For years, thousands of Canadians who say they were injured by COVID-19 vaccines have been fighting for recognition, answers, and accountability. Many have faced devastating health consequences, financial hardship, and an uphill battle simply to have their experiences acknowledged.
Now, their stories are set to be heard through The Allison Inquiry, a new parliamentary inquiry focused specifically on COVID-19 vaccine injuries.
Tonight on VSRF Live, I’m joined by Shawn Buckley, Inquiry Counsel for The Allison Inquiry and one of Canada’s leading constitutional and regulatory attorneys. Shawn has spent years advocating for informed consent, civil liberties, and government accountability, while closely examining Canada’s response to COVID-19.
The Allison Inquiry follows the National Citizens Inquiry, which examined Canada’s broader pandemic response. The Allison Inquiry is focused specifically on COVID-19 vaccine injuries, giving Canadians who say they were harmed an opportunity to have their experiences heard and formally entered into the public record.
Shawn will explain what The Allison Inquiry is, how it will work, what it can realistically accomplish, and how it differs from previous efforts. We’ll also discuss what Canadians can expect from the proceedings and whether this could finally move the needle toward greater recognition, transparency, and accountability.
For those who have spent years trying to be heard, this inquiry could be an important step.
The retraction notice states that the institution’s request for retraction was motivated by “concerns about misinterpretation of the paper by others” and that this “is not in keeping with COPE guidance for retraction.” Can you identify which COPE guideline(s) the journal believes were actually violated, and quote the specific language from the paper that triggered each?
You state the discussion “includes misinformation.” Could you please identify the precise false or misleading statements, and the specific citations that were “misleadingly cited,” including what each cited source actually says versus what the paper claimed? If the concern is emphasis or balance rather than factual accuracy, could you confirm that no specific factual error has been identified?
The corresponding author has stated—and the retraction notice confirms—that she proposed specific revisions, including adding a section on vaccine effectiveness, to address the journal’s concerns, and that these were dismissed as “insufficient.” If the paper was correctable, why was the author never given specific direction on what would constitute a compliant revision? If it was not correctable, can you identify what specific defect made correction impossible rather than merely difficult?
Thanks!
-steve
The BMJ decisions on what papers survive in their journal are not being determined by objective criteria (COPE guidelines); they are being determined by whether the paper is consistent with the beliefs of the editors. If you violate that, they retract your paper.
This is not science. This is public advocacy.
And of course, they will not be held accountable and will not consent to discuss the retraction in a public forum.
They will likely ignore my request for an explanation.
The US increasingly prioritizes technological dominance, supply-chain security, industrial protection and strategic competition with China. Under Trump, this approach has become openly transactional and unilateral: tariffs, market access and security instruments are used to compel partners and competitors alike. The EU, by contrast, seeks regulatory power, industrial resilience, climate leadership and greater strategic autonomy. Brussels […]
Last week we heard that US sailors and Marines aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln and other ships in the Middle East were being fed food that, from photos that surfaced in the media, looked worse than what you would feed a dog. Parents and spouses of service members risked disciplinary action against their loved ones […]
It is now official: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has flatly rejected the core conditions of the Board of Peace framework, explicitly stating that Israel will neither adhere to a ceasefire nor withdraw its forces from Gaza. During a cabinet meeting on Sunday, Netanyahu stated with unambiguous language: “Israel rejects the 15-point document published by […]
Of course I got the standard line “Your audience is biased! Polls aren’t science! Large studies show vaccines don’t cause autism!”
So I challenged anyone to replicate my poll and show they would get the opposite result.
Bret Weinstein was kind enough to mention it in a post on X to his followers.
Look at how many people saw his post.
Bret Weinstein@BretWeinstein
If you have kids under 20 years old, please help us out by completing this very short survey. And feel free to retweet, like and/or comment to get wider circulation.
Link in first reply for algorithm reasons.
3:44 AM · Aug 9, 2026 · 236K Views
79 Replies · 275 Reposts · 1.4K Likes
The result: the confidence intervals overlapped. His results were consistent with mine.
The AI analysis is here showing more vaccines —> higher risk of sudden onset regressive autism (we compared the unvaxxed rate with partially and fully vaccinated kids):
So I guess my surveys are so inaccurate after all!
But the most important thing is that nobody who is pro-vaccine is ever going to prove we are wrong by running a survey of their audience. Not the mainstream media, not the AAP, not any celebrity doctor like “Doctor Mike.” Nobody’s going to do it even though it took Bret about 1 minute of his time to replicate the survey (he just posted a link to it).
The rate of sudden onset regressive autism is 7 to 70 times higher in fully vaccinated kids vs. fully unvaxxed kids.
For kids with fewer vaccines, the rates are 3 to 30 times higher than the unvaccinated, so it’s dose dependent. Lower vaccine dose—> lower increased rate.
The surveys could still be biased, but no confounder can explain a signal that is that large.
More importantly, nobody wants to show I got it wrong. No pro-vaccine organization or mainstream news media or fact checker is ever going to replicate the survey. It would take just one minute of their time to discredit me.
I have all the emails of the respondents and the results were filtered for US residents who provided their email. So any fact checker in the world can verify my results. I’d be delighted to be “fact checked.”
None will. They NEVER ask for the data. Never. Fact checkers don’t want to talk to me.
I also know of a pediatric practice with no autism in any of the unvaccinated kids (which is most of the thousands of kids over the last 25 years). Zero autism. But ONLY in their unvaccinated kids (the vast majority of kids in the practice). The mainstream media doesn’t want to cover that story.
I thought you should know the truth.
Sure, some vaccines can reduce the risk of getting infectious diseases.
But they also significantly degrade the health of our children and dramatically increase their risk of autism and other chronic diseases.
It’s tragic that doctors aren’t pointing out the downside of vaccines. Nearly all look the other way and will never confront the data showing they were (and still are) wrong.
I am willing to wager $1M that vaccines trigger autism onset. To be settled by a jointly agreeable scientific study. This is an EASY way to earn $1M because as we all know, science has proven vaccines DON’T cause autism. So I have to be wrong. Any takers??
“The makers of our Constitution undertook to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness… They conferred against the Government the right to be let alone — most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men.” ~ Justice Louis D. Brandeis (1856-1941) The rapid spread of public surveillance cameras represents something far more consequential than a new […]
Two men, one word. Next Monday, at Kingston Crown Court in London, a 72-year-old grandfather goes on trial for terrorism; the evidence is a tweet of seven words, and the maximum sentence is 14 years. Nine months ago, a man who founded al-Qaeda’s Syrian branch and carried a $10 million American bounty on his head […]
This is one of Suavek’s more important articles. It certainly contains one of my better, terse descriptions of what has happened over recent years.
My statement is unequivocal evidence of knowledge and therefore intent.
Please do scan read and bookmark if it has the slightest chance of moving a single additional person towards enlightenment!
Best wishes
Mike
(A reminder that a subscription to Suavek s publication is the very best way to see my writings if you wish to do so. My writing on Telegram is much more voluminous than on Substack. The Fraud Prevention Hotline gathers much of my writing and combines it with the words of other people. My friend and assistant Tim receives the subscriptions to my own Substack. You read this because of him. I have adamantly refused ALL monies since 2020 for truth telling. But Tim would say himself, if you can pay for one subscription only – choose Suavek s. Truth matters most. Saving the future generations from the insidious George Carlins “inevitable victory” by the big club matters more than anything else. When the contagion myth is busted, their power is dramatically reduced. My Substack, Tim’s and Suavek’s are all without any paywalls anyway.)
