By now you’ve likely heard about David Fisman and the study that was published in the CMAJ (Canadian Medical Association Journal) titled “Impact of population mixing between vaccinated and unvaccinated subpopulations on infectious disease dynamics; implications for SARS Co-V-2 transmission”. Fisman is a professor of epidemiology at the University of Toronto’s Dalla Lama School of Public Health, and also works as an infectious disease specialist and consultant at the University Health Network (UHN) in Toronto. Interestingly, it seems that he has also worked with both Pfizer and AstraZeneca.
In his paper, Fisman offers the conclusion:
Results: We found that the risk of infection was markedly higher among unvaccinated people than among vaccinated people under all mixing assumptions. The contact-adjusted contribution of unvaccinated people to infection risk was disproportionate, with unvaccinated people contributing to infections among those who were vaccinated at a rate higher than would have been expected based on contact numbers alone. We found that as like-with-like mixing increased, attack rates among vaccinated people decreased from 15% to 10% (and increased from 62% to 79% among unvaccinated people), but the contact-adjusted contribution to risk among vaccinated people derived from contact with unvaccinated people increased.
Even to the layman, this is a remarkable conclusion. Isn’t the point of taking the shot, to prevent infection? Diving into the paper reveals that they did not consider waning immunity from the shots (why are multiple boosters needed if protection doesn’t wane?), and the entire study is based on models and simulations, not real world data. With the shots having been on the market for more than a year, and consequently there is ample data available, one must wonder why hard facts were discarded in favour of guesses.
Before offering the rebuttals to this study from the scientific community, it is important to point out that the sharing of this study was very well orchestrated by main stream media and medical information sites. It would seem that there is a well connected marketing program available to those with government connections, for which quality of product is not a factor.
There have been a number of responses to address the errors in the Fisman paper. Please find them below. We will update this post should more rebuttals become available.
Dr. Byram Bridle – April 26, 2022
Fiction Disguised as Science to Promote Hatred
Disinformation Must Be Called Out
Below: Interview with the CCCA (Canadian Covid Care Alliance) and Dr. Denis Rancourt and Dr. Byram Bridle – May 5, 2022
Interesting how his study supports his participation with drug companies. This study is garbage for the uninformed. He is connected to at least 2 drug companies, maybe 4. .095 percent of population dies from covid 19, strangely most are above our life expectancy. Understand whats going on or they will be successful in destroying our world. Ask about vaccines and blood clotting. Ask about D dimer test results for vaccinnated. Ask about heart conditions. Ask yourself which companies have paid more in liability than drug companies? Liability, the ability to lie. Why did they try to bury natural acquired immunity? Why do they support flawed studies in search of profits? What is the long term impact on mass vaccinations? Micro clotting is real and can have long term effects that can impact all cause mortality rates. What do life insurance company numbers reflect since covid jab?