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

Wasn't the 20 million number based on the assumed correctness of the original Neil Ferguson/ Imperial College London model that freaked out the world in early 2020 and led to widespread lockdowns? Neil Ferguson, by the way, who has an abysmal track record with his sensationalistic modeling.

Expand full comment

I guess it was this heavily sponsored publication (with the BMG signatures allover it): https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(22)00320-6/fulltext

Expand full comment

Here’s another question… Why are they lying?

Expand full comment

Back in November, reports surfaced that the fully vaccinated were getting infected and that omicron was replacing the earlier versions of the virus. The spin-doctors narrative was failing. So they had to admit that it only reduced severity of infection and saved some vaccinated people from death. To bolster the 'saving people from death', it was necessary to produce flawed studies based only upon modeled projections about how many lives were saved. Modeling is not an exact science but rather a bit like weather forecasting, easy to miss sufficient data that provides accurate resolution. Readers of the report don't know what's missing, so assume it is comprehensive. The reports claimed the desired objective and the legacy media was more than happy to parrot the wonderful news. It's a lie of course!

Expand full comment

My above assertion is supported here..

This paper; "Commentary on “Global impact of the first year of COVID-19 vaccination: a mathematical modelling study. The Lancet Infectious Diseases. 2022, Jun 23” by Spiro Pantazatos and Herve Seligmann.

"Identifies potential sources of model misspecification including inaccurate assumptions about vaccine-derived immunity and ignoring additional contributors of pandemic-related excess deaths. We describe how these factors could lead to grossly inflated estimates of deaths averted due to mass vaccinations, which may explain the study's lack of face validity and internal consistency."

Expand full comment

MODELLING = FECAL matter IN => fecal matter OUT

Expand full comment

A Brief Report paper by Denis G. Rancourt et al, "Proof that Canada’s COVID-19 mortality

statistics are incorrect" takes a look at Canada's Chief Public Health Officer claim that "without the use of restrictive measures and without high levels of vaccination, Canada could have experienced substantially higher numbers of infections and hospitalizations and almost a million deaths.”. This count "is a product of their theoretical modelling exercise. All such models

applied to nations have been shown to often be grossly unreliable.".

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

Prof Norman Fenton, Maths and Risk Assessment stats man has done a few vids on YT and his website which accurately show true figures and a true risk assessment. Interesting to watch but if you are short on time, then let me tell you there are no benefits!

Expand full comment

Yes, agree, they are completely worthless. If they have studied them longer than 2 months before unblinding the trial, it would have risked allowing more transparency of the very high risks.

There are little benefit to most pharmaceutical drugs in the market. This is one reason why our life expectancy overall has started a downward trend over the last decade, poor lifestyle choices combined with toxic medication.

Expand full comment
Oct 17, 2022·edited Oct 17, 2022

"Manipulating the messaging here and keeping people confused is more important than the data"

Absolutely. As reported in his book "Risk Savvy: How to Make Good Decisions" Gerd Gigerenzer, after giving a talk in which he describe how relative risk is misrepresented to the public, a pharmaceutical executive came up to him afterwards and said "Very interesting, but we will of course go on using relative risks for advertising benefits.”

Surrogate endpoints and non-placebo placebos are other forms of hanky-panky, not to mention abstruse statistical manipulations.

Another great book about this is Malcolm Kendrick's "Doctoring data : how to sort out medical advice from medical nonsense."

Expand full comment

Interesting. It’s so awful. The industry is preying in the fact that people trust doctors and the medical field in general. People are waking up though.

“Sickening“ by Abramson is another excellent book about pharmaceutical fraud. It was amazing, except for the fact that the author somehow thinks universal healthcare is the cure and that Covid vaccines are an excellent idea. It was kind of mind-boggling to read the book and see what a good grasp he had on pharmaceutical fraud but then to see him completely compartmentalize the rest of medicine from the vaccine industry which is the exact same companies. It was kind of an astonishing level of cognitive dissidence.

It’s good to have resources to protect yourself from modern medicine. But also, a really good idea to try and avoid it by eating and living as if your life depends on it. I better go eat some more vegetables! Haha

Expand full comment

I agree with your final statement, except I'm going to go eat more red meat 😜

Expand full comment

Brandy Vaughan said in a video that for vaccine trials, they actually use another authorised and licensed vaccine as the control, not a harmless placebo like saline. This is better for pharma to get a more favourable outcome as some people would have adverse reactions to the "placebo." It's a long time ago now, but I seem to recall a BBC journalist mentioning the Astra Zenica trials using a meningitis vaccine as the control. Strictly speaking the gene therapy injections are not "vaccines" per se so should have all had harmless saline as control. But then, they just change the definitions of everything to suit themselves, don't they?

Expand full comment

So much manipulation.

RIP brandy Vaughn She was a warrior.

Expand full comment

'they actually use another authorised and licensed vaccine as the control'

Exactly what I was referring to. Jiggery-pokery on every front.

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

I'm going to look at this

Expand full comment

Phil, I think the numbers ended up being 21 dead in the vaccinated and 17 in the placebo.

Read both of these:



(Esp of 23)

Expand full comment

The 21-17 total deaths includes the 1-2 covid death figures.

Expand full comment

It’s also relevant to read about the observational studies that were published after the Pfizer trial. Some of these suggest that all-cause mortality is better for the vaccinated.

See: https://medium.com/microbial-instincts/no-all-cause-mortality-benefit-in-pfizers-clinical-trial-for-mrna-vaccine-why-6d89b1de0c8d

A perfect subject for a Digger!!

Expand full comment

That medium article you cite is useful, but it could have been written by a pharma rep. If the pfizer trial of plus 44000 participants was underpowered to study all-cause deaths—it most certainly is—it is also too paltry to study its primary endpoint, covid infection. Particularly since the participants were nearly all young and healthy, with the already ill, the pregnant, and the old almost entirely excluded. For FDA regulatory purposes, all deaths in the Pfizer arm of the study must be assumed to have been caused by the intervention unless proved otherwise. P-values are a ridiculous smokescreen to hide the difficult reality: small death numbers or no, the vaccine should never have been approved for use to anyone.

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

"...when you look carefully at the symptoms in the control group, they have REMARKABLY similar issues to the injected." That's because the control used was Meningococcal vaccine, also a deadly cocktail with appalling track record.

I can't talk of the pfizzer trial but I do have the Moderna saved and the cohort was divided into 3, mRNA vacs, Meningococcal and true saline. Scanning the saline column we see very few adverse events, like mostly zero and no deaths.

The Meningococcal was used to maliciously skew the results in favour of making the mRNA look good.

Expand full comment

Thanks for that info, but I remember that apparently the Pfizer control was just the saline solution and there where also all the strange symptoms. All what one can probably tell, not knowing what's really in the injection materials, just not to trust anything what the drug cartels are presenting to their victims.

Expand full comment

As I think I said, I can't talk about the pfizzer jabby, the one I have on hard drive is the Vaxzevria. trial, the only one available back then.

Is the pfizzer trial data available now?

The mention of Meningococcal was buried in 5 point print as a note between 2 charts way down the end of the document. Beneath table 33 on page 129.

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

It’s been a while since I listened to reviews of the data but if I remember correctly, there were two COVID deaths in the placebo group and one in the vaccine group. So from a covid standpoint, that would be considered 100% effective (RFK jr discussed this data analysis trick a few times in presentations).

There were something like 4 heart attacks in the COVID vaccine group and only one in the placebo. So this should have been a safety signal for heart problems but since mortality reduction wasn’t a stated end goal, it was ignored, to everyone’s detriment except shareholders in the vaccine.

I think the number of deaths was considered statistically insignificant (similar to the total risk reduction rate), technically. After they unblinded the study (2 months in) they gave the placebo group the covid vaccine and another few people died soon after. Another safety signal.

Will look forward to reading other answers to your questions.

Expand full comment

I've listened and read lots regarding Shizer trial. Lots of anomalies from managing to recruit 3k in one week by a single person (it should take at least 30 mins if not more to explain trial protocols, get medical history, screen for eligibilty, explain what could go wrong, tell them what their role is with follow up appointments and what to if something goes wrong or they wish to withdraw. There are many pages to a consent form and they have to be initialed by the subject for each of the points AND they are done in triplicate, one copy for subject to take away, one for trial site office records and last copy gets sent to main trial office. I used to be admin at hospital study centre. What I am impying is that it would not be physically possible to recruit more than 10 a day and they'd have to be lined up to. This would account for missing signatures, wrong dates and lots of vital missing info on the forms the whistleblower talked about. There also was the problem of lots people dropping out and not accounted for. None of these patient forms I believe were released for scrutiny and I think it war only about 9 of over 100 that received an inspection to ensure good clinical practise. The one particular site the whistleblower reported on did not get inspected, she got sacked instead. Not everyone with symptoms got tested. It was supposed to be a double blinded randomised trial, which you have to explain to them. Simply put, they could get the real one or placebo and double blinded means noone, not even in the study would know either. But this aspect of protocol was not adhered to and trial people could see. This could have led to bias in testing or not. Not good clinical practise at all. I've read more about other trials data being submitted for approval without any trial actually being done! What a set of crooks this business is and it the one that has the biggest growth. 9 of over 100 different study sites I meant to say. On both arms they died of various things, definitely not all covid. Now I cannot confirm this but I think I heard UK news man early days saying on Astra Zenica trial that the control (placebo) arm where given a meningitis shot. Brandy Vaughan who used to speak out before they made sure she never spoke again, said that trials for vaccines were able to use another vaccine to test against which also have side effects so you don't get a true result as this skews end result in favour of the one on trial.

Expand full comment

Sorry about how this has repeated in places.

Expand full comment

Meningococcal was given to the control. It has a bad track record.

Expand full comment

I had heard that the “placebo” was one with a more high risk profile but I could not remember which one. It’s just layers and layers of fraud.

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

People seriously voted for TFG, then decided that they needed SEDITION to correct the errors??? Most are still running around with WEAPONS!! What does this have to do with the Pfizer Documents????????

Expand full comment

You need a lot of data to get the full picture. 2030 Sustainable Development Goals hide a 6 arm scheme to gradually murder global population with:

1. Tainted food and water

2. Lethal “medicine”: lab designed bioweapons (like COVID and the ones blocked by the war in Ukraine), measures (lockdowns), treatments, pharmaceuticals/vaccines/haccines, changed definition of death to murder and harvest “presumed organ donors”

3. Longterm harmful microwaves (satellite, 5/6/7G, cellphone attacks)

4. Nuclear radiation

5. Climate changing (droughts, floods) through satellites, cell towers, ground stations and chemtrails

6. Choking digi-tatorship

I. Cost of living: deliberate inflation by Government, financial system and forging currency

II. “Eco” measures: banning livestock products (meat, milk, leather) replaced by synthetics, banning non-GMO non-“sterilized” agriculture, bannig fuels (even eco gas, bio fuels), banning combustion vehicles and industries replaced by electric (trillions in solar+wind+batteries+H2)

III. Cashless Central Bank Digital Currency tied to:

a. Diminishing carbon allocation quotas: personal, family (nb children) and collective

b. Universal Basic Income for the millions pushed into deliberate rising unemployment

c. Universal Basic “Health” and health pass: anything that could reduce the population and kill human beings like abortion, abortifacients, contraception, sterilization, external sex change, machine bio-connectivity, tainted medicine, food and water

d. Internet of things and bodies: omnipresent surveillance blocking access to transportation, hospitals, communication (new internet)

7 COVID genocides:


( based on 2000 papers: https://bit.ly/research2000 )




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