This is where my own personal story comes into play. In my time on this earth I’ve held a number of roles in and around research, data analysis, and laboratory medicine. At the time when the mandates were first coming into effect, I had just transitioned away from Laboratory Medicine and into a masters degree. I remember hearing the handing requirements for an intervention that was MRNA based, and from my experience preparing molecular research samples, that had to be kept at a minus 80 degree temperature at all times, these new interventions that could be kept at minus 20 or room temperature in some claims, didn’t make sense.

How could this work on this level yet be stable at this temperature for longer periods of time? I began questioning the messaging that said, don’t ask questions just do, else wise be labeled the arbiter of death for your friends, family, and community. I remember speaking to my masters supervisor about my concerns around my soon to be pregnant wife, and was told, everyone is getting it, don’t be stupid.

To be clear, I support established medical protocols built over generations that have saved so many lives from things like measles, mumps, and polio. I don’t believe in throwing the baby out with the bathwater, but what is concerning is when real safety signals are suppressed and those we’ve paid and entrusted to inform us are actively working against us. By hiding evidence of negative experiences in an effort to curb hesitancy, you’ve called into question every positive advancement made, and instead created more resistance than ever before.

I fervently believe that to be a journalist is a sacred role, you are responsible for the truth telling that can shape an entire time, people, and place in history. What was revealed in this inquiry was that trust has been abused, deliberately broken, and sold for personal gain. And as we know, once trust is broken, it is very hard to get back. So where does that leave this organization? Does it acknowledge its wrongs and establish a level of transparency second to none? No, it doubles down on the reporting of half-truths, reframing narratives, and trying to distance themselves from their mistakes, thus further eroding what little goodwill we had left. Here is the example I present, we have the smallest coverage by the state broadcaster describing the Allison Inquiry, omitting any testimony surrounding its reporting failures, and instead leaves the reader to believe that the incidence of those affected is so miniscule, to not even be bothered with.

How do they do this? They report real factual numbers around the amount of dosages administered, 105 million, then they take the number of serious adverse event reports of 11,702 as reported by health Canada and make that a percentage of the total. You end up with 0.01% which signals to the reader that this is not something to be serious about. But this calculation is meaningless, as it provides a factual calculation on a metric that tells us nothing about safety. We can reasonably assume that 11,702 serious adverse events are individual people. We can make that assumption because there is no way a person who would have suffered a serious event such as hospitalization, life-threatening illness, disability, or death, would be offered another opportunity to react in the same way, nor would that person of sound mind willingly decide to take that risk twice.

So now read that number as 11,702 people, or all of Kenora Ontario, or all of Gander Newfoundland, or Yarmouth Nova Scotia. Trying to paint it as insignificant is not only disingenuous, it’s purposeful misinformation, or as normal people call it, lying. And any organization the lies by omission or obfuscation is not deserving of our trust, time, or tax dollars. Its now up to us to reshape the way our stories are shared, and to ensure that truth to power is not lost in the messaging of those who are so evidently morally bankrupt and corrupt.