Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Alberta

The Davidson Report critiquing the Government of Alberta’s COVID-19 pandemic response finally released: Dr David Speicher

Published

2 months ago

10 minute read

Courageous Truth

Scientific facts, personal views and life’s journey

By Dr David Speicher

The Dr. Gary Davidson report has finally been released by the Government of Alberta and confirms big problems with public health and provides a roadmap for managing future pandemics.

Nearly six months after Dr. Gary Davidson’s report was submitted to Premier Danielle Smith, it was publicly released quietly by the Government of Alberta on their website.

The only public statement about the report was on Eric Bouchard’s X account: “Dr. Gary Davidson’s report brings Alberta one step closer to the truth. https://open.alberta.ca/publications/albertas-covid-19-pandemic-response”. Eric followed up by saying “Alberta now has a tremendous opportunity to right many of the wrongs that took place over the last few years. We must work together to heal humanity and to earn back the trust of all Albertans.” and “I am committed to working with Albertans to ensure that the historical pain caused by the response to COVID-19 does not repeat. Thank you, Dr. Davidson, for your incredible work to get this report out. I look forward to hearing Dr. Davidson live on March 3, 2025.”

Purpose:

On November 14, 2022, the Premier of Alberta established a Task Force under the Health Quality Council of Alberta to examine the quality, use, interpretation, and flow of information and data that informed Alberta’s pandemic response to COVID-19 and provide recommendations on how to better manage a future pandemic.

This report critiques the Government of Alberta’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic between 2020 and 2022. The report addresses 9 areas: governance and flow of information, regulatory bodies (e.g. the role of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta), modelling, non-pharmaceutical interventions, masking, testing, infection-acquired immunity, vaccines, and therapeutics. The task force attempted to remain neutral and examine information on both sides of the narrative. However, there was a “fundamental lack of transparency and willingness to reveal information and discuss decisions and actions taken by AHS during the pandemic.” and the task force found that there was “a lack of willingness on the part of AHS officials to cooperate with the Task Force in our requests for data and information.” [Pg 40-41]

Chapter 6: Testing

As a molecular virologist with expertise in the detection and surveillance of infectious diseases, the task force asked me to provide information and guidance on PCR, rapid antigen testing (RAT), and serological testing for SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 during the pandemic. The report provides excellent background and the methods used to test people for SARS-CoV-2.

Unfortunately, I continue to see misinformation spread about the reliability of the PCR test, including the number of cycles and “97% false-positives”. Therefore, I will be providing a deep dive into the PCR test over the coming weeks, including presenting insight on one legal case where I served as an expert witness that asked whether or not a PCR test for COVID is a “genetic test” according to the Ontario labour code. I would be happy to answer any questions that people may have.

From The Davidson Report, I would like to highlight two key issues. The first is the classification of a COVID case being determined by a PCR-positive test result driving a “casedemic” rather than a “pandemic” and the second is regarding the millions of dollars wasted on unused PCR reagents and RATs.

It is important to note the following recommendations made regarding testing (P174):

  1. RT-PCR represents an excellent high-sensitivity test to aid in accurate diagnoses of symptomatic people – if they are used for the intended purpose and at optimal Ct values (vs. Ct values at “high positive” cut-offs).
  2. Rapid tests with reasonable accuracy should not be used for screening the general population but could be used as an additional diagnostic tool, where clinically indicated.
  3. We recommend that future pandemic responses prioritize minimizing severe disease and mortality over extensive case detection. Specifically, Alberta should focus on developing a screening tool to help estimate individual risk. This approach will optimize resource use by directing testing capacity, which can be appropriately directed by evidence-based practices, such as testing symptomatic individuals, those whose management may be influenced by test results, and for specific surveillance scenarios.
  4. We recommend that levels of immunity be gauged using a multi-antibody serological and/or mucosal assay that accounts for both pre-existing immunity as well as the presence of immune cells with the potential for cross-protection.
  5. All tests should also be professionally administered and sufficiently sensitive to detect low antibody levels while sufficiently specific to distinguish between target and non-target antibodies. This also applies to laboratory tests used to identify specific respiratory viruses. Individual risk estimates can then be used to inform individual needs for protection either through the use of personal protective measures and/or vaccination.
  6. Without being linked to a set of standardized clinical criteria, we recommend against the use of PCR tests as the sole criteria for a case definition. A confirmed case should include a pre-determined profile of signs and/or symptoms AND a positive test for the infection of concern PLUS any relevant patient history and confirmed epidemiological information.
  7. Ensure that local surveillance data are used and interpreted when determining strategy and policy.

Final Thoughts

Regarding the report, I think that it is a very well-written critique of the Government of Alberta’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic, but it is not a final conclusive report. This is a good start to opening the door for some important deep governmental discussions that need to happen, including diving deeper into the harms caused by the COVID-19 modRNA vaccines, like the DNA contamination and the presence of the SV40 promoter-enhancer nuclear localization sequences, the vast number of vaccine-injured people, and the increased risk of turbo cancer. While I am disappointed that the Government of Alberta, namely Premier Smith, tried to bury this report by sitting on it for six months and quietly releasing the report without a proper press conference on the week of the USA inauguration I am relieved to see that the report was finally made public. The government’s attempt to bury the report shows that this is indeed a damning report and the government’s response could have been much better. However, I hope that this report will bring about government transparency and begin that well-needed conversation so that our society can indeed heal.

Healing Humanity is the theme of the next An Injection of Truth happening on March 3, 2025 in Calgary, Alberta. During the event I will be sharing on the numerous ways the COVID-19 vaccines can potentially cause harm and what can be done to heal from those harms. I will share the stage with several other prominent scientists.

  • Dr. Byram Bridle who has also shared his insights on The Davidson Report and will be “exposing lies from public health agencies that contributed to a myriad of problems within the pandemic response.”
  • Dr. Gary Davidson will be presenting on the contents the report by the Alberta COVID-19 Pandemic Data Review Task Force.
  • Dr. Denis Rancourt will provide a deep dive into the all-cause mortality.
  • Dr. David Martin will definitely be a presenter that no one will want to miss.

In closing, I encourage everyone to read through The Davidson Report and post your thoughts on the report in the comments section. What did you like or disagree with? What would you like to see different next time? I would be happy to take your comments to Calgary in March 2025. I also hope that this will be one of many governmental task forces that take a deep dive into the governmental response to the pandemic. We desperately need one for each province and at the federal level.

Courageous Truth is a reader-supported publication.

To receive posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Share

Related Topics:

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

More from this author
Crime / 32 mins ago

First Good Battlefield News From Trump’s Global War on Fentanyl

Opinion / 5 hours ago

Some scientists advocate creating human bodies for ‘spare parts.’

International / 7 hours ago

Trump’s ‘Golden Dome’ defense shield must be built now, Lt. Gen. warns

Alberta

The beauty of economic corridors: Inside Alberta’s work to link products with new markets

Published on April 1, 2025

By

From the Canadian Energy Centre

Q&A with Devin Dreeshen, Minister of Transport and Economic Corridors

Devin Dreeshen, Alberta’s Minister of Transportation
and Economic Corridors.

CEC: How have recent developments impacted Alberta’s ability to expand trade routes and access new markets for energy and natural resources?

Dreeshen: With the U.S. trade dispute going on right now, it’s great to see that other provinces and the federal government are taking an interest in our east, west and northern trade routes, something that we in Alberta have been advocating for a long time.

We signed agreements with Saskatchewan and Manitoba to have an economic corridor to stretch across the prairies, as well as a recent agreement with the Northwest Territories to go north. With the leadership of Premier Danielle Smith, she’s been working on a BC, prairie and three northern territories economic corridor agreement with pretty much the entire western and northern block of Canada.

There has been a tremendous amount of work trying to get Alberta products to market and to make sure we can build big projects in Canada again.

CEC: Which infrastructure projects, whether pipeline, rail or port expansions, do you see as the most viable for improving Alberta’s global market access?

Dreeshen: We look at everything. Obviously, pipelines are the safest way to transport oil and gas, but also rail is part of the mix of getting over four million barrels per day to markets around the world.

The beauty of economic corridors is that it’s a swath of land that can have any type of utility in it, whether it be a roadway, railway, pipeline or a utility line. When you have all the environmental permits that are approved in a timely manner, and you have that designated swath of land, it politically de-risks any type of project.

CEC: A key focus of your ministry has been expanding trade corridors, including an agreement with Saskatchewan and Manitoba to explore access to Hudson’s Bay. Is there any interest from industry in developing this corridor further?

Dreeshen: There’s been lots of talk [about] Hudson Bay, a trade corridor with rail and port access. We’ve seen some improvements to go to Churchill, but also an interest in the Nelson River.

We’re starting to see more confidence in the private sector and industry wanting to build these projects. It’s great that governments can get together and work on a common goal to build things here in Canada.

CEC: What is your vision for Alberta’s future as a leader in global trade, and how do economic corridors fit into that strategy?

Dreeshen: Premier Smith has talked about C-69 being repealed by the federal government [and] the reversal of the West Coast tanker ban, which targets Alberta energy going west out of the Pacific.

There’s a lot of work that needs to be done on the federal side. Alberta has been doing a lot of the heavy lifting when it comes to economic corridors.

We’ve asked the federal government if they could develop an economic corridor agency. We want to make sure that the federal government can come to the table, work with provinces [and] work with First Nations across this country to make sure that we can see these projects being built again here in Canada.

Continue Reading

2025 Federal Election

Next federal government should recognize Alberta’s important role in the federation

Published on March 28, 2025

By

From the Fraser Institute

By Tegan Hill

With the tariff war continuing and the federal election underway, Canadians should understand what the last federal government seemingly did not—a strong Alberta makes for a stronger Canada.

And yet, current federal policies disproportionately and negatively impact the province. The list includes Bill C-69 (which imposes complex, uncertain and onerous review requirements on major energy projects), Bill C-48 (which bans large oil tankers off British Columbia’s northern coast and limits access to Asian markets), an arbitrary cap on oil and gas emissions, numerous other “net-zero” targets, and so on.

Meanwhile, Albertans contribute significantly more to federal revenues and national programs than they receive back in spending on transfers and programs including the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) because Alberta has relatively high rates of employment, higher average incomes and a younger population.

For instance, since 1976 Alberta’s employment rate (the number of employed people as a share of the population 15 years of age and over) has averaged 67.4 per cent compared to 59.7 per cent in the rest of Canada, and annual market income (including employment and investment income) has exceeded that in the other provinces by $10,918 (on average).

As a result, Alberta’s total net contribution to federal finances (total federal taxes and payments paid by Albertans minus federal money spent or transferred to Albertans) was $244.6 billion from 2007 to 2022—more than five times as much as the net contribution from British Columbians or Ontarians. That’s a massive outsized contribution given Alberta’s population, which is smaller than B.C. and much smaller than Ontario.

Albertans’ net contribution to the CPP is particularly significant. From 1981 to 2022, Alberta workers contributed 14.4 per cent (on average) of total CPP payments paid to retirees in Canada while retirees in the province received only 10.0 per cent of the payments. Albertans made a cumulative net contribution to the CPP (the difference between total CPP contributions made by Albertans and CPP benefits paid to retirees in Alberta) of $53.6 billion over the period—approximately six times greater than the net contribution of B.C., the only other net contributing province to the CPP. Indeed, only two of the nine provinces that participate in the CPP contribute more in payroll taxes to the program than their residents receive back in benefits.

So what would happen if Alberta withdrew from the CPP?

For starters, the basic CPP contribution rate of 9.9 per cent (typically deducted from our paycheques) for Canadians outside Alberta (excluding Quebec) would have to increase for the program to remain sustainable. For a new standalone plan in Alberta, the rate would likely be lower, with estimates ranging from 5.85 per cent to 8.2 per cent. In other words, based on these estimates, if Alberta withdrew from the CPP, Alberta workers could receive the same retirement benefits but at a lower cost (i.e. lower payroll tax) than other Canadians while the payroll tax would have to increase for the rest of the country while the benefits remained the same.

Finally, despite any claims to the contrary, according to Statistics Canada, Alberta’s demographic advantage, which fuels its outsized contribution to the CPP, will only widen in the years ahead. Alberta will likely maintain relatively high employment rates and continue to welcome workers from across Canada and around the world. And considering Alberta recorded the highest average inflation-adjusted economic growth in Canada since 1981, with Albertans’ inflation-adjusted market income exceeding the average of the other provinces every year since 1971, Albertans will likely continue to pay an outsized portion for the CPP. Of course, the idea for Alberta to withdraw from the CPP and create its own provincial plan isn’t new. In 2001, several notable public figures, including Stephen Harper, wrote the famous Alberta “firewall” letter suggesting the province should take control of its future after being marginalized by the federal government.

The next federal government—whoever that may be—should understand Alberta’s crucial role in the federation. For a stronger Canada, especially during uncertain times, Ottawa should support a strong Alberta including its energy industry.

Continue Reading

Trending

X