“More Harm Than Good:” Viral Canadian Covid Care Alliance Document Gives Disturbing Data on Pfizer Vaccines, Describes “Level 1 Harm”, Misrepresented Efficacy [VIDEO]

Lazy eyes listen
  • Video details very troubling information on Pfizer and government agencies involved in the vaccine approvals
  • This disturbing video of evidence is believed to be the reason mRNA inventor Dr. Malone was screened off Twitter


The Canadian Covid Care Alliance, has released a new viral and much controversial 51-page document and video that paints a disturbing picture of the processes involved in the release and the use of Pfizer covid vaccines.

The group describes itself as “alliance of over 500 independent Canadian doctors, scientists, and health care practitioners” that declares itself “committed to providing quality, balanced, evidence-based information to the Canadian public about COVID-19 so that hospitalizations can be reduced, lives saved, and our country safely restored to normal as quickly as possible.”

The material describes how the process of the phase studies of the vaccine was abridged in 2 months not the 3-years the study was designed for, with the study blinds removed and candidates on placebo being allowed to switch to the vaccine group too soon for scientific study reliability. This means that “for the rest of the trial there was no way to access efficacy or safety.”

The thought-provoking documentary further explains that when Pfizer announced 95% efficacy of its vaccine, this claim was based on “relative risk” and not “absolute risk,” the more useful scientific term. Claiming Pfizer misled the public, the document explains that overall the Pfizer vaccine was able to reduce the risk of covid disease from a fraction of 0.84% (without vaccine use) to 0.04% (with vaccine use), the difference being the relative risk 95% advantage.

95% efficacy relative risk not absolute risk

In the trial, 8 out of 18,198 given vaccine developed covid-19, that’s 0.04%, vs 162 in placebo group or 0.88%. The difference of 0.84% being pushed to the public as the 0.84% gain or 95% efficacy.

‘The number does not mean the vaccine protects you 95% of the time. The FDA recommends using absolute risk.’

The group explained that the public was more interested in the absolute risk reduction and benefit of the shots, which would be a mere 0.84%. This considered with the many side-effect reported risks of the vaccine by itself paints a picture of a high risk, low benefit intervention not reflected in the 95% efficacy advertisement.

“There is no benefit to a reduction in cases if it comes at the cost of increased sickness and death”

‘The inoculated arm showed an increase in adverse events in almost every category, eg, there were almost 5000 in the experimental arm and just over 1000 in the placebo arm.’

Level 1 harm: Greater adverse events in inoculation arm

The video can be watched here:

And the document read here: