This is a brilliant exposition & very clearly written. Thanks so much!!

Btw, an early study from Italy (Systemic and mucosal antibody secretion specific to SARS-CoV-2 during mild versus severe COVID-19; https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.21.108308v1 ) reported that:

“Interestingly, we were able to detect S protein-specific IgA in the mucosal samples of several subjects in the absence of seropositivity. Additionally, a few other individuals also had detectable S protein-specific IgG in their nasal fluids despite being IgG seronegative”


“Interestingly, in 15–20% of S protein-seronegative individuals, we were able to detect S protein-specific IgA antibodies at several mucosal sites. Furthermore, mucosal S protein-specific IgA levels inversely correlated with patient age, suggesting increased mucosal antibody responses in younger SARS-CoV-2-exposed individuals”.

Considering that the trial participants were heavily tilted in favor of younger ppl, well.....

I wonder what might turn up if there was mucosal antibody surveillance on trial participants, which could capture the more mild cases that didn't seroconvert. If for instance in the placebo there is higher proportion/incidence of mucosal Abs w/o humoral Abs, that would imply that *severity* was higher in the vax arm.

Expand full comment

👆 THIS 👆 Is why I'm a paid subscriber!

Expand full comment

Great analysis - this doesn’t even touch on the trial exclusions - something like 300 dropped from vax arm vs only 60ish from placebo arm. Swamps the so-called efficacy on its own, especially in light of the non-blinded, Pfizer run, credible whistleblower claims of fraud. These could just be the vax injured or severe illness removed from the data. Hard to say, but it’s hard to imagine how 300 people from the treatment arm violated protocol? They already got the shot. Perhaps the 60 from the placebo arm unblinded early and got shots, but it doesn’t explain the discrepancy. This also doesn’t address the over 3,000 folks vax and placebo both that presented with symptoms but Pfizer didn’t bother to test. Even IF the PCR was a valid test and therefore maybe a viable endpoint proxy - unless they tested everyone the numbers don’t mean anything. Even the N-Abs numbers, are those from the whole trial? Or just a small, tested subset? The whole thing stinks; especially when given both the history of animal and previous human trials for both coronavirus vaccines and mRNA products, there was never any evidence to suggest either safety or efficacy expectations.

Expand full comment


Your dogged persistence is admirable however I worry that Pfizer may try to get at you perhaps they already have tried. Stay strong. Your presentation is excellent and could be understood by this simple layman.

Expand full comment

One of the best essays I’ve read during this ridiculous covid crisis. Outstanding.

Expand full comment
Jun 28, 2022Liked by Phil Harper

Just above the Pfizer CEO, you say the jab was tested over 120 months in 2019. Thats surely 2020?

Expand full comment

Yes, it's supposed to mean that "starting at the tail end of 2019", but it wasn't very clear. I changed it.

Expand full comment

I was a faithful multiple account jikkyleaks follower until my permanent suspension. He was on to the truth I believe for a long time concerning the purposeful deception. Your article brings it down to a level that easily points out the discrepancy’s for all of us to understand. If only this article could be aired to the masses. Even the most ardent supporters might see the cracks in the company run trials and public claims. Thank you for continuing to dig for truth and transparency.

Expand full comment

1. Phil, this is totally brill...and crystal clear. May it change many minds.

2. “Folk theory” (a sweet euphemism...well played) seems to me to be pure propaganda.

3. Where would we be without Jikky?!? I shudder on a cellular level to even consider. The mighty #mousearmy is wildly courageous, brilliant, and, in the parlance of Mainers, wicked cunnin’. #inmousewetrust ❤️🐭❤️

Expand full comment

Thank you for this excellent deep analysis. One thing that I believe you didn’t include is the fact that WHO they decided to test was subjective and that there were hundreds of people in the vaccine arm who had symptoms but weren’t tested.. am I remembering correctly?

(And of course remember that Brook Jackson documented that the subjects were unblinded, so it’s very easy to believe that they chose to test placebo recipients and not vaccine recipients.)

Expand full comment

Great analysis. I thought the vaccines were suspect. I mean, we’ve never had a coronavirus vaccine for the common cold and suddenly now multiple pharmaceutical companies can make one just at the right time. The whole thing sounded like a Kickstarter grift to me.

I think it all comes down to power and money. Trump wanted to get re-elected and the economy needed people to go back to work, so “vaccines” to save the day and as a form of quantitive easing. And pharmaceutical companies would never turn down such an incredible financial opportunity.

What those in power didn’t sufficiently anticipate was a really brave whistleblower, a just judge, an incredible crowd-sourcing effort to dig into everything, and a lot of really pissed off people (myself included) that refused to submit to their fear mongering and who want our countries back in the old normal format, not the stupid new normal.

As an aside, I wonder what number of cycles was used for the PCR testing. And I wonder if the same number of cycles was used for both the vaccinated and placebo arms of the trial.

Expand full comment

Excellent article Phil.

One possible confounder which doesn't seem to have been considered is this:

- The mRNA injections create a dysfunctional immune response.

- This in turn prevents symptoms such as sore throat and cough from developing (without actually affceting viral load - this is supported by several studies).

- If they don't develop symptoms they wouldn't have come forward for testing in the trial.

- On the other hand the unvaccinated have a normal immune response.

This is of course consistent with the vaccines having no effect on transmission, and probably the opposite effect as it makes people more likley to be unknown spreaders (as noted in the nearly ubiquitous spikes in cases post rollout).

Put differently, the trial is only measuing the ability to reduce mild symptoms. It makes an assumption that reduced mildly symptomatic Covid is good.

That only holds if the reduction in mild symptoms is in some way linked to the propensity to develop severe disease. That seems a log way from being a given. It seems that the likelihood of developing severe disease - especially as exposure was basically unavoidable - was always linked more to underlying health.

In fact, it now seems likely that the reduction in symptoms effected by the vaccines actually represents a blunted the immune response, with the result that vaccinees have (for some period of time as yet unknown) a narrower immune respnse and hence greater susceptibility to infection with the latest "variant".

Needless to say, this is the polar opposite of what was intended and promised, but it is what must surely be expected if you try to "game" the human immune system, which has evolved over millions of years to cope with this sort of scenario.

Expand full comment

BTW this is not to say that the 162 v 8 numbers hold up to scrutiny...all the dropouts / non-tested subjects are all deeply suspicious.

Expand full comment

Thank you for yet another clear and thorough analysis, which deserves to be widely shared and demands a response from authorities, if not from Pfizer itself.

Expand full comment

Yes it is in my opinion. The not so obvious thing is why die almost all of the western world health officers and Governments go along with it whilst at the same time banning the use of and claiming disinformation for treatment protocols? Can this really be WEF influence? Hard to imagine so but at the same time hard to believe it wasn’t. Seriously immoral and in ethical behavior by Governments and bureaucrats one way or another.

Expand full comment

Have you considered submitting a FOI request to June Raine etc focusing on what was known about the trial antibody data before approval & subsequently? Date when antibody data made available, all correspondence meetings & discussion relating to it, etc?

Strikes me that the results of such a FOI would be useful whatever the result - either they didn’t see the data; or they saw it but didn’t appreciate its significance; or they did see it & understand it but decided to conceal this understanding.

Expand full comment

Really good piece, BTW. Thank you.

Expand full comment

“If you look, you’ll see that out of 18,325 people in the placebo group, only 162 went on to get sick with Covid-19.”

As I understand it, phases I, II and III trial protocols were “designed to tabulate final efficacy results once 150 to 160 trial participants develop symptomatic COVID-19,” meaning they stopped counting, yes? Please correct me if I misunderstood as I have zero educational background.

I read many, many comments from those Pfizer and Moderna enrolled, trying to let the CDC, etc., know they had severe problems (e.g., debilitating flare-ups of previously well managed chronic diseases). Calls, letters – no response. Once the trial was over, they were useless. These people didn’t even sound angry, they considered it part of their duty to report.

Phase I – Pfizer’s ended at 170 participants (44,000 volunteers); Moderna at 95 (30,000 volunteers). Boom. Safety covered.

I assume Moderna got away with just 95 participants because the trial protocols (most) specified at least one interim analysis which allowed the trials to end with even fewer data accrued.

Quotes and numbers from Peter Doshi’s Oct. 2020 Will covid-19 vaccines save lives?

Expand full comment