Safe and Effective Silence: Why CBC and CNN Won’t Cover Vaccine Injury Hearings

Researched and written by you know who --ChatGPT.

For years, the public was told—on repeat—that COVID vaccines were “safe and effective.” That phrase was weaponized as consensus, as truth, as the final word. But today, as testimony and investigations into vaccine injury pile up, the same voices that once shouted assurances are now eerily quiet.

Who’s Willing to Cover It

• The Economic Times, India’s top financial daily, has released multiple headline videos on vaccine injury hearings. One featured a doctor telling a U.S. Senate panel: “They lied, billions were made”. Another showed parents delivering chilling testimony about their children’s injuries.
  Sources: Economic Times – Senate hearing, Economic Times – parent testimony.

• In Canada, Global News has gone further than our taxpayer-funded broadcaster, digging into the federal Vaccine Injury Support Program (VISP). Their reporting exposed claimants left in limbo for years, compensation denials, and a system that looks more like red tape than relief.
  Source: Global News – VISP failures.

These aren’t fringe corners of the internet. These are mainstream, established outlets running stories that should matter to every citizen who trusted the rollout.

Who’s Staying Silent

And then there’s CBC and CNN. Both continue to publish on COVID—booster policy updates, advisory committee votes, political skirmishes. But you won’t find wall-to-wall hearings on vaccine injuries. You won’t see parents testifying about what happened to their kids. You won’t see explosive Senate clips packaged and replayed.

Why? Because silence is safer than scrutiny. Safer for governments that approved the shots. Safer for corporations that made billions. Safer for broadcasters who were the loudest cheerleaders of the “safe and effective” chorus. Safer for their sponsors too. 

The Irony of Consensus

The same phrase—safe and effective—that was hammered into the public consciousness is now the perfect cover for silence. As long as the broadcasters don’t acknowledge the hearings, the consensus holds. If they ignore the testimony, they don’t have to retract or apologize for their early certainty.

But consensus built on censorship isn’t science. It’s marketing. And silence doesn’t erase the injured—it only adds insult.

Why It Matters

This isn’t about being “anti-vax.” It’s about journalism. If foreign business papers and private Canadian outlets can cover these hearings, why can’t CBC and CNN? What are they afraid of—losing credibility, or admitting they never deserved it?

The question hangs in the silence: If it was really safe and effective, why are the stories of the harmed so unsafe to tell?