The Inquiry they didn't want you watching
For four days in September, covid-vaccine injured Canadians came to Parliament Hill to tell their stories. More than 1,400 people applied to testify at the Allison Inquiry, although only a small fraction could be heard during the four days.
These were Canadians describing serious and often debilitating health problems, disability, lost income, disrupted families and lives that changed dramatically following vaccination. The sheer number of people who wanted an opportunity to testify should have been enough to make this a significant Canadian news story.
Instead, many Canadians had no idea the inquiry was even taking place.
That raises a question that deserves considerably more attention than it has received: Why did the Canadian media largely ignore it?
The Allison Inquiry was not a government-commissioned public inquiry, as we all agree it should have been. It means that more than 1,400 Canadians sought an opportunity to testify before a parliamentary audience, and that should have been considered newsworthy regardless of whether journalists agreed with their conclusions.
Our Canadian mainstream media deserves some very uncomfortable questions.
The hearings took place on Parliament Hill, were publicly announced, were live-streamed, and were open to journalists. Yet coverage from major Canadian media organizations were remarkably limited, particularly given the enormous issues with covid vaccination and the ever-increasing number of Canadians who continue to be vaccine injured, despite the length of time since their vax.
Independent and alternative media outlets did report on the proceedings, but the majority of Canadians would likely never have encountered the hearings unless they deliberately went looking for them.
Perhaps some news organizations believed the inquiry did not have sufficient official status to warrant significant coverage, or perhaps editors were concerned about presenting claims that had not been "independently verified". Perhaps it's because their hands are tightly bound to government agencies who have continued stuffing money in their pockets to survive, but it still does not explain why the subject could not have been investigated properly.
Journalists did not have to accept the witnesses' conclusions, endorse vaccine-injury claims or treat testimony as scientific proof. Their responsibility was to examine what was being presented, question the participants, consult independent experts, investigate the available evidence and allow the public to understand what was taking place.
If witnesses made claims that were unsupported, that should have been reported. If medical records or scientific evidence supported some of their accounts, that should have been investigated and reported as well. If experts disagreed with the testimony, Canadians should have been given the opportunity to hear those perspectives. This is precisely how journalism should operate when confronted with a controversial subject, because the role of the journalist is not to decide which questions Canadians are permitted to ask, but to investigate those questions rigorously enough that the public can make informed judgments.
Canada already acknowledges that vaccine injury occurs
The reluctance to discuss vaccine injury becomes even more difficult to understand when we consider that the Canadian government itself recognizes that serious and permanent vaccine injuries do occur. The federal Vaccine Impact Assistance Program is supposed to provide financial assistance to people who are assessed as having suffered a serious and permanent injury that was likely caused by a Health Canada-authorized vaccine. The program is based on a no-fault model, meaning that applicants are not required to establish negligence in order to receive assistance. So, what happened?
This is an important distinction because acknowledging vaccine injury is not inherently an anti-vaccine position. A medical intervention can provide substantial benefits while also carrying risks, and a "responsible healthcare system" should be capable of acknowledging both realities without treating discussion of adverse outcomes as an attack on vaccination itself.
The issue is whether those people are receiving appropriate medical investigation, whether their concerns are being taken seriously, whether the compensation system is functioning adequately and whether Canadians have access to transparent information about what is actually happening. Unfortunately, the system is broken.
The federal government itself has acknowledged that there are significant challenges within the compensation system. In July 2026, the Public Health Agency of Canada announced that it had "assumed responsibility for administering the Vaccine Impact Assistance Program and stated that it had inherited more than 2,000 active claims and appeals". Although we know the numbers are much, much higher...
The government also acknowledged frustration regarding delays and limited communication under the previous administration of the program. Although we know that it's always easier to blame someone else...
Those facts alone warrant public scrutiny.
Canadians should be asking how many applications have been received, how many have been approved or rejected, how long applicants are waiting for decisions, what evidence is required to establish probable causation and whether people who have suffered serious injuries are actually receiving the support the program was created to provide.
Yet the media is nowhere to be found, to be an impartial supporter of the people and share the true issues of these cases...
These are people, not a political category
One of the easiest ways to dismiss this issue is to label everyone who raises concerns about vaccine injury as anti-vaxxer or conspiracy theorist. Once someone has been placed into that category, it becomes remarkably easy to dismiss their testimony without ever examining what they are actually saying.
But the people who came forward at the Allison Inquiry are not simply a political movement. They are Canadians who describe experiences that fundamentally altered their lives. Some were healthy and working before vaccination and subsequently developed serious health problems. Some describe being unable to work, losing independence or becoming reliant on family members for support, while others describe years of medical appointments and unanswered questions as they attempt to understand what happened to them.
These people's vaccine injuries are legitimate, and someone's experience should never be labelled as imaginary, irrelevant or unworthy of investigation.; they still deserve proper medical care, rather than being ridiculed or dismissed.
What happened to informed consent?
The plandemic also exposed a much broader question about informed consent. Canadians were repeatedly told that medical decisions "should be based on an understanding of benefits and risks", yet the public conversation often became extraordinarily uncomfortable when people raised concerns about potential adverse outcomes.
Informed consent should not mean providing information about benefits while treating discussion of potential harms as socially unacceptable. It should mean giving people meaningful information about benefits, risks, uncertainties and limitations so that they can make decisions about their own bodies. That principle should continue to apply after a medical intervention has taken place, particularly when someone experiences a serious adverse event.
A healthcare system that genuinely respects patients should be capable of saying that serious adverse events can occur, and that individual cases deserve proper investigation. Those statements are not contradictory, and treating them as though they are only makes meaningful discussion more impossible.
Four days was never enough
Perhaps the clearest reason the Allison Inquiry should continue is the simple fact that four days could never accommodate the number of Canadians who wanted to be heard.
There are Canadians who were not selected, people who were too unwell to travel, people who did not learn about the inquiry until it was too late and families who have spent years trying to understand what happened to someone they love. There are also people who have applied for compensation, been rejected, waited months or years for decisions or struggled to obtain the documentation necessary to support their claims.
Their questions did not disappear when the hearings concluded.
That is why the Allison Inquiry should be expanded rather than allowed to become a footnote. It should be properly publicized, made accessible to Canadians across the country, and held annually so that new testimony, emerging research, compensation data and unresolved cases can continue to be examined. Ideally, Canada should establish a genuinely independent public inquiry with sufficient authority and resources to examine vaccine injuries comprehensively, including adverse-event reporting, compensation claims and the experiences of those who have been harmed.
The silence deserves scrutiny
The most troubling aspect of the Allison Inquiry may ultimately be less about what individual witnesses said and more about how little opportunity the Canadian public was given to hear them.
We are constantly told that Canadians deserve access to reliable information so that they can make informed decisions about their health. That principle cannot apply only when the information is "comfortable".
A significant public-health conversation took place on Parliament Hill while much of the country carried on as though nothing was happening. Even those who erroneously refute vaccine injuries should have been alarmed, and interested enough to learn more, to question, and to listen. One should never ignore an issue unless it happens to one of your loved ones.
So the question for Canadian journalists is a straightforward one: why wasn't this covered?
You did not have to agree with the witnesses.
You did not have to support their conclusions.
You did not have to become advocates for vaccine injury.
You simply had to investigate a story involving Canadians who wanted to testify about experiences among the most significant events of their lives.
A large amount of people who were injured by the covid jabs are still struggling, regardless of whether the media chooses to cover them or not. Their medical problems have not disappeared, their financial difficulties have not disappeared and their questions have not disappeared simply because the cameras were absent.
The Allison Inquiry should therefore be expanded, publicized, and held again, with considerably more Canadians given the opportunity to testify and with journalists willing to look at the evidence rather than avoid the subject. If Canada genuinely believes in informed consent, patient autonomy, scientific inquiry and accountability, then there should be nothing to fear from examining what happened to the people who were harmed.
The mainstream media largely looked the other way. And if that does not make Canadians ask what is happening here, perhaps it should.
At Ezra Healing, we support people's healing and the right to truth — whether they are vaccinated or not. This is what the true meaning of #donoharm is. If you're vaccine injured, book. a consultation with our team and let's talk:
Comments