A selection of our writings from 2009 to the present. If you'd like to keep up to date with our latest posts, please subscribe below.

More harm than good? Level 1 evidence against Pfizer

Hello dear reader,

Welcome to another week of breaking Covid news. As the dominant narrative falls apart and the corruption becomes increasingly more visible, we’ll be covering it all here, in the absence of a Fourth Estate.

This week we are so grateful to the uncaptured Canadian doctors and scientists who have created a video showing Level 1 evidence Pfizer’s inoculant, Comirnaty, is unsafe and does more harm than good. The presentation is 40 mins in length, and probably the most important independent assessment of Comirnaty since its release last year. We hope you’ll make the time and space to listen and watch.

Please do share this widely, leave comments and feel free to engage with the content here. It is important to have respectful debate and we encourage difference of opinion, but please keep your comments considered, generative and coming.

There will no doubt be serious attacks on the work of the CCCA, and there will be all kinds of so-called Fact-Checkers that will try to tear it to pieces. When looking at the work of Fact Checkers, we always investigate the publisher and the sponsors of them, and much more than not all roads lead to conflicts of interest. For us, the most powerful thing about this presentation is the independent science that uncovers what the profit-driven science attempts to hide, and shines a light on just how embedded government agencies are in Big Pharma giants like Pfizer, which we will continue to expose here until we feel free enough to go back to sharing our neopeasant transition from dependence upon Big Money.

Here is the Canadian Covid Care Alliance website: and here is the PDF they refer to in the presentation.

Signing off in good faith, Artist as Family.

Addendum: 5 hours after publishing this post, the video on our YouTube page was taken down.


  1. Bev Courtney says:

    Thanks for sharing this important video. I wanted to share the whole post to Facebook, but couldn’t find a share button. I’ll link to your site in the comments to the post.

    1. Thanks Bev, this video has just been taken down on YouTube. More on that to come. We also publish it on our Facebook page, so you can share from there too, at least for now.

      1. Bev says:

        I shared it on my Facebook page and so far it’s still there. This whole thing is beyond a joke!

  2. Frankie says:

    Thanks for sharing, your time and energy is very much appreciated. I too have shared this and it was only a matter of minutes before I received backlash from friends/family and had a message from fb/insta warning me sharing false information and that my account would be restricted if I kept sharing false and misleading information.
    One of the ironic/sad parts of the backlash from family/friends is that I shared it as someone who has suffered a “severe immune response” (unfortunately I gave in to the family a few months ago and went against everything my body was telling me. I knew it wasn’t right for me).
    Apologies for the long winded-response and many thanks again

    1. Thanks for sharing a little of your story here, Frankie. We hope you are recovering well and have support in your life. So many people still believe governments have our backs, and unfortunately until many more people have adverse events or breakthrough disease, the official Covid line will remain in tact, and continue to harm people. Please keep us updated of your story, as this is a forum where the silenced and cancelled are listened to. Please be as long-winded as you like. With much love, Patrick and Meg

      1. Al says:

        Very interesting video and analysis. If all the data they are reporting is correct it’s quite damning evidence against Pfizer. Especially the conflict of interest and the profits is disgusting, not too mention the poor 12 year old girl from the trial. Two things: Eriksen the Danish soccer star I believe wasn’t vaccinated so they could check that and take it out or retract it if I’m correct. And I know they say on their website they can’t reveal the names of the 500 doctors because they fear they’ll lose their jobs, but how are they still working as doctors or scientists or in Universities if they are not vaccinated? Are some vaccinated? I can’t find any information on this are you guys able to shed some light on this. Thanks for your work it’s hard to get to the bottom of all this with different information but it always pays to follow the money I guess. Cheers Al.

        1. Al says:

          I find it amusing in one of the critiques I read of the CCCA is that they could be spreading vaccine dis information so as to profit from alternative treatments they prescribe such as ivermectin. They’d have to be prescribing a hell of alot of ivermectin considering how cheap it is to make any money. Kind of hilarious compared to the 9 billion in Pfizer shares that couple made that were part of the review of the Pfizer vaccine trial data.

          1. Al says:

            I know the small video of the soccer player Christian Eriksen being vaccinated isn’t the most important part of the piece but any incorrect information takes a bit of credibility away from the more important information in the rest of the video.

          2. Yes, it’s a shame. We wrote to the CCCA asking if they are issuing a statement about the AFP fact check, which includes the Eriksen claim, and they just wrote back saying yes they are.

          3. Same with us, Al. Each medical centre or pharmacy in Oz gets about $35 for administering a jab. Not many incentives for GPs or chemists to apply the precautionary principle, eh.

        2. Thanks Al, yes there is an AFP fact check piece about the CCCA video that raises the footballer concern and other things. It’s mostly a hit piece and it ignores most of the Level 1 evidence in the video. So we are looking into that claim about Eriksen and much more for our next video. With your second Q, we don’t know at this stage. We have friends in government agencies or in universities who have taken all their owed leave and are laying low, or they are on sick leave, or have stepped down. That doesn’t mean they no longer have the expertise and qualifications. When authoritarianism rises, people start breaking rules. We’re not saying any of the CCCA doctors or scientists are doing that, but resistance to bullying becomes creative by necessity. Thanks for raising these things. X

  3. Frankie says:

    For anyone interested it can still be viewed on rumble – attached below or via the CCCA web page.

    1. Thanks Frankie, it can still be viewed here too, above in this post. And we’re about to publish to Odysee as well as our other platforms, while we still can.

  4. sean says:

    You should start a ‘Rumble’ account and drop Useless tube altogether. It will save a lot of censorship headaches. I understand that the ‘big tech’ sites are still very convenient places to keep in touch with friends but by supporting the growing number of alternative platforms (which are growing very fast) a clear message can be sent to these corrupted platforms. On top of this you will not be being used for data mining.
    Thanks for all the great work keeping us informed. Stay strong. Their narrative gets weaker and more obviously corrupted everyday. Thanks greatly to peeps like you.

    1. Thanks for the tech advice, Sean. We have been encouraging peeps to subscribe here for that same reason – no data mining, no algorithm manipulation. We are currently setting up an Odysee channel, so stay tuned for that. We have about 30,000 followers/subscribers but mostly on Google or Meta (Zuckerberg) platforms. We’ve been actively encouraging people to transition away from these manipulative and paternalistic corporations. So, for us, it’s a planned transition, though we cannot wait to be done with big tech.

  5. Dylan says:

    Thanks again – this video from CCCA is so well made and clear… just wish more people would watch and share it around… I have shared it… Cheers guys!

    1. Thanks Dylan! As mentioned in previous comments there is an AFP fact check piece (or hit piece, really) that has come out and we’ll be doing a deep dive into that in our next video.

  6. Joshua S says:

    Thanks for sharing this!

  7. Argyll says:

    I watched the video “More harm than good” because a family member who found it very interesting shared it with me. A few things initially jumped out at me as being misleading and that prompted me to look further into some of the claims and cross-check with the source documents. I found a number of false or misleading statements in the video, and below I describe some of these. There may be more examples, but I didn’t have time to fact-check every single claim.

    I am not sure why I am sharing my reaction to the video here. I really don’t want to make enemies of any of you! I have no particular agenda and no vested interest in big pharma. I just found this an interesting exercise in doing my own fact-checking.


    The video claims that there were a total of 3410 “suspected but not confirmed” cases who were symptomatic but not tested.
    They say that if you add the suspected cases to the confirmed cases, then the efficacy drops from 95% to only 19%.
    The problem with this claim is that those cases WERE tested for COVID.
    As per the study protocol ( participants with COVID-like symptoms had a PCR test done. The term “suspected, but unconfirmed” means that it was suspected but the PCR test came back negative.

    In the context of the study protocol and the FDA report ( which mentions the 3410 cases, it should be clear what was meant by “suspected but not confirmed”. But even if the people who made the video were unsure, they could have gone back to the study’s researchers to clarify, as did this person – who got confirmation that the term “suspected but unconfirmed” means suspected and had PCR test that was negative:


    The video claims that it is wrong to say the vaccine has 95% efficacy, and that Pfizer should focus on the absolute risk vs relative risk. That is not correct. The relative risk (i.e. efficacy) is an extremely important number, because it tells you to what extent the vaccine works – and in the first 2 months of trial data it was effective in 95% of cases, which is pretty darn good, but obviously not perfect.

    The absolute risk is also an interesting number if you know the real-world absolute risk. The reason why a trial like this doesn’t focus on absolute risk, is that it doesn’t tell you the real-world lifetime absolute risk that you will catch COVID. Instead, it simply tells you the overall fraction of people who caught COVID during that trial, which depends on how long the trial ran for and how prevalent COVID was in the populations at that time.

    For instance, if you ran the trial for only 1 day and no one got COVID, using this video’s logic, you would say that there is a 0% absolute risk of catching COVID even in the unvaccinated, and therefore the vaccine is 0% efficacy. That’s clearly flawed logic! The longer your time period, the higher the fraction of people who will contract COVID, and the higher the absolute risk becomes. Consider places where the absolute risk of catching COVID has been very high – possibly over 50% based on antibody studies (e.g. this study from South Africa Given that we know from antibody studies that there are places around the world where more than 50% of the population got infected, it is outrageous that this video claims that the risk of catching COVID is less than 1%.

    In a population with 50% of people infected, that could have been reduced to only 2.5% of people infected, if you assumed 100% of people were vaccinated with a 95% effective vaccine. (I know that you can’t vaccinated 100% of the population, but you get my point!)
    That’s why the relative risk number & efficacy is the important number to focus on in terms of whether a vaccine works well or not.
    Here’s an article that gives some good info on this topic:


    Early on in the video (slide 9), they criticize the study because of the early unblinding. They correctly state that once the unblinding happened, it ceases to be an RCT because there is no longer any data in the control group to compare to, as virtually all the placebo group chose to move into the vaccine group.

    That is correct, and in some ways I agree that it is a shame that they unblinded the study. Early unblinding does sometimes happen in trials, if they decide that the evidence is so overwhelming that the treatment works that it should be offered to all participants. Here is an interesting article discussing the ethical considerations in making such decisions:

    Anyway, the point is that the video-makers must think the audience has a very short memory, because they subsequently claim that the vaccine caused more deaths than the control group, after adding to the vaccinated cohort’s death count the additional 5 people who died after unblinding. However, as they themselves had earlier pointed out, after unblinding there wasn’t anyone left in the control group to die because they moved to the vaccine group. I.e. it is not surprising that you had more deaths in a big cohort of tens of thousands vs a cohort with virtually nobody.

    The other thing to note about the deaths during the study is that given the relatively small numbers of people who actually got COVID during the trial, I don’t think that the study had the statistical power to pick up on differences in the death count, unless the differences were much bigger.

    However, we now have much more real-world data and a growing number of studies that do show a decrease in all-cause mortality in populations following vaccination campaigns E.g.


    The video voiceover says “The vaccines were tested on the healthy, and then immediately given to the frailest members of the society – elderly and people with multiple health conditions, This is unscientific and unethical, and probably contributed to the rise in COVID19 deaths and all cause mortality”

    The implication that using the vaccine on elderly and vulnerable people has cause a rise in COVID deaths is very strange, as it has been very well documented that COVID hospitalization and death rates in elderly and vulnerable people are drastically lower for those who are fully vaccinated vs those unvaccinated.

    Another statement that seems misguided is that they criticise the study because people over 75 years old represent only 4% of trial subjects, even though they are at the greatest risk of death from COVID. The video argues that the trial’s focus should have been on the target population who could benefit from the treatment. However, the goal of developing a COVID vaccine was to create something safe and effective that could be rolled out to as much of the population as possible – not just elderly people – so they had to ensure that their study had sufficient participants across the age spectrum.


    They claim that the only endpoint considered was vaccine efficacy.
    That is incorrect, as you can see on page 11 of the study protocol ( that shows the endpoints, including adverse events and serious adverse events.


    The video claims that the Pfzier trial falsely boosted their efficacy number by including the 12-15 year old data in their analyses, as there would have been less vaccine waning in that cohort since they started the trial later on.

    However, the efficacy is actually shown separately for the overall population as well as different age groups – see table 3 from the 6-month trial paper (

    You can see that efficacy is 91.3% for the overall population, it is 91.2% for ages 16-55 and 90.0% for people over 55. So it’s not much of a boost, and in fact those three efficacy numbers are all within each other’s 95% Confidence intervals.

    1. Dear Argyll,

      Thanks for taking the time to engage with this material in a scholarly and respectful way. What follows are our responses.

      Firstly, there is a fact-check piece conducted on this video by AFP, which raises some cross over issues to yours. Here is our fact-check of that fact-check:

      We have looked through the Pfizer trial protocol and cannot find anything specific that confirms the 3410 were tested. Could you please cite this? The Atlantic’s hit piece on Alex Berenson cannot be trusted in any reasonable form. Berenson has repeatedly shown up The Atlantic as being industry stooges so their hit piece on him is just ass-covering. A good rebuttal to The Atlantic piece can be accessed by Israeli immunologist, Professor Ehud Qimron, head of the Department of Microbiology and Immunology at Tel Aviv University: Qimron backs up Berenson’s work.

      RE: ARR and RRR. Why are these percentages not in concert with one another? This is argued in this piece: which states: “It is well established that only quoting RRR without quoting the ARR, can inflate or exaggerate an intervention’s effect size and clinical importance, as well as increase people’s willingness to receive the treatment… It has been referred to as the first “sin” against transparent communication by Gerd Gigerenzer, director of the Harding Centre for Risk Literacy at the Max Planck Institute. He says it can be used as “a deliberate tactic to manipulate or persuade people.”” Furthermore, in the most heavily vaccinated countries case numbers have escalated, so real world analysis demonstrates that the RRR is misleading. It is right in front of our eyes. Again, Israel, as the first and most vaccinated country, attests to this. This is why Professor Ehud Qimron’s statement is so revealing bc as an immunologist he knew from the beginning what was required as a response, in concert with the Great Barrington Declaration’s ‘focussed protection’:

      Whichever way you look at it, the Pfizer group had more deaths than the placebo or control group. That should have been enough to shut the whole thing down. That the FDA approved it for emergency use is negligent and criminal.

      Yes the goal of a Covid vaccine race was to produce something “safe and effective”, and the propagandists in government have made these false claims from the beginning, but this hasn’t occurred. At best they are leaky vaccines, at worst they are biologically active toxins. Time will tell how harmful they really are.

      We disagree, the FDA approved Pfizer’s inoculant (for emergency use) bc Pfizer’s report said it will reduce cases. It had to push that issue because it couldn’t claim it saved lives, could it? We know efficacy wanes radically, esp now, and case numbers, deaths and hospitalisations are highest in the most vaccinated countries, so what is being advanced here? Maddie DeGaaray, a child permanently injured by one Pfizer jab, was rejected from the trial after having an extreme adverse reaction. Her symptoms were recorded as stomach issues. Pfizer refuses to acknowledge her case and others like her. Furthermore, there is a general attitude in doctors to say to people with adverse events, “it’s just in your head”. This is common for all reactions to medicines, for decades. It’s cultural within the medical industry. In Australia a doctor gets paid $35 a jab (approx), and they get rewarded for prescribing and over-prescribing a plethora of drugs. They do not get rewarded for reporting adverse events. That is why so much over-prescribing occurs and why there is so much unreported harm taking place. Tens of thousands of people have been harmed or killed by these gene therapies. We estimate less than 2% are actually recorded bc even doctors who want to do the right thing and report injury have many barriers in their way to do this.

      Your last point about data manipulation is arbitrary. The AFP fact-check (that we fact-check) and your analysis do nothing to discredit the claim by the CCCA that Pfizer’s jabs do more harm than good. Neither you or the AFP raise a strong argument against the trial deaths in the vaccine group. It is incredible to us that the Pfizer trail is being so loyally defended. What for? These experimental inoculants parading as vaccines are not safe and they are not effective. The WHO has called a stop to a 4th jab due to ‘immune fatigue’ in other words growing adverse reactions from drugs that don’t stop transmission. So what has been the point?

      If early treatment and the Great Barrington Declaration had been implemented early on we are certain less lives would have been lost and are 100% sure there would not be the division in families and communities, nor the psychological harm done to people. As it is millions of people have these industrial toxins in their bodies, potentially shedding spikes indefinitely, and extending the life of the pandemic. No doubt the money makers of this pandemic are happy with this scenario, and of course it has been money that has driven the policy, not the wellbeing of peoples’ health.

      We believe your defence of Pfizer is well meaning, but it is sickening to us how such a company with its long criminal track record is so easily trusted. The democratic ground we have lost bc the majority of people have believed these corporate criminals and their government cronies is extremely worrying to us. And to top things off, a fourth estate and academia that has self-censored, gone to ground or stayed cowardly.

      Lastly, here is the five page document the CCCA has recently published fact-checking the fact-checkers:

      1. Adam says:

        I only got as far into the CCCA video as the absolute vs relative risk part and what Argyll said occurred to me too. It seems like such a glaringly obvious one (though articulated very well, thanks Argyll) that I was taken aback that it wasn’t addressed in the video.

        I’ve said to my anti-vax friends that if I believed what they believe about the facts I’d probably come to similar conclusions politically. They think (I think) that like most of the rest of the population, I’m in a hypnotic like state, part of the ‘mass formation psychosis’ which makes me unable to see the obvious in front of me. With that kind of framing, and with so much riding on some basic facts, a simple numbers question like this feels like a relief — something we can zoom in on without the complex framing for a second, and agree upon.

        In this case it seems we’re both happy to use these numbers. It’s really only about how to interpret them.

        And sure, I can imagine situations where quoting RRR without ARR could be misleading (say, if you’re talking medicating an entire population for a rare and non-communicable disease). In this case however they were dealing with a new, highly-communicable disease and not many people in the study contracted it. Of course we’re going to be very interested in what happened to this group. That’s represented by the RRR. While focusing on ARR is to essentially ignore them.

        When you say AaF: “Whichever way you look at it, the Pfizer group had more deaths than the placebo or control group. That should have been enough to shut the whole thing down.“ you con’t address Argyll’s point that there were ultimately much more people in the vaccinated group. (I’m assuming Argyll is correct here, only because you didn’t disagree with this point.) It seems like again you’re talking about absolute rather than relative deaths. It’s like saying since more people die from car crashes in Melbourne than in Hepburn that we should make people move out of Melbourne, even if there are less deaths per population.

        Honestly the only way I can make sense of the fact that there’s any disagreement here is some fundamental kind of lack of ability to reason about ratios and some very basic mathematic relationships??? I apologise if that it sounds insulting but I’m genuinely lost and confused how there can be a disagreement on these points. Although I acknowledge I might be missing something equally fundamental…

        1. Thanks Adam, we and many have addressed this before. This comment in the Lancet makes it clear what we mean by RRR and ARR needing to be examined in concert, and point to the fraudulence of only publishing RRR ( The authors’ write: “Vaccine efficacy is generally reported as a relative risk reduction (RRR). It uses the relative risk (RR)—ie, the ratio of attack rates with and without a vaccine—which is expressed as 1–RR. Ranking by reported efficacy gives relative risk reductions of 95% for the Pfizer–BioNTech, 94% for the Moderna–NIH, 91% for the Gamaleya, 67% for the J&J, and 67% for the AstraZeneca–Oxford vaccines. However, RRR should be seen against the background risk of being infected and becoming ill with COVID-19, which varies between populations and over time. Although the RRR considers only participants who could benefit from the vaccine, the absolute risk reduction (ARR), which is the difference between attack rates with and without a vaccine, considers the whole population. ARRs tend to be ignored because they give a much less impressive effect size than RRRs: 1·3% for the AstraZeneca–Oxford, 1·2% for the Moderna–NIH, 1·2% for the J&J, 0·93% for the Gamaleya, and 0·84% for the Pfizer–BioNTech vaccines.” Hopefully that’s clear to you now.
          Additionally, what we mean by “whichever way you look at it…” in relation to the trial deaths, whether you bring across the unblinded participants or not (20 deaths after unblinding or 15 deaths in the vaccine group before unblinding), both are still larger than the placebo (or unvaccinated group) being only 14 deaths. If you’d like the trial report to look for yourself you can find it online or we can send you a copy. Apologies if we have misunderstood you, but we can’t see where your confusion is? Also, please feel free to watch the whole presentation.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *