Expert Demands Removal from Controversial Alberta Pandemic Report
John Conly demands removal from Alberta pandemic review report opposing COVID-19 vaccines, as doctors and medical associations denounce its credibility and implications.
An expert contributor to a pandemic review commissioned by the Alberta government has called for his name to be withdrawn from a report advocating against COVID-19 vaccines. John Conly, a physician and former head of the University of Calgary's medical department, stated he was not a member of Alberta's COVID review panel and did not consent to his name being associated with the 269-page report.
The report was dismissed as "dangerous bunk" by doctors across the country, leading to statements of rejection from both the Canadian Medical Association and the Alberta Medical Association, which labelled the $2-million project as misinformation.
Alberta Premier Danielle Smith, a critic of previous COVID management strategies, has found support in the report's recommendations, which align with her vaccine scepticism and preferred alternative treatments that lack scientific verification. The report's publication has reignited discussions on pandemic management.
Dr. Conly distanced himself from the document, calling its inclusion of his name a "gross error." He asserted that the task force was working to rectify the mistake and issue an apology.
Criticism of the report has come from various quarters. Shelley Duggan, president of the Alberta Medical Association, condemned it as anti-science and a threat to public trust. She stated, "This report sows distrust" while undermining established public health measures.
The Canadian Medical Association backed Dr. Duggan's stance, with president Dr. Joss Reimer emphasising the report's potential to foster mistrust in the medical community.
In defence of the report, Gary Davidson, who led the review, insisted that science thrives on "public discourse" rather than consensus. He challenged critics to engage more deeply with the findings.
Amidst this dispute, some contributors to the report reaffirmed their support for its conclusions, while questions remained regarding the validity of the evidence presented.
Critics, including political scientist Duane Bratt, pointed to gaps and inconsistencies in the report, notably its use of discredited sources and a failure to adequately contextualise comparisons.
