The figure of 20 million is sheer fiction and applies to a parallel universe. It was probably derived from mathematical modelling, based on dozens of unfounded assumptions and faulty input parameters. No one seems to be held to account. By the way, the clinical trials were not conducted on a population "at higher risk". On the contrary, older people were underrepresented.

Expand full comment

Here’s another question… Why are they lying?

Expand full comment

The problem is, lay people are speaking differently languages than the data analysts in the medical field. And big pharma knows this and they are happy to confuse and mislead people. People who think these vaccines save lives are comparing apples to oranges and they are confused about what the trials actually showed. I am no expert but what I keep seeing is that the people (corporate media, politicians, public health officials, etc) are explaining that the vaccines save lives by extrapolating the data that showed a reduction of mild to moderate symptoms and then projecting that as an automatic life saved. It didn’t even mean that they didn’t contract the virus (SARS cov 2) it just meant that they had slightly less symptomatic disease (COVID 19). But they are completely unaware that they are ignoring mortality data from the trials, which is illogical because they are trying to say that a reduction in symptoms IS a mortality benefit.

This is the dirty trick that pharma has been playing for decades. People who don’t understand the research automatically assume that the pharmaceutical companies would be testing their products to see if it save lives. Like, duh, why else would you test medication, right? This absolutely SHOULD be the point of any trial involving a medical intervention but the company stated specifically (this information was not widely reported but yet could be found in the papers when they applied for EUA) that they did not look to see if there was a mortality benefit They didn’t even look for a reduction in hospitalization or reduction in transmission. This is why they used COVID-19 instead of SARS-CoV-2. One is the disease and one is the virus that causes the disease. They didn’t look for any of those end points, I assume, because the trials would have failed. But most people don’t know this. They just assume when Borla comes out and gives his press release and talks about a 94% effective rate, that he means that 94% of people in the trial had their life saved. Of course most people know about the scam of the relative risk reduction vs the total risk reduction so I won’t explain that. If people end up with a reduction in symptoms (from a disease that they probably wouldn’t have died from anyway) but they have a heart attack due to the vaccine, there is nothing in the declared data end points that would highlight this non-specific effect.

Same trick happened with the remdesivir trial. They actually changed the end point during the trial from a reduction in mortality to a shorter stay in the hospital (which can be manipulated by those performing the trial, just like manipulating the symptoms of covid in the covid vaccine trial, which was not properly blinded and did not last long enough to see waning immunity... convenient).

This same trick is used with vaccines on the childhood schedule. No one is testing them long term for non-specific effects or from accumulative effects and they don’t even use a true placebo.

The same trick is used with statin drugs. People confuse “lowering cholesterol“ with “saving a life”. They are not the same thing.

I may be off track here but that’s what I see happening. It’s all an intentional muddying of the data by using misleading language and cherry picked end points. Manipulating the messaging here and keeping people confused is more important than the data when you are trying to push through approval of dangerous, expensive, worthless interventions.

Butchered by Healthcare is a great read about some of the shenanigans. There are others too.

Expand full comment
Sep 30, 2022Liked by Phil Harper

It's actually worse than 15-14 in all-cause mortality--as RFK Jr. points out in The Real Anthony Fauci, Pfizer hid five more deaths in the fine print of its study. 20 died in the vaccine arm.

Expand full comment

For the fake vax to have saved 20 million lives, given the rona’s low fatality rate something like 14 billion people would have needed to be injected with the magic juice (and for it to work, which we know it basically doesn’t).

20 million lives saved is a preposterous whopper even for the lying fake media.

Expand full comment

When you go the first Pfizer documents describing whom they would take among the ~40,000 volunteers, there were NO cancer patients, no HIV patients, no pregnant women, no old people allowed... Everyone needed to be extremely HEALTHY!!! Aren't these 'not allowed' the 'higher risk groups'?? Also when you look carefully at the symptoms in the control group, they have REMARKABLY similar issues to the injected. Very high fever, vomiting after salt solution, for example? And since the final statistics was including in the control group something like ~160 who tested positive and contributed to the '95% efficiency', and the number of these 'side effects' was much larger than that, that would imply, the control group was very suspicious, that's why after 6 months, it was annihilated, literally.

It really didn't seem to me right when I was reading the first NJEM report, but from which one was clear, the younger the participants, the more sever reactions to the synthetic mmRNA... Please do not talk about 'covid vaccines' which are NOT. More on it at:


Expand full comment

It also explains why Pfizer requested the data withheld for 75 years!! I saw the first two COURT ORDERED releases, but don't recall any since-are you able to access the newer data? Thank you for being a Digger!!

Expand full comment

Excellent! I can actually follow your logic! Questions:

1. Were the 14 placebo deaths Covid deaths? If not, what did they die of? What was given to the placebo group? What did the 15 die of? What is the probability that some of those would have died anyway?

2. I cannot fathom ANY data being 100% correct. Too many variables that would skew end results. No one kept statistics exactly the same. So I trust none of it.

Thank you for showing (in principle) the sensible picture.

Expand full comment

Absolute lies and they know it. AZ and J&J quietly "disappeared" from use and the hype merchants are silent. Pfizer and Moderna now withdrawn for use by many countries concerned by the "risk factor" except for the older comorbidity group (0.5% of the market).

The politically corrupt keep referring to deaths "within 28 days of a positive test" which way overstates numbers. They should be using cause of death as a direct RESULT of the aftermath of covid. The number reduces by about 90%.

They cannot provide true facts because they do not have hard evidence.

What we all do know is the fact that 80% to 90% of those deaths as a direct result of the aftereffects due to covid could have been saved IF they had been treated with effective, safe and cheap repurposed drugs (IVM etc).

They are trying to justify the huge taxpayer funded failure of ineffective "vaccines" and their criminal avoidance of effective treatments.

Expand full comment

Nice work Phil. These damn msm outlets are given free reign to print misinformation over and over again. It is upsetting and it is dangerous. When will they be held accountable for endangering lives?

Expand full comment

Excellent examination of the factual data against the government claims..... clearly described and explained in simple and lucid terms.

Expand full comment

This is no different than the claim that Biden received 81,000,000 legitimate votes.

Expand full comment

This "20 million" claim sounds a lot like "97% of scientists agree human beings are causing global warming." No basis in fact. A fiction spread by media and other influencers. Such fiction is lethal in the hands of a power-lusting bureaucrat.

Expand full comment

Good blog. You missed one salient point, the placebo/control was divided into 3. True saline on the second round but this on the first round and for the other 'control' group: unbelievably it was Meningococcal vaccine with a terrible track record for adverse events and deaths!

What a great ploy to skew, distort the outcomes? Scan the saline column and we see there are hardly any adverse reactions and zero deaths.

It's buried way down toward the end of the document. Wish I could post photos as I have the relevant page screen shot.

Expand full comment

The Pfizer trial shows "healthy people" in the inclusion criteria. Section 5.1 of the NEJM published protocol. Why did you state that the Pfizer trial was focused on "high risk" participants? This doesn't change your conclusion, something is out-of-whack with the "lives-saved" estimate.

Expand full comment