Episode 1 — Everything Changed in 2021. The Year the Data Stopped Matching the Narrative (From the "Seeing Through The Data - The Second Act" New Series)

After receiving his first shot, observing troubling side effects in people close to him, and then personally reviewing the official government sources—the data scientist reached a conclusion...

Listen in the author’s voice reconstructed using NaturalReader:

“After receiving his first shot, observing troubling side effects in people close to him, and then personally reviewing the most trusted data he could find—official government sources—the data scientist reached a conclusion he could not ignore: the risk of taking another shot appeared too high, and the added benefit too small.”

Preface:

After receiving his first shot, observing troubling side effects in people close to him, and then personally reviewing the most trusted data he could find—official government sources—the data scientist (a long-serving Government of Canada specialist who had dedicated his career to evaluating vendor products using evidence) reached a conclusion he could not ignore: the risk of taking another shot appeared too high, and the added benefit too small.

This was not a casual opinion. For years, his employer had trusted him precisely because he could detect poor performance, hidden failure modes, and changes in performance over time—then communicate those findings clearly so decision-makers could act responsibly.

So he made a conscious decision for himself: he could not take the second shot, even if it meant losing his job.

But then a deeper question followed.

Once he felt confident that his evidence was strong enough to guide his own decision, what was he supposed to do as a professional—and as a moral human being?

Could he keep it to himself and watch others continue without access to the same evidence?

Or did his principles require something harder: to speak, to share, and to warn—even if it came at a personal cost?

Episode 1 — Everything Changed in 2021

A trusted scientist inside the system

Everything changed for a data scientist in 2021.
Let’s call him Dr. Albert.

By that time, he was a senior Government of Canada data scientist, widely known inside his organization and beyond. For more than 15 years, he had dedicated his career to evaluating commercial vendor systems for the federal government—especially biometric technologies—where performance, reliability, bias, and degradation over time are critical.

His role was not theoretical. He was trusted precisely because he could identify:

• when a system underperformed,

• when performance varied across populations,

• when vendor claims did not match real-world results,

• and when risks increased quietly over time.

His advice mattered. Decisions were made based on it.

He represented his agency at major conferences, including Government of Canada–wide and Statistics Canada–led data science events. He led workshops and seminars for years, teaching other government data scientists how to visualize data responsibly using modern tools—how to let evidence speak clearly, without distortion.

He inspired many colleagues to embrace data science, not as a buzzword, but as a discipline grounded in accountability.

It felt like a mutual relationship.
He respected his employer.
He trusted the institution.
And it seemed—until then—that the institution trusted him.

Doing what “good citizens” were told to do

When COVID vaccines became available, Dr. Albert did not hesitate.

He and his family were among the first to get vaccinated. Not because of pressure, but because it aligned with his values at the time: protect the community, reduce harm, trust public institutions.

He believed the messaging.
He believed the intent.
He believed the science would be transparent.

Then reality entered his own home.

Side effects close to home, not on the news

The first cracks were not abstract statistics. They were people living with him.

Several relatives in his household experienced health issues shortly after vaccination. Most troubling was his 85-year-old father-in-law, who lived with the family.

Before the pandemic, his father-in-law was remarkably active for his age. He biked regularly. He swam—both in pools and at Ottawa beaches—almost every day in the summer. He was independent, energetic, and mentally sharp.

Crucially, he was safe at home:

• no exposure to the virus,

• no long-term care facility,

• no retirement residence,

• no institutional risk environment.

Statistically, he was in one of the lowest-risk living situations imaginable.

After receiving his Moderna shot, he developed shingles and never fully recovered.

The doctor was categorical:
“It wasn’t caused by the vaccine. It just coincided.”

But to Dr. Albert—trained for decades to detect timing-related anomalies in complex systems—the wording was chilling.

Coincided exactly after.

This mattered. Not because it proved causation, but because dismissal without investigation violated everything he knew about responsible risk analysis.

His father-in-law can no longer bike.
He can no longer swim.
He never returned to his previous baseline.

And no one wanted to talk about it.

Looking for information—and finding emptiness

Dr. Albert did what he always did when something didn’t add up: he looked for source documentation.

He searched for official vaccine information—risk disclosures, adverse-event probabilities, post-marketing safety summaries.

What he found was astonishing.

The leaflets were effectively blank.

No meaningful discussion of risk.
No quantified uncertainty.
No transparent trade-offs.

Even routine medical procedures disclose rare adverse outcomes—one in ten thousand, one in a hundred thousand. Here, nothing.

He tried to report suspected side effects. But again, the system closed ranks. Physicians explained the events away as coincidence. Case closed.

At that stage, he still trusted the process. He assumed investigation would happen elsewhere. He assumed data would eventually surface.

Bulgaria: when reality didn’t match the narrative

In the summer of 2021, Dr. Albert traveled to visit his relatives in Bulgaria with his daughter.

What he encountered shocked him—not medically, but intellectually.

No masks.
No enforcement.
No panic.
No public hostility.

Public transport ran normally. Daily life continued.

In Canada, he had been told—repeatedly—that the virus was so deadly that masks were a moral necessity. People were publicly shamed or even assaulted for non-compliance.

Here, none of that existed.

Vaccination uptake was also low.

At first, he rationalized it: They’ll pay the price. Their hospitals will collapse.

Still, the discrepancy lodged itself in his mind:

If this virus was universally catastrophic in the way it was described, why did public behavior vary so radically from country to country?

And then he started following the numbers…

What became clear—something easily verifiable today—was this:

• Bulgaria experienced a sharp mortality surge early in the pandemic, concentrated among the oldest and weakest populations.

• Since 2022, Bulgaria (along with Slovakia, where Dr. Albert also has relatives and other low-vaccination countries) has shown some of the lowest—and even negative—excess mortality in Europe.

• Over a multi-year horizon (2020–2025), total mortality in several low-vaccination countries is lower than in many high-vaccination countries.

This pattern is not mysterious. It is demographically expected:
When the frailest populations die earlier, subsequent years show lower mortality among the remaining, healthier population.

Yet this reality was absent from Canadian discourse.

And unlike high-vaccination countries, low-vaccination countries now face the future with a different uncertainty profile—because the long-term effects of mass vaccination are still unknown.

What is known—through Pfizer’s own regulatory documents—is deeply concerning, particularly regarding reproductive harms. And much more remains hidden or actively suppressed.

The silence itself became data.

“No one will be forced”—until they were

Back in Canada, Dr. Albert continued trusting what he was told at the highest level.

The Prime Minister had said no one would be forced to vaccinate. Dr. Albert believed him. He had voted for the Liberal Party consistently since becoming a Canadian citizen after immigrating from Ukraine.

He reassured others: It will remain a choice.

That had always been the Canadian way. Flu vaccines were encouraged, not coerced. Even for animals, vaccination is recommended, not forced.

You vaccinate because it helps.
Not because you are coerced.

Then, unexpectedly, the message changed, the promise broke.

The same government that promised choice began signaling exclusion:

Get vaccinated—or lose access.
Get vaccinated—or be restricted.
Get vaccinated—or be removed from normal life.

Vaccination became a condition for participation in society:

• employment,

• travel,

• movement,

• dignity.

For Dr. Albert, this wasn’t just political. It wasn’t just frustrating.

It was personally destabilizing.

Because he could not reconcile two things:

1. The idea that Canada believed so strongly in consent and rights

2. The reality of a mandate that treated dissent as unacceptable

Still, even at that stage, he did not become “anti-vaccine.”
He remained calm.
He remained scientific.

He believed that the data would eventually make everything consistent again.

The scientist’s expectation: post-marketing proof

Dr. Albert had a simple, evidence-based expectation:

Once post-marketing data arrived, it would prove that the fully vaccinated would have dramatically lower rates of infection and death—perhaps by orders of magnitude—just as public messaging implied.

As a system evaluator, he expected that post-marketing data would soon demonstrate overwhelming benefit: dramatic reductions in infection and death, rendering mandates unnecessary.

He expected the kind of clarity that makes mandates unnecessary:
numbers so strong that people choose voluntarily. That is how effective technologies behave.

But by September 2021, real-world data began appearing publicly.

And when he examined it himself, he saw something deeply troubling:

• no clear prevention of transmission,

• no sustained protection,

• and emerging signals of harm.

This was not ideology. It was pattern recognition.

For the first time, it became possible to compare outcomes across groups—not through slogans, but through real-world metrics.

Not just “not as good as promised.”

He saw patterns that suggested that so-called fully vaccinated were not clearly safer in the way the public had been told to assume.

At minimum, the story was no longer simple.

At minimum, it demanded honest discussion.

A conscientious decision

Dr. Albert reached a conclusion he could not ignore.

Based on official government data, the risk of another dose outweighed the benefit—for him personally, and - as consequence - for others too

So he filed a conscientious exemption.

He did not protest.
He did not campaign.
He simply refused to lie to himself.

He believed in Dharma - that he needs to do what is right. And he believed in Karma - that if, he does not do what he needs to do, there will be bad, very bad consequences for him in this or other lives.

He also believed that his conscientious believe would be respected.

January 11: denial without explanation

He continued working normally into early 2022, expecting that his exemption request would be assessed with professional transparency.

Then, on January 11, everything collapsed.

His Director General sent him an email stating that his religious accommodation request had been denied.

When he asked why, no reason was provided.
When he asked who made the decision, he was told that information could not be disclosed.

That moment created a rupture.

Because suddenly the institution he trusted—the one that celebrated him as a scientist, a teacher, a public servant, and a professional—was operating like an opaque authority instead of a rational employer.

The most disturbing part was not the denial itself.

It was the absence of accountability:
No explanation.
No dialogue.
No identifiable decision-maker.

Only a command—and a consequence.

The institution he had trusted for decades suddenly became opaque.

“Just show me it’s good”

Dr. Albert met over MS Teams with his Director General (Chief Data Officer) and then with his direct manager - Director (Data Science Division) and spoke in the most friendly manner he could, as he always did when chatting with them in the past - as they were good colleagues for several years now, always helping each other as much as they could:

He was willing to do what was right for the country.
He was willing to protect the community.
He was willing to be convinced.

He only asked for one thing:

Show me the evidence.

His Director suggested that he watch the corporate COVID-19 vaccine training.

But the “training,” he discovered, was not training at all.

It was promotional content:
No interactive questions
No debate
No updated scientific discussion
No acknowledgement of emerging real-world data

Worse, the content had been created in the summer 2021—before post-marketing data was available. And it was January 2022 already.

So Dr. Albert asked for an updated version.

A new briefing. A new training. A new scientific summary that reflected the data that now existed.

But no another training or information was available anywhere. In fact, even the old “training” video - coincidentally - was removed from CSPS (Canadian School of Public Service) training website, so he could not watch it again. - The first time when he watched it was in October 2021, when he was still believing everything the Liberal Government he voted for was telling him (including that no-one would be forced to take vaccines), so he did not pay much attention to all details there. When he indicated this to his Director, the response was “you already watched, that’s enough”, but “yes, if new video comes up, I will let you know”. But new video never came up. Even many weeks later.

In meanwhile, Dr. Albert started seeking for more updated evidence himself, starting from the Office of Chief Science Advisor, Dr. Mona Nemer. Then he found the Chief Science Advisor’s report released in summer 2021 before mandates were annouced and noticed that even there, some major concerns were already raised—including the risk of myocarditis, the lack of post-marketing data and the need to follow the data closely once they become available. These were exactly the concerns he had himself., which deserved follow-up, clarification, and ongoing discussion. However no such discussion or follow-up ever happened. Never. Ever. Anywhere. Still.

He wanted to speak with the Chief Science Advisor directly.

Because the post-marketing evidence—now available—was, in his view, even more troubling than what had been known before.

And that is where the true story begins.

Because what happens when a scientist asks for evidence…
and the system refuses to discuss it?

What comes next (Episode 2 preview)

Episode 2 follows what happened when Dr. Albert began asking formally—inside the institution—for updated data, safe discussion, and professional review.

He asked the most basic scientific question—“Can we review the updated data?”

And this began to transform him from valued expert to something much bigger than he himself could imagine.

Support This Work Across All Channels

If you believe in open dialogue, informed choice, and exploring underreported perspectives, help keep the conversation going—like and share this article on your preferred platform. I write these articles on my own time as a contribution to my community—especially for those seeking truth and guidance in these increasingly censored times. Your support—through follows, likes, and shares—makes a real difference. You can follow me here: LinkedIn | Facebook | Twitter/X | YouTube (@Dr.Dmitry.Gorodnichy) | YouTube (@IVIM)