Dr. Byram Bridle: Study saying unvaccinated increases COVID risk for vaccinated must be retracted immediately
The following article is a comment written by Dr. Byram Bridle condemning the publication of the article Impact of population mixing between vaccinated and unvaccinated subpopulations on infectious disease dynamics: implications for SARS-CoV-2 transmission written by David N. Fisman, Afia Amoako, and Ashleigh R. Tuite. The article was published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal (CMAJ) last April 25, 2022.
Bridle says that the article by Fisman, et al. “is the worst [he] has ever seen. The ‘peer reviewers’ of this article should be ashamed of themselves for allowing this to be published and the editor even more so. If the Canadian Medical Association Journal does not promptly retract this article, they will have made themselves an embarrassment among scientific publishers”.
He goes on to discuss the many flaws of the study and offers various proof that the paper should be retracted immediately.
Bridle says describes the article as “bad science”, where the researchers used science to veil their hate speech. He says, “This kind of messaging will only fuel hatred and segregation and the potential development of harmful policies…The only reason why Fisman is trying to turn people against other people is due to the abject failure of the COVID-19 ‘vaccines’ to function like vaccines…Fisman has inappropriately labeled critically thinking people as an enemy when the actual culprits are SARS-CoV-2 and overly rushed jabs of exceptionally poor quality and highly questionable safety that have been pushed as the sole solution at the expense of all others.”
Editor’s Note: This new article by Fisman is important because it is being used to rationalize the decision to discriminate against the unvaccinated, in order to push more people to take the vaccines. The problem with this is that the article is being picked up by mainstream media as if it is real science [in the course of this “pandemic” several fraudulent articles have been published by journals and hyped by media to promote their preferred narrative, here are some examples, Scientific fraud at top medical journals affect world COVID-19 policy, Lancet, top medical journal, helps coverup true origins of COVID, Debunking the CDC study on mask mandates].
Because of the massive implications of the errors in the Fisman et al. study, several other scientists have published their own scathing reviews of the article. 1https://www.cmaj.ca/content/194/16/E573/tab-e-letters#re-impact-of-population-mixing-between-vaccinated-and-unvaccinated-subpopulations-on-infectious-disease-dynamics-implications-for-sars-cov-2-transmission, https://ocla.ca/ocla-statement-on-cmaj-fisman-et-al/, https://www.trishwoodpodcast.com/podcast/episode-107-bridle-rancourt
The fact that the vaccines do not stop infection and transmission is well accepted [see Expert Says COVID Vaccines Not Strong Enough for Herd Immunity, Iceland: Vaccines Not Enough, as Many as Possible People Need to be Infected for herd immunity, Why Can’t COVID Vaccines Create Herd Immunity?, Geert Vanden Boosche: Natural immunity, not vaccines, will create herd immunity, CDC Head declares COVID ‘vaccines’ don’t prevent infections or transmissions].
And the reality that the vaccine-induced protection wanes is also well documented [see COVID Vaccines Efficacy Wanes Thus Public is Encouraged to Get Booster Shots, New CDC studies point to waning immunity from vaccines, Studies confirm waning immunity from Pfizer’s Covid-19 vaccine].
How then, are these the fault of the unvaccinated? How is it logical to say that the effectiveness of the COVID shot is compromised by those that did not take it?
The Fisman article is based on mathematical modeling. But the proof that will debunk their study is already available. We already have real-world data to prove that their study is wrong. Why then, aren’t there more scientists calling for the retraction of the study?
This video shows us why this article by Fisman et al. is dangerous. It cannot be allowed to stay in circulation.
Read Original Article
Read Online
Click the button below if you wish to read the article on the website where it was originally published.
Read Offline
Click the button below if you wish to read the article offline.
