The Canadian COVID Care Alliance assembled a presentation that demonstrates how Pfizer’s purported randomized placebo-controlled, double-blinded study veered away from methodologies that would have definitively answered questions about the vaccine’s safety and efficacy. The disagreements around whether COVID-19 vaccinations are “safe and effective” stem not only from the subjective nature of such descriptors but also from the lack of consensus around the data used to substantiate or refute such a claim. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Reports (MMWR) often draw from limited observations, and their assessment of vaccine effectiveness is based on relatively small subsets of our population. Their conclusions are sometimes reflective of outdated data and conflict with their own recommendations. For example, here the CDC’s latest estimation of vaccine effectiveness is upwards of 80% in preventing COVID-19 (i.e. the risk of becoming infected is 5 times less if vaccinated). Why then the recommendation for boosters? Note that this latest metric is based on the CDC’s most recent data from more than one month ago and represents data drawn only from 27 jurisdictions. Meanwhile, vaccine injuries continue to accumulate in the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) and go unacknowledged, making any constructive discussion around risk impossible. In order to find common ground, it is perhaps most appropriate to focus on published data from the vaccine trials themselves. Was Emergency Use Authorization justified? Was the current confusion around vaccine effectiveness and safety predictable from the beginning?