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:
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.
Below: Interview with the CCCA (Canadian Covid Care Alliance) and Dr. Denis Rancourt and Dr. Byram Bridle – May 5, 2022