Connect with us

Alberta

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

Published

5 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
Alberta / 3 hours ago

Why the West’s separatists could be just as big a threat as Quebec’s

Business / 5 hours ago

Massive government child-care plan wreaking havoc across Ontario

Crime / 6 hours ago

Suspected ambush leaves two firefighters dead in Idaho

Alberta

Why the West’s separatists could be just as big a threat as Quebec’s

Published on June 30, 2025

By

By Mark Milke

It is a mistake to dismiss the movement as too small

In light of the poor showing by separatist candidates in recent Alberta byelections, pundits and politicians will be tempted to again dismiss threats of western separatism as over-hyped, and too tiny to be taken seriously, just as they did before and after the April 28 federal election.

Much of the initial skepticism came after former Leader of the Opposition Preston Manning authored a column arguing that some in central Canada never see western populism coming. He cited separatist sympathies as the newest example.

In response, (non-central Canadian!) Jamie Sarkonak argued that, based upon Alberta’s landlocked reality and poll numbers (37 per cent Alberta support for the “idea” of separation with 25 per cent when asked if a referendum were held “today”), western separation was a “fantasy” that “shouldn’t be taken seriously.” The Globe and Mail’s Andrew Coyne, noting similar polling, opined that “Mr. Manning does not offer much evidence for his thesis that ‘support for Western secession is growing.’”

Prime Minister Mark Carney labelled Manning’s column “dramatic.” Toronto Star columnist David Olive was condescending. Alberta is “giving me a headache,” he wrote. He argued the federal government’s financing of “a $34.2-billion expansion of the Trans Mountain pipeline (TMX)” as a reason Albertans should be grateful. If not, wrote Olive, perhaps it was time for Albertans to “wave goodbye” to Canada.

As a non-separatist, born-and-bred British Columbian, who has also spent a considerable part of his life in Alberta, I can offer this advice: Downplaying western frustrations — and the poll numbers — is a mistake.

One reason is because support for western separation in at least two provinces, Alberta and Saskatchewan, is nearing where separatist sentiment was in Quebec in the 1970s.

In our new study comparing recent poll numbers from four firms (Angus Reid Institute, Innovative Research Group, Leger, and Mainstreet Research), the range of support in recent months for separation from Canada in some fashion is as follows, from low to high: Manitoba (6 per cent to 12 per cent); B.C. (nine per cent to 20 per cent); Saskatchewan (20 per cent to 33 per cent) and Alberta (18 per cent to 36.5 per cent). Quebec support for separation was in a narrow band between 27 per cent and 30 per cent.

What such polling shows is that, at least at the high end, support for separating from Canada is now higher in Saskatchewan and Alberta than in Quebec.

Another, even more revealing comparison is how western separatist sentiment now is nearing actual Quebec votes for separatism or separatist parties back five decades ago. The separatist Parti Québécois won the 1976 Quebec election with just over 41 per cent of the vote. In the 1980 Quebec referendum on separation, “only” 40 per cent voted for sovereignty association with Canada (a form of separation, loosely defined). Those percentages were eclipsed by 1995, when separation/sovereignty association side came much closer to winning with 49.4 per cent of the vote.

Given that current western support for separation clocks in at as much as 33 per cent in Saskatchewan and 36.5 per cent in Alberta, it begs this question: What if the high-end polling numbers for western separatism are a floor and not a ceiling for potential separatist sentiment?

One reason why western support for separation may yet spike is because of the Quebec separatist dynamic itself and its impact on attitudes in other parts of Canada. It is instructive to recall in 1992 that British Columbians opposed a package of constitutional amendments, the Charlottetown Accord, in a referendum, in greater proportion (68.3 per cent) than did Albertans (60.2 per cent) or Quebecers (56.7 per cent).

Much of B.C.’s opposition (much like in other provinces) was driven by proposals for special status for Quebec. It’s exactly why I voted against that accord.

Today, with Prime Minister Carney promising a virtual veto to any province over pipelines — and with Quebec politicians already saying “non” — separatist support on the Prairies may become further inflamed. And I can almost guarantee that any whiff of new favours for Quebec will likely drive anti-Ottawa and perhaps pro-separatist sentiment in British Columbia.

There is one other difference between historic Quebec separatist sentiment and what exists now in a province like Alberta: Alberta is wealthy and a “have” province while Quebec is relatively poor and a have-not. Some Albertans will be tempted to vote for separation because they feel the province could leave and be even more prosperous; Quebec separatist voters have to ask who would pay their bills.

This dynamic again became obvious, pre-election, when I talked with one Alberta CEO who said that five years ago, separatist talk was all fringe. In contrast, he recounted how at a recent dinner with 20 CEOs, 18 were now willing to vote for separation. They were more than frustrated with how the federal government had been chasing away energy investment and killing projects since 2015, and had long memories that dated back to the National Energy Program.

(For the record, they view the federal purchase of TMX as a defensive move in response to its original owner, Kinder Morgan, who was about to kill the project because of federal and B.C. opposition. They also remember all the other pipelines opposed/killed by the Justin Trudeau government.)

Should Canadians outside the West dismiss western separatist sentiment? You could do that. But it’s akin to the famous Clint Eastwood question: Do you feel lucky?

Mark Milke is president and founder of the Aristotle Foundation for Public Policy and co-author, along with Ven Venkatachalam, of Separatist Sentiment: Polling comparisons in the West and Quebec.

Continue Reading

Alberta

Alberta Independence Seekers Take First Step: Citizen Initiative Application Approved, Notice of Initiative Petition Issued

Published on June 30, 2025

By

Alberta’s Chief Electoral Officer, Gordon McClure, has issued a Notice of Initiative Petition.

This confirms a Citizen Initiative application has been received and the Chief Electoral Officer has determined the requirements of section 2(3) of the Citizen Initiative Act have been met.

Approved Initiative Petition Information

The approved citizen initiative application is for a policy proposal with the following proposed question:

Do you agree that Alberta should remain in Canada?

The Notice of Initiative Petition, application, and statement provided by the proponent are available on Elections Alberta’s website on the Current Initiatives Petition page.

As the application was received and approved prior to coming into force of Bill 54: Election Statutes Amendment Act, the Citizen Initiative process will follow requirements set out in the Citizen Initiative Act as of June 30, 2025.

Next Steps

  1. The proponent must appoint a chief financial officer within 30 days (by July 30, 2025).
  2. Once the 30-day publication period is complete and a chief financial officer has been appointed, Elections Alberta will:
  1. issue the citizen initiative petition,
  2. publish a notice on the Current Initiatives Petition page of our website indicating the petition has been issued, specifying the signing period dates, and the number of signatures required for a successful petition, and
  3. issue the citizen initiative petition signature sheets and witness affidavits. Signatures collected on other forms will not be accepted.

More information on the process, the status of the citizen initiative petition, financing rules, third party advertising rules, and frequently asked questions may be found on the Elections Alberta website.

Elections Alberta is an independent, non-partisan office of the Legislative Assembly of Alberta responsible for administering provincial elections, by-elections, and referendums.

Continue Reading

Trending

X