42 Only during, after COVID, through and after COVID. 14:45 Right, right. Speaker 1
14:45 Like today, today they might be fine. 14:48 But that's what I mean is so, 14:50 This was a directive that basically prevented Alberta doctors from, it took a treatment tool away from them. 14:59 And I assume you'll agree with me that there was some pretty cogent evidence that ivermectin should be in a physician's toolbox for trying to treat COVID. 15:11 And I'm actually, you probably feel more strongly than how I phrased it. Speaker 3
15:16 Yeah, it's very true. 15:17 So 15:18 That's one of the things I got in trouble. 15:20 That's one of the reasons I lost my professorship and a few other things over, was I prescribed a lot of ivermectin. 15:27 I prescribed it. 15:28 I wrote it as a prescription before we weren't allowed to, September 22, 2021. 15:33 And before that, I wrote, well, I know how many I wrote. 15:39 I wrote a lot of prescriptions, more than anybody else in Western Canada, put it that way. 15:43 So I ran six pharmacies out of ivermectin. 15:46 So I wrote a lot of it. 15:48 And I treated people for COVID, anybody that came, nobody under 18, just, you know, I didn't need to deal with that. 15:57 Patients that were very senior and elderly and very unwell. 16:01 And out of all those patients, I didn't lose a patient. 16:03 I didn't have one of them die on. 16:06 But we treated them with a protocol that was very proven, had good scientific research behind it, using, I prescribed ivermectin. 16:13 I wasn't telling people to go to the farm store and buy it there. 16:15 I prescribed it to them legally. 16:17 And... 16:18 And then, yeah, it was taken away. 16:20 And I was just thinking, show me the research that proves that it's dangerous because I'd never seen anything like that. 16:27 So it was, yeah, some of it was just hard to get my head around. 16:35 And I got threatened with my job about prescribing. Speaker 1
16:40 I want to slow this down again. 16:41 I mean, I think there was a province in the country of India that, 16:45 gave out like hundreds of millions of doses of ivermectin. 16:49 And now in like a post-analysis, don't tell me where you disagree. 16:52 I mean, ivermectin, if we were facing COVID-19 again, should be one of the frontline tools for physicians to use to treat COVID if we were facing it brand new. Speaker 3
17:08 I would agree with that. 17:10 That's the research I found. 17:12 And like I said, I used it hundreds of times. Speaker 1
17:14 Well, you were actually managing an emergency department and successfully treating COVID-19 patients. 17:21 Not in the emergency department, but as a physician. Speaker 1
17:24 Yeah. 17:26 So, okay. 17:27 So carry on. 17:28 I just, it was important, I think, for us to point out that, so here's a decision to limit a treatment that actually you personally was finding tremendously effective in managing patients on COVID. 17:42 The decision 17:44 likely caused lives in the province of Alberta. 17:47 Would that be fair to say? 17:48 That would be your opinion? Speaker 3
17:49 That would be my thought for sure. Speaker 1
17:51 Okay. 17:51 So this is important. 17:53 So a decision that likely caused deaths and the people that are implementing the decision actually didn't read the research that the decision was based on. 18:04 That's what we found. Speaker 1
18:06 And the research that it was based on, actually, if you read it objectively, would, oh my gosh, we should be pushing ivermectin. Speaker 3
18:12 Yeah. 18:13 In the report on the therapeutics chapter, we show, like, there's hundreds and hundreds of papers on it that show that. 18:22 And if you do bring them all together in a review, it's very positive for it. 18:28 And it has to be done a certain way. 18:29 There is protocols you need to follow. 18:31 It's just not. 18:32 There's some people using it kind of willy-nilly, and there was then, too, and that's not quite the way to do things. Speaker 1
18:37 Now, this inquiry is focusing on vaccine entry. 18:42 This report has a chapter on COVID-19 vaccines. 18:48 And I told you I was going to just pull up the recommendations section. 18:54 David, can you pull up the slide? 18:56 So I just pulled this. 18:58 This slide is actually straight out of your report, except where it says on the top, conclusions from Chapter 8, Alberta COVID-19 Pandemic Response File and Report. 19:07 We put that in so that we could identify where this came from. 19:11 but they had conclusions and recommendations, and these conclusions and recommendations, these are directly out of the Davidson Report. 19:21 So the first one is, is immediately halt the use of all COVID-19 vaccines without full disclosure to patients regarding both the safety and efficacy issues by the physician. 19:33 So you're not really saying people can't use them, but there's gotta be full disclosure. 19:38 Can you share with us why, 19:42 that this task force came to this as a conclusion, a recommendation? Speaker 3
19:50 Because it was pretty obvious, and I think you've seen it in many other testimonies here, that people weren't told that there could be bad side effects. 19:57 There could be really poor outcomes. 20:00 Possible. 20:01 And I think a person has to always remember, though, that still the vast majority of people that took them have not had any side effects. 20:08 And we have to remember that. 20:09 It's not everybody, right? 20:12 But it's still a number that's present. 20:14 But nobody was told that. 20:16 We were told they're completely safe and healthy for everybody to take, all the way down to six months of age that had almost zero risk from COVID. 20:26 You know, probably the one that really sticks with me is the pregnant ladies. 20:32 So if you know in the Pfizer research that was done in 2020, before the vaccine was out, 20:38 There was 44,000 people in the study, 22,000 each arm. 20:41 One was placebo, one was getting the treatment. 20:44 They didn't vaccinate anybody who was pregnant on purpose because they just didn't. 20:49 But 272 girls became pregnant during the follow-up period. 20:54 Very interesting. 20:55 They lost 238 of the charts to follow-up. 20:58 They don't know what happened to them, which is strange because they didn't lose 278 of the charts. 21:04 30 of the other charts. 21:05 So why they lost all those, we don't know. 21:07 Anyway, left about 34 charts that they didn't lose. 21:11 And out of that, there was only one normal child born. 21:15 The rest of them had bad outcomes. 21:18 And so I'm just, but was anybody told that? 21:21 So it's interesting because I had the Pfizer research before we had any vaccines in anybody. 21:26 I had their paper and I had it at work and I got my pharmacist to print it off and I highlighted that. 21:32 And I showed my colleagues and I got in trouble for creating vaccine hesitancy. 21:36 We didn't even have vaccine yet. 21:38 And I'm thinking, what do you mean? 21:40 Like, this is just what we should share with people. 21:43 So I got in a lot of trouble for that and got, that was one of the reasons they took my professorship away because they didn't think I was safe to have a resident because I was teaching them this stuff. 21:51 I wasn't teaching them anything. 21:53 I was showing them Pfizer's own paper and just saying, you should just read this and know this. 21:59 And it was just bizarre, but that was creating vaccine hesitancy. 22:03 I'm thinking, I hope so. 22:05 You know, like that's, so nobody had informed consent. 22:12 And so we were giving it to these girls who were pregnant. 22:16 And I'm just like, you've got to be kidding me. 22:19 There are so many things we don't give girls who are pregnant that are way safer than this. 22:24 And I can name a hundred of them without even thinking. 22:27 that we just say, well, we don't give that when you're pregnant. 22:29 You can have that when you're not, but you shouldn't take it when you're pregnant. 22:31 I just know that. 22:33 But this, we had no evidence whatsoever other than that, which looked bad, but it was very preliminary. 22:39 I'm just saying, hang on, we shouldn't do this until we know more. 22:42 And it's like, oh, no, no, we're all good to go. 22:44 And it was stunning. 22:46 So I just said, before you give anybody this vaccine, you have to make sure they understand the risks and benefits for themselves. 22:52 They get to choose, just like I hope for everything else in our society. 22:57 Because if you don't have full disclosure, how can you make a proper decision? 23:03 And it just was very bizarre to me. 23:06 So there's lots of others. 23:07 If you go through all of the research, there's tons of it that people weren't being told. 23:11 And we heard it here, you know, where the research was easy to find, but the media was still telling you it was completely safe. 23:18 You know, you could say it was fairly safe. 23:20 You could say a lot of things, but you can't say that. Speaker 1
23:22 So I want to move to the next one. 23:25 So the next one, 23:26 I found very interesting. 23:27 So the next conclusion and recommendation was end use of the COVID-19 vaccines for healthy children and teenagers, as other jurisdictions have done, see Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, and the UK. 23:46 Can you comment on that one? Speaker 3
23:49 Yeah, there was a 23 million person study done in these countries that are listed here. 23:55 because they said there was something not quite right. 23:58 It seems like the side effects aren't worth it. 24:00 We have to do this. 24:01 So they studied it and they realized that if you're under 50, that's what they said, if you're under 50, the risk of the vaccine wasn't worth the risk of getting COVID. 24:10 You had higher risk from the vaccine than you did from COVID itself. 24:14 So they didn't recommend it. 24:17 And then for healthy teens and children, they just said, you can't get it. 24:22 Unless you get a letter from your doctor 24:24 saying that you specifically need it. 24:27 And so it put the onus back on the doctor to explain to the parents whether this child needed it or not. 24:33 And that's what we thought should be done. Speaker 1
24:35 So I just want to unpack that. 24:36 So, I mean, basically these other jurisdictions had studied a very large sample size, I think you said 23 million, and came to the conclusion that actually for people under 50, the vaccine was causing more harm than benefit. Speaker 1
24:50 Now, 24:50 Adults are able to make their own informed decisions, but there's a responsibility to protect children and teenagers. 24:57 So these jurisdictions, these countries, have actually banned COVID-19 vaccines for anyone, you know, basically likely 18 and under. 25:08 And those countries are Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, and the UK. 25:11 I mean, we're not talking about third world countries without a health ministry. 25:15 These are serious European Union countries. Speaker 3
25:18 Yeah, it was a big study that they did. 25:20 Of course, you can throw it into Grok, and they'll give you all sorts of reasons why it wasn't done right. 25:26 But you just have to read through it all. Speaker 1
25:29 But since this report, I expect that your opinion is that you would stick by this because there's further information that the risks outweigh the benefits. Speaker 3
25:37 Yeah, it's become more clear since then, for sure. Speaker 1
25:40 Right. 25:40 Yeah. 25:41 Yeah, no, I would still say that's what I would recommend. 25:46 Those are my questions. 25:47 The MPs likely have something. Speaker 5
25:51 Thank you very much, Dr. Davidson, for being here. 25:56 I think most of society has people pedestals, and doctors are usually on that pedestal. 26:05 But through this whole five, six years of going through this, I think people have changed their mind a lot. 26:13 And no offense to President Thumper, to me. 26:16 How do we move forward to get... 26:22 to get some sort of, I guess, confidence back in the system? 26:29 Is it somebody had mentioned they didn't have time to read, right? 26:33 But if they're providing care to people and you think that they wanted to have the best care possible with these people, how do you reconcile that? Speaker 3
26:45 I'm not sure if I know the answer to that, how to restore the trust back in. 26:51 in the profession, to be honest with you after this, because when people have been hurt and injured and we, or, you know, in my, some of my colleagues haven't seemed to done what they did in, you know, good faith, it seems. 27:10 And of all people we should have known, we should have been able to read, you know, and like I say, I printed off Pfizer's own research in my office. 27:20 And I'm the department head, and I'm saying, guys, you need to read this. 27:23 And they're just like, I'm not reading that. 27:25 And I don't even know why they did that, because it was pretty easy to read. 27:29 It was pretty easy to see that there were more people died in the vaccinated arm than the unvaccinated arm. 27:35 There were so many things in there. 27:36 It was so obvious this wasn't a good vaccine. 27:38 But they wouldn't read it, because I'll tell you why. 27:41 Because I got in trouble every time I did something. 27:44 And doctors don't have really a lot of transferable skills. 27:47 Walmart wasn't hiring, and they don't pay well. 27:50 And if I lost my job, I had two kids in the school in the States in college that I would have had to bring them home. 27:58 I have a farm, you know, as a professional, you have quite a large overhead. 28:02 There was no other way to pay those things. 28:04 And everybody could see how I was getting treated. 28:07 And they said, we're not going there. 28:08 I had lots of them come up to me and said, I really appreciate what you're doing, but I just can't do it. 28:13 And that's unfortunate. Speaker 5
28:14 So in reality... 28:18 the very system that's supposed to care for people was coerced into and fear-mongered into promoting something that they themselves had no confidence or care to check. 28:35 It's unfortunate that we have coerced the people who received the vaccine and then how many people, the doctors, the medical profession were coerced 28:48 from above, from government, to do this. Speaker 3
28:54 Yeah, yeah. 28:57 Yeah, I'll just agree with you. 29:01 It's really sad. Speaker 5
29:03 Well, do you have a question? 29:05 Go ahead, Alex. Speaker 4
29:07 Just a quick one. 29:08 In your opinion, why do you think Canada, especially recommendation number two that you made, was in the report about, you know, 29:17 basically limiting the vaccines going forward for younger children that are healthy, considering most of those countries listed are countries that we actually tend to be very much aligned with from a professional sort of democratic process and even health services. 29:35 Why hasn't Canada sort of said, you know what, this makes sense going forward, at least, and again, I'm not litigating on the past, but just sort of going forward, why hasn't 29:48 the Public Health Agency of Canada sort of made the same recommendation? Speaker 3
29:55 I have ideas, but I don't really know. 29:57 Yeah. 30:01 Yeah. 30:05 Some of it's just I don't understand. 30:07 I really don't. 30:08 I don't understand why we did it in the first place and why we haven't been able to change since. 30:12 I really don't understand. 30:16 It's just sometimes hard to back up. 30:18 And I think people are afraid to admit they're wrong for fear of what it may cost them. 30:27 Yeah, I think that's a big part of it. 30:29 And then, yeah, I think most people, most physicians are good people and really do want to look after people, but they are really put in a really, really impossible position. 30:42 And yeah, so I... 30:47 I think it's the same all the way around. 30:49 I think it's hard to back up and admit you're wrong because then also the liability comes with that. 30:54 And then where does it end? 30:56 There's a lot of people that didn't do well. Speaker 2
31:00 Thank you very much. 31:01 And as usual, we're out of time and I want to ask questions, but I can't. 31:04 But Dr. Hughes, I want to thank you very much for being here and for taking the time. 31:10 It's interesting, as much as I followed a lot of the stuff over the years, I was unaware that Alberta did a report. 31:17 So that just tells you, you know, if you're sort of paying attention, and I say sort of, paying attention, you don't know, what are the chances the public will ever be paying attention? 31:26 Yeah. 31:28 I was going to ask you which ones were implemented in Alberta, but I'm not going to do that. 31:31 Which one of the recommendations? 31:32 I think I get the answer to that as well. Speaker 3
31:35 No, our premier has done quite a bit, actually, in Alberta. Speaker 2
31:37 Great. 31:38 So I really appreciate it. 31:39 That's actually taken. 31:40 Well, thank you for being here. 31:42 I think this has been enlightening, I think, certainly for people 31:44 most people that may not understand that there was actually a province that commissioned some type of report. 31:50 And you've explained very clearly what that report looked like versus, you know, an inquiry officially versus data. 31:56 All great and very helpful stuff. 31:58 Thank you very much. 31:58 Thank you. 31:59 Thanks. Speaker 1
32:00 And Dr. Davidson, again, the travel that you did to get here, we just thank you. 32:06 I know it's tough and we so appreciate you coming. 32:09 And it's just so important that the only government report done 32:14 needed to be part of this record. 32:16 So I personally thank you for coming. 32:18 Thank you. 32:18 You're welcome.