Video and Transcript: Alberta Canada: COVID-19 Report admits gross mishandling of pandemic response

NATALIE MORRIS (The Redacted Inc): Well, the province of Alberta, in Canada published a damning report about the covid pandemic, basically admitting they got it all wrong - the vaccines, the masks, the lockdowns - it's an amazing admission from a government agency. Of course, not everyone wants to hear it, but Dr. Regina Watteel [Phd Statistics] read through it, and she's the author of the book Fisman’s Fraud: The Rise of Canadian Hate Science, which exposed how the government in Canada used hate science to put excessive pandemic measures in place - basically, tortured them.  I spoke to her earlier about the bombshells in this report. Watch! [This video and interview are from @RedactedNews">The Redacted Inc alternative news show]

 

Regina, thank you for joining us on Redacted, again. Let us know, as a Canadian, how you feel about this after-action report, where the government is basically admitting that there were mistakes and, ‘Oops! We made mistakes with your life.’

REGINA WATTEEL: Well, I'm actually very thankful for this report. I'm actually excited because now we have dialogue for the first time. So, as you know, Natalie we've had a lot of censorship in Canada. So, this really is the first time that views outside the dominant narrative have been explored in any official capacity. So, even though this report was done for Alberta, it does apply to much of Canada, so I'm actually excited.

NATALIE MORRIS: Now, one of your main assessments is that local provinces have very little power and most of the driving force came from the federal government, which you're amazing book talks about was based on hate science or junk science. So, is there – this - what do you make of that? That the federal government was in charge and that local provinces had very little power even if they wanted to base their decisions off of real things.

REGINA WATTEEL: Well, that was made very clear in this report that it was the federal government in the driver's seat for the province’s response. But it also said that Alberta was more than happy to give the federal government the keys, right?

So, the Alberta government did have its own pre-existing, pandemic response plan and they just tossed that out and instead, their decisions were ultimately, based on federal and international recommendations, and you'll find this is true for other provinces as well.

So, it begs the question, you know, who's interests were really being served. I was not surprised by that at all. I was happy to see it in the report.

And so how can regulators  make any other decision if there's just this - I mean - that's almost like a king has made the decisions and the people have no choices. Was it like in the United States where certain provinces had maybe better regulations to live under than others?

REGINA WATTEEL: I think in Canada it was bad and then worse. It was just awful everywhere, right? So I think like Quebec was extremely bad because they had curfews. And they went, you know, they went crazy with their restrictions. Ontario was also very, very bad but so was BC. So, across the board, I think it was not good here. I guess it was a little better in like, Alberta. Alberta's always been, somewhat better. That's why my daughter ended up going there during the pandemic because it was just too brutal here in Ontario. Um, now the regulators though. Oh, go ahead. I'll go ahead, go ahead.

NATALIE MORRIS: Uh, you yes, go ahead and talk about how regulators were, you know, actively sought to intimidate threaten and discipline anyone who went against the consensus.

REGINA WATTEEL: Right? So, when I read the report, two of the most - there was two very damning chapters. And one basically offered a scathing takedown of Alberta's Regulatory bodies. And then we'll talk about the other one later, which is basically the vaccines, when I've talked about the safety and effectiveness of the vaccines. So, that's where the report hit the hardest.

So the regulatory bodies includes bodies like the colleges of physicians and surgeons as well as other colleges that regulate Health Care Professionals, and they have the ability to take away one's licence practise.

And, so, in the report they kind of came across as like mindless parrots. So, I'll quote the report, it said they passively accepted and followed other bodies without critically examining the information, thereby perpetuating a false consensus. So, the report goes on to say

NATALIE MORRIS: It's very damning.

REGINA WATTEEL: It’s very damning. Yeah. They go on to say that any information that they deemed when outside what they thought was the consensus, they called that ‘misinformation.’ Even if that information was correct or accurate. And then the report goes into some depth about talking about their overreach. And here you see that they've acted basically like thugs. So, I'll just summarise what the report actually said. It says, ‘Regulators actively sought to intimidate, threaten, and discipline medical professor professionals. The chilling effect was pervasive, instilling a climate of fear and caution that deterred providers from utilising their full expertise. That interfered in the patient physician relationship and often obstructed health care providers from performing their duties in good faith.’

So that's pretty damning and the report even says that, not only did they fail to protect the public, but they actually made the response worse. So this is scathing.

NATALIE MORRIS: Yes. And so how can anyone say well, we didn't know any better. The government told us the truth. We had to behave this way. Anyone in Canada who says this now uh, you know, I mean you can peel back all the science about masking, about the vaccines, about the science of lockdowns. We've done so in depth, but this is in one fell swoop, saying we were coerced into not being able to know what the science would have told us if we were allowed to know it. So, I don't know how anyone now can say the federal government was acting in a good faith, right?

REGINA WATTEEL: Oh yeah. This is, this is pretty bad. I can't see how any of the regulators are gonna like this report. It really comes down hard on them. It does, of course, put the federal government in the driver's seat. Yeah, it's pretty scathing. Um, they do make recommendations based on what I just said, they, they recommend strengthening physician autonomy and they do recommend putting in some safeguards so that physicians do not suffer politically motivated disciplinary actions, which is what they believe happened.

NATALIE MORRIS: Right. And so, does it discuss the science of masking versus masking mandates?

REGINA WATTEEL: Yes, it goes through all the things that that, you know, you guys have been covering for quite some time. Regarding masking, they say that the science did not support mask mandates and that it didn't show that they were effective at all in reducing infections. They talked about non-pharmaceutical interventions such as lockdowns and closures - school closures - and other restrictions. And they said that that was really based on very weak evidence, and it was more like ideologically driven. They said that those measures were ineffective. They had high costs, both socially and economically. They had minimal benefits and diminished returns. So, the more you piled on the less benefits, the more harms.

NATALIE MORRIS: Yes.

REGINA WATTEEL: Yeah, they talked about uh they also talked about how natural immunity was downplayed during the pandemic and they accused Alberta Health of spreading disinformation, about how the vaccines had superior immunity. And they said that they even stuck to that disinformation, when there was ample evidence that they were wrong.

So, a lot of things that you guys are recovering, right?

NATALIE MORRIS: It's amazing to see that written here, an admission, by province. And so what can be done with something like this? Can you send this up to the federal government and say, you must never do this again and you must admit to it? Because we've seen the tribunals around Justin Trudeau saying his power grabs were fine. We were fine with it. So, you know, is there any way to run this up the flagpole and get an admission like this from the federal government? Especially now that Trudeau is a lame duck?

REGINA WATTEEL: Well, one thing that the report doesn't get into, Natalie, is how they were able to get away with what they did. Like I said there were already plans in place and they tossed them aside and what’s to say they won't do the same the next time?

So, the report doesn't get into that, which is one of the criticisms I've had, because in Canada, one of the biggest issues has been the capture of our judiciary. Okay? So, throughout the pandemic, Chief Justice Wagner of the Supreme Court of Canada, he met routinely with Justin Trudeau's attorney general behind closed doors, to talk about how to implement pandemic measures into the courts.  And so the Supreme Court even implemented its own vaccine mandates. At the same time, Justin Trudeau announced mandates for the federal public service. So they were basically on the same page there. And then in the courts, they misuse something called ‘judicial notice’ routinely. So judicial notice is when the courts deem something to be an undisputed truth.

So, they would look at statements like the pandemic was a serious threat to all Canadians and the vaccines are safe and effective, and they would deem this as a fact, undisputed. And when you do that, you basically let the government get away with everything.

There's another -  it gets even worse, Natalie – that, recently, the Attorney General was on X and he was bragging that since Justin Trudeau was elected in 2015, his government has appointed 825 judges across Canada. And Canada only has 960 appointed judges sitting. So, there's an issue because you do see that we don't have an impartial Judiciary, and you it's really hard to say that they are independent of the executive branch.

So, I mean, but I mean -

NATALIE MORRIS: I think that was clear when his emergency powers were litigated that we investigated ourselves and this was fine. The way the Toronto Sun is covering this is that it was just kind of mismanagement, like ‘bad government.’ I found it to be a gross understatement of the effect that it had in people's lives. Like you mentioned, you couldn't ask yourself, maybe I'm strong enough to go without this vaccine that they're telling me is so strong. That was not allowed, the masking, the lockdowns. Uh, I don't know. Do they mention the Fisman study, saying the unvaccinated are a threat to the vaccinated?

REGINA WATTEEL: They didn’t. And actually when you go through the report, the modelling section, I think that was their weakest section, and they really completely missed the mark. Um, the report failed to acknowledge the role that manipulated statistics and bogus modelling played in the pandemic. So, that was mostly used for three things, right? It was used for propaganda. It was used to justify unconstitutional measures, and it was used basically to help authorities [? Unclear] accountability, right? It was like, ‘Oh it's because we were following the science.’ So, the follow the science [?game], that was basically a statistical game, that helped them get away with everything.

So it really needs to be addressed because they can do that again in the future.

So that is one thing I think they really need to look at a little bit more because it played a huge role. And even this task force acknowledged that we're going to see a resurgence in the modelling use when the next emergency or pandemic rolls around. So …

NATALIE MORRIS:  Right, it's so interesting that about two weeks ago the Wall Street Journal published this big wet kiss for Bill Gates in which he goes on video and says, we're not ready for the next pandemic, and we can't be, if we keep reviewing what happened over the last one.

So, this is something that people like Bill Gatesabsolutely do not want: ‘We should not be looking backwards. We should just be going forwards.’ I think I don't need to point out what's extremely wrong with a statement like that. But what's your reaction to it?

REGINA WATTEEL: Well obviously they don't want anybody to review what happened because you and I and all your viewers know that they never really had evidence of supporting any of these harsh measures. The evidence was always actually against these vaccines. It was always against these lockdowns and school closures. And so, if you review it, that's going to come out. And I think that they're very scared now because of, you know, the administration change in the U.S. Like, we're all very excited well, not all of us - but all of us, the ones who want the truth, that are very excited here in Canada because we're hoping, yeah, it will kind of come up here as well, that we can ride that wave. So, I think they should be extremely worried, right?

NATALIE MORRIS: Yeah.

REGINA WATTEEL: And you do see like you said, there's a lot of letters have gone out now, asking Daniel Smith to basically dismiss this report. So, they're very afraid.

NATALIE MORRIS: On what grounds would you dismiss the report?

REGINA WATTEEL: Well, there's three agencies came out - we had the Alberta Medical Association, the Canadian Medical Association, and the Children's Paediatric Society. They wrote letters and they basically the whole thrust is. Well, this report goes outside the consensus view, so it's dangerous misinformation. So, they really don't have much grounds. They just don't like it, right?

We know it's not an argument, ‘We don't like it, so dismiss it.’ But there's even another guy. Um, there's a fellow hear in Canada that was paid millions of dollars to fight misinformation And he spearheaded a group letter signed by dozens of professionals, including doctors, and they asked also to get rid of this report, to dismiss the report. But when you look at this fellow, his name is Timothy Caulfield, and he is a law professor in Alberta. And, iIn 20 – He has no real scientific training, but in 2020,  he co-founded this organisation called Science Up First, to fight misinformation and to promote scientific understanding. And he's been getting a lot of money to basically push the government narrative. So we have a letter spearheaded by him to dismiss this report. So, that's been interesting.

NATALIE MORRIS: Okay. Well, uh, you can follow Dr. Regina Watteel on X and get her assessment of this, because she's been peeling back this onion. If you want to search for it yourself, we'll link to it in the newsletter or you can search for Alberta's Covid 19 pandemic response. It's dated January 28th 2025 and, yeah, like we said, it's damning. Go ahead.

REGINA WATTEEL:  Natalie, I just, I'm not sure if you want to quickly mention the vaccine chapter because that is getting a lot of [?play] –

NATALIE MORRIS: Oh yes. Please, before we go, let's get onto that. That's kind of the encore, the banger.

REGINA WATTEEL: Yeah, that is the encore because when I read that chapter, I thought, oh my God, heads should roll. And based on the Alberta report, the safe and effective slogan should really be changed to, um, toxic and ineffective. So it's, it's pretty bad. So with this chapter –

NATALIE MORRIS: Wow!

REGINA WATTEEL: - What they do is they present some safety data. They look at the toxicity of the lipid nano particles and they just quickly go through the main issues with the clinical trials, namely that they didn't establish that the vaccines reduce transmission, hospitalisation, or death, and that was the case for Pfizer Moderna as well as Johnson and Johnson. And so based on this chapter, they recommend three things, three main things. The first one, the biggest one, is they recommend halting covid19 [vaccines] for healthy children and teenagers. So a lot of people are very upset about that. The second recommendation is to have full disclosure of all the vaccine risks.  And the third recommendation is to have a support, have support for the vaccine-injured.

And even though this report has been out for less than two weeks, it has already been filed in a court case for a class action lawsuit on behalf of vaccine-injured individuals, so that-  It is a big deal.

NATALIE MORRIS: That's right. I mean, they openly admit that the vaccines were not effective in stopping transmission, which was not allowed to be said in the year 2020. And end 2021, citing the Cleveland study that we've talked about several times, that immunity goes down as you get more vaccine. So, yes, it's damning. This is, I guess not new to you and I, but amazing to see a government admitting it.

REGINA WATTEEL: It is. It is. Like a lot of people here are happy. I mean, you're gonna get pushed back, right? I mean, it was, like, I said, it said some pretty nasty things about the regulatory bodies. And of course, they're still pushing the vaccines here, so they don't want to hear people asking to halt them. So this is big news.

NATALIE MORRIS: Yeah, it really is. Thank you so much for bringing it to our attention and breaking it down. I want to remind you that Dr. Regina Watteel was one of the earliest to point out that the Canadian government was using hate science or basically fake models to torture the unvaccinated in Canada. I really recommend her book, Fisman’s Fraud. And again, you can follow her on X. So, thanks for coming back on redacted. It's always a pleasure to talk to you. Well, thank you so much for having me back. This has been great. Thanks Natalie.