Marco Niese

Surveillance of Deaths Associated with the COVID-19 Vaccines in Canada was at best... PATHETIC (The Willy-Nilly Clauses of How your Government Minimized the Reporting of Deaths Associated with COVID-19 Vaccines so they could keep injecting you with a product known not to be safe NOR effective.) Make no mistake... a simple linking of the COVID-19 vaccination record to the mortality database would take the guess work out of having to estimate the number of Canadians who perished in association with the various COVID-19 vaccines. Apparently, in the whole world, only the Office of National Statistics in England knows how to link databases. The Federal government of CANADA either has no clue or just doesn't want to. Estimating Deaths Associated with the Clot Shots In Image 1 below, I have provided the data from the Stats Canada site on the deaths by year from 2015 to 2024 by total and stratified by whether or not the deaths occurred in hospital. This distinction is important since part 2 of the Vanessa's Law came into effect on December 16, 2019 and both Health Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) were supposed to register and keep records of all the deaths that occurred after COVID-19 vaccination. Vanessa’s Law refers to the death of a 15-year-old girl in 2000 by a heart attack where warnings about the dangers of taking cisapride (Prepulsid) for her condition were known and noted in other countries but had not been provided/updated in the Canadian product monograph. Vanessa’s law was staged in two parts. The first part was on November 6, 2014, when Health Canada got “special powers” to mandate (drug) therapeutic product recalls, relabeling, and further testing without judicial oversight (ie., no court order required). Some Canadians like myself strongly object to the lack of judicial oversight because we know Health Canada has acted unscrupulously before (and should be handed less and not more power). The second one came into being on December 16, 2019 that all hospitals in Canada must report serious adverse events (SAEs) for any therapeutic product (including medical devices, biologics and COVID-19 vaccines) to Health Canada (HC) within 30 days. Please be aware that deaths are considered serious adverse events (alhough the low numbers collected appear to suggest that the government thought otherwise). In Image 2 I provide the totals for the number of deaths reported by PHAC (488) versus the estimated total number of deaths in association with the COVID-19 shots (154,854). Note that the estimated total of number of vaccine associated deaths is 2.5 fold higher than the number of COVID-19 deaths. In other cases involving "actual population databases" the differential was more around 6.6 fold (Florida (see Levi R et al, 2025) and England (ONS)) meaning the mRNA shots were in fact, really REALLY deadly. Similarly HC's Canada Vigilance Program suggested there were 183 in-hospital deaths whereas 59,566 deaths were estimated. Unlike PHAC, HC reported 4 deaths in children. PHAC denied any children deaths associated with the COVID-19 vaccines. Clearly there was no sharing of surveillance death data between PHAC and HC. For VAERS there awere about 161 deaths to January 2, 2026 reported in children. If we divide by 10, Canada may have had up to 16 deaths in children (just saying). Reporting deaths (needed to enable signal evaluation for swift action by the Government of Canada in compliance with Vanessa's Law) was censored at about 99.7% for both HC and PHAC (Image 3). Essentially, this means almost 100% of the deaths were not captured. It seems great strides were taken to avoid reporting COVID-19 vaccine deaths by HC and PHAC. The question is how is this possible as the reporting of SAEs was mandated... or was it? The answer can be found in Image 3. I call it the "Willy-Nilly" clause of 'not' reporting serious adverse events including deaths to federal authorities. For example, for PHAC collection, in Newfoundland and Labrador and in the Yukon there is no mandatory reporting of vaccine deaths. Second many jurisdictions did not report deaths beyond 30 days. (So much for the mRNA bioweapon deaths where deaths after 60 days are pathognomonic for the clotting episodes causing deaths see Image 4). In addition, PHAC required causality assessment for these reports allegedly at all levels. However, the real kicker here is that the feds cannot mandate the reporting of vaccine associated deaths from the provinces/territories (P/T) so reporting was voluntary and not mandatory. Since the P/T handed out the vaccines do you think they wanted to report vaccine associated deaths? (as this could make them culpable!). And for HC, their Willy Nilly clause was well if you reported the vaccine SAE/death to a local public health unit, you didn't have to report it to the Canada Vigilance Program at HC. It didn't matter that such reports could not be made mandatory to PHAC. So pray tell, what possible good could come from Vanessa's Law. The way it was set up meant censoring was legal. A recent FOI from PHAC indicated 315 deaths were captured in association with the vaccines (but the official total was 488 ?). Here all ages were redacted (I guess they wanted to protect the narrative that no children were killed by vaccination). What was interesting was that the majority of onset intervals (when provided) showed the deaths occurred within the 2 days of vaccination which is pathognomonic for Pfizer-BioNTech shedding from the vaccinator. In other words these deaths were very highly likely caused by the mRNA vaccines. Accordingly, PHAC inadvertently documented that many Canadians apparently died from shedding and most of these people got the mRNA shots. So it is simply not true as claimed by PHAC that no Canadian died from the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. In fact in England and in Florida the record shows during the first 12 to 17 months of the COVID-19 vaccination rollout the vast majority of deaths were from shedding (non-COVID-19 deaths) a property found only for the Pfizer-BioNTech (dirty) mRNA LNP shots. I think the Canadian federal government is dastardly for falsely assuring Canadians into thinking their health and welfare are being adequately considered, when in fact the opposite (allegedly), may be true. Vanessa's Law is just one instance.

Former Conservative MP Marilyn Gladu rises for the first time as a Liberal during Question Period to a standing ovation.