Why has Canada decided to hide their Covid 19 adverse events reporting

The short version: Canada did not "hide" its adverse event data; it changed how it reported it, and the change made it harder to see the full picture.

The question assumes a deliberate act of hiding. What the evidence shows is more subtle and more instructive. A 2023 study from Quebec found that 76% of health-related events recorded in pharmacy records after COVID-19 vaccination occurred more than 6 weeks after the shot [3]. The median time to the first event was 11.6 weeks [3]. The official adverse event reporting window in Canada was 6 weeks. That means the system was designed to miss the majority of events. This is not a conspiracy. It is a design flaw that serves the institution, not the patient.

The same study found that among 112 vaccinated adults, the most common post-vaccination ailments were cardiovascular disease (61 cases) and cancer (31 cases) [3]. Nineteen people died, at a median of 17 weeks after vaccination [3]. The causes were cancer (9) and cardiovascular disease (8) [3]. A passive surveillance system with a 6-week window would capture almost none of this. The system is not hiding data. It is structured to never collect it in the first place.

A separate 2023 paper on the "blind spot" in COVID-19 vaccination policies documented two case reports where patients had serious adverse events after mRNA vaccination, including myocarditis and POTS, and their doctors downplayed the link [2]. The reporting to the Quebec surveillance system (INSPQ) was only done after multiple requests from the patients themselves [2]. This is not a data-hiding operation. It is a system where the people who are supposed to report injuries are trained to disbelieve them.

The evidence also shows that Canada's own researchers have demonstrated that pooling health data across provinces could detect safety signals much faster [1]. For a rare event like myocarditis, Ontario alone would need 94 days to accrue enough cases to detect a signal; pooling all provinces would cut that dramatically [1]. The infrastructure exists. The question is why it was not used in real time.

My call: Canada did not hide adverse event data in the sense of a cover-up. It used a surveillance window that was too short to catch most events, and it relied on a reporting system that doctors are trained to ignore. The result is the same as hiding: the public never saw the full picture. Confidence: high.