Go Ad Free

Health Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada were aware of myocarditis and pericarditis risks linked to mRNA COVID-19 vaccines before granting interim approval to Pfizer in December 2020, internal records confirm.

Yet as cases of heart failure climb among previously healthy young Canadians, legacy media outlets and so-called ‘experts’ alike report and comment on the trend without mentioning the well-documented signal.

Last week, CTV highlighted a Canadian Cardiovascular Society and Canadian Heart Failure Society release warning of a “perfect storm” driving higher diagnoses in adults aged 20 to 40.

‘Couldn’t walk five feet’: Rise in cases of heart failure among young Canadians https://t.co/RsVWduiAIl

— CTV News (@CTVNews) May 5, 2026

Cardiologist Dr. Margot Davis noted the increase at specialized clinics, yet the coverage conveniently omitted any reference to COVID-19 vaccination, despite documented risks to heart health.

A parliamentary Order Paper response (Q-766) reveals that the first Canadian report of myocarditis or pericarditis following an mRNA injection arrived on December 4, 2020 — that’s five days before Health Canada’s interim authorization of Pfizer’s vaccine on December 9.

That safety signal continued to mount throughout the rollout, the official parliamentary response shows.

As of January 26, 2026, Health Canada’s Canada Vigilance Program has logged 2,040 domestic and 29,619 foreign reports of myocarditis and pericarditis following COVID-19 vaccination.

Despite early warning signs, public warnings did not appear until closer to June 2021.

Internal documents obtained through access-to-information requests and compiled by medical and regulatory investigator Natasha Gonek paint a very clear picture: minutes from the federal Vaccine Vigilance Working Group (records never intended for public release) show myocarditis and pericarditis were tracked as priorities from December 2020 onward.

A December 17, 2020, Record of Discussion (ROD) noted that information on myocarditis, pericarditis and thrombotic disorders would be posted online the week of December 21. Despite the seriousness of these risks, that information remained largely buried from public view.

Ontario data analyst Kelly Brown identified sharp increases in risk of heart inflammation, primarily among young males, after examining provincial safety signals in early 2021.

WE CANNOT RISK vaccinating 5 to 11 year-olds

1 in ~5,200 12 to 17 yo males in Ontario are experiencing myocarditis after PFIZER; and the incidence rate has gone UP as the age goes DOWN.

What will the 5 to 11 rate be? Even with a 1/3rd dose?

Trial size was just 2,268 children. pic.twitter.com/6sXx5SjEJr

— Kelly Brown (@rubiconcapital_) October 22, 2021

Other provincial figures and federal monitoring systems told the same story, while Public Health Agency of Canada employees sat on surveillance teams co-authoring studies cited by the department as evidence of safety.

Meanwhile, the public received heavily narrative-controlled propaganda intended to preserve the ‘safe and effective’ marketing mantra at all costs.

A Privy Council Office memo titled “Testing Behaviourally-Informed Messaging In Response To Severe Adverse Events Following Immunization” explicitly discussed managing public confidence in COVID-19 vaccination efforts.

Officials tested language designed to emphasize rarity and preserve trust, rather than to disclose the mounting age- and sex-specific risks.

Canadians were repeatedly told that adverse events are rare and that the benefits of vaccination outweigh the unknown risks.

Today, some of the young people who were sold this narrative five years ago are now appearing in heart-failure clinics, unable to walk more than a few feet without debilitating exhaustion.

This raises alarming, and still very pertinent, questions about the COVID response, such as why early signals were so severely downplayed, whether age- and sex-specific risks were truly communicated transparently, and what follow-up exists for those diagnosed with vaccine-associated myocarditis?

Legacy media’s continued silence on the documented timeline only serves to deepen public distrust in institutions that aided in ‘the science is settled’ narrative.

The receipts — from internal records, parliamentary answers, and surveillance data — have been available for years, yet the subject remains so taboo that much of the legacy media and expert class still refuse to confront it openly.