Nord Libre / True North — editorial version of September 16, 2026
For four days, from September 8 to 11, Canadians shared health problems they attributed to COVID-19 vaccines in Ottawa. The initiative, named after Conservative MP Dean Allison, elicited some difficult-to-hear testimonies, a few dramatic statistical claims, and a question I asked myself from the outset: why is this being discussed so little?
I wanted to check before replying.
Let's start with the status of the process. The Allison Inquiry is neither a government commission nor a parliamentary committee. Its own terms of reference They even say she's there to listen to Canadians. without establishing facts or drawing conclusionsHolding sessions on Parliament Hill does not, therefore, transform testimonies into official verdicts.
This does not make the testimonies worthless. It simply compels us to do our job.
What we checked
We analyzed 57 segments from the four days, established a chronology, created a matrix of claims, and attempted to reproduce 12 statistical results under two models each. We also looked for anything that might contradict the claims examined. Our calculation tables and our method, with its limitationsare accessible on Nord Libre.
One caveat: we were unable to directly listen to the 16 excerpts selected for audio verification. Our review classifies them all as unverified. Therefore, you will not find them here. no verbatim quote attributed to a witness from these automatic transcriptions.
Recognized injuries exist
It would be convenient to claim that any injury attributed to a vaccine is imaginary. Federal statistics themselves preclude this simplistic approach.
In the former Vaccination Injury Support Program, the government lists 3,557 applications received between June 2021 and November 2025. 1,433 had been examined by the medical committee, 252 approved and ,474,722 paid. The program concerns vaccines authorized to Canada in general; These 252 approvals are not all identified here as cases related to COVID-19 vaccines.Furthermore, the figures represent a specific period and state of treatment, not a measure of the actual frequency of injuries. Here is the official breakdown.
The key finding remains: serious vaccine-related harm can be recognized. This does not automatically validate every case presented to Allison. An illness that appears after an injection may have another cause. Conversely, the absence of a favorable ruling in a case is not sufficient to demonstrate that the person has not suffered any harm.
The testimonies justify examining the care provided, the time frame, and the quality of the reporting. However, they are insufficient on their own to calculate risk or conclude that there was organized cover-up. The possibility of underreporting warrants serious investigation; the intention to conceal cases requires additional evidence that our report has not established.
The figure 4,203: precise, but often misunderstood
We were able to reproduce a result that deserves closer examination. Based on the deaths observed among the Canadian women aged 15 to 44over the period 2021 to 2024, and a trend calculated on 2010 to 2019, our model gives approximately 4,203 more deaths than projectedThe figure varies depending on the method used to define this expected level. Our reproduction painting gives the parameters of the calculation; the Statistics Canada table allows us to retrieve mortality series.
This result needs to be read carefully. It concerns a group of women defined by age, over four years, compared to a statistical modelThis is not the number of excess deaths across the entire Canadian population. And it is certainly not a count of deaths caused by vaccination.
Aggregated data do not indicate which deceased individuals were vaccinated, on what date, with which product, or what caused their death. Infections, access to healthcare, population changes, and other factors must be investigated before any causal attribution can be made. Replicating a deviation from a projection raises a question; it does not answer it.
Where calculations hold up less well
Replicating the other claims yields mixed results. Some Canadian estimates are close to the reported figures. Others vary significantly depending on the reference period or model. The abortion series, for example, also includes a change in data collection method since 2021, which complicates comparisons.
For five American claims, we did not obtain the necessary harmonized extraction in CDC WONDERThe server's trials and errors are logged in our records. The correct verdict is not verified by our reproductionA technical failure in data collection does not prove that these figures are false.
This attention to detail is not an escape. If we demand accountability from the authorities for excessive certainty, we must demand the same discipline from those who challenge it.
The media's "silence," put to the test by the facts
OUR inventory of media coverage It now has 18 identified entries. The first register already documented 16 positive entries until September 12, including several recordings of press conferences, reports, and opinions. Some came from CTV, Global News And CPAC. A chronicle of Niagara Independent added the September 15. A NewsForBC verification, published in July, already distinguished the independent initiative from an official investigation.
It would therefore be wrong to talk about Total media silenceIt would be equally unwise to transform our targeted inventory into an exhaustive list of all published articles. It shows coverage, a significant portion of which appears in independent or specialized media, and at least one substantial contribution from a major national media outlet. It does not, however, measure the total audience or the proportionate coverage the topic deserved.
One might ask why more newsrooms didn't examine the key pieces of evidence and central claims. To answer honestly, one must compare their actual work, not guess their intentions. The absence of an article in a search is not proof of an instruction to remain silent.
What remains after checking
Allison provided a platform for people who say they have been injured and who are asking to be heard. Their cases deserve a serious, respectful, and impartial evaluation. The federal system itself recognizes certain vaccine-related injuries and continues to process claims.
But the article doesn't prove that vaccines caused every illness mentioned. A difference in mortality observed in a specific group doesn't demonstrate thousands of vaccine-related deaths. Nor does our research establish a government cover-up.
So what should be done? Examine the cases, publish usable data, distinguish between reported cases and established causes, and explain the decisions to those affected. If alarming analyses present figures, publish their methodologies and subject them to scrutiny. If the authorities claim everything is working, ask them to demonstrate how.
Skepticism works both ways. It's less comfortable than choosing sides. It's also the only way to know what truly resists.
Methodology note for publication. Media audit: targeted searches conducted up to September 16, 2026; initial register closed on the 12th, and addition confirmed on the 15th. This is not an exhaustive census. Federal program figures: former VISP, from June 1, 2021, to November 30, 2025; the VIAP program succeeded it on April 1, 2026. The files in the appendix are available separately. method, CSV results, CSV media inventory And reproduction code, in text formatWe can also Download the complete appendix in ZIP format..
About the Author
