Anyone familiar with the scientific literature knows that that most published research findings are false (and here). So when the media push a claim to scientific fact bearing on a highly contentious political issue, consider the evidence before accepting the claim.
In relation to the Toronto Globe and Mail's headline of April 24 claiming that the Unvaccinated increase risk of infection for others: study skepticism is certainly warranted because, so far as it relates to Covid-19, the claim is untrue.
The article begins:
People who have not been vaccinated against Covid-19 contribute disproportionately to the risk of infection among those who have been vaccinated, according to a new study ...
Oh yes?
Who says?
Who says is J. Fishman et al., in an article in the current issue of the Canadian Medical Association Journal entitled:
Impact of population mixing between vaccinated and unvaccinated subpopulations on infectious disease dynamics: implications for SARS-CoV-2 transmission
Trouble is, the paper reports what is a purely mathematical exercise, based on no real world data whatsoever. That this is a problem becomes evident if one considers the real world data that would be needed to confirm the authors' conclusions.
In particular, data would be necessary to show at least one of the following things:
(1) That unvaccinated persons have a higher Covid-19 infection rate than the vaccinated;
(2) That unvaccinated persons infected with Covid-19 are more infectious that the vaccinated; or
(3) In their interaction with others, unvaccinated persons are in some way more social, promiscuous or more careless of the risk of infection than the vaccinated.
Proposition (1) we know to be false. The weekly Covid Surveillance Reports compiled by the UK Health Security Agency have shown consistently over many months that overall, and except in the youngest age classes, the vaccinated have a Covid-19 case rate several times that of the unvaccinated (see Table 13 on Page 44).
Proposition (2) is refuted by the July 30, 2021: Statement by CDC Director, Rochelle P. Walensky, MD
...Delta infection resulted in similarly high SARS-CoV-2 viral loads in vaccinated and unvaccinated people. High viral loads suggest an increased risk of transmission and raised concern that, unlike with other variants, vaccinated people infected with Delta can transmit the virus. ...
Which is to say, vaccinated persons can pass Covid-19 just as readily as the unvaccinated.
Proposition (3) is obviously false. It is the vaccinated who, believing, correctly or otherwise, that they are immune from serious harm from Covid-19, are most likely to eat out, attend a party at No. 10 Downing St. during a national lockdown, or whatever, whereas the unvaccinated, knowing themselves to be among the most vulnerable to severe Covid-19 illness, act with greater circumspection.
So, yes, Fishman et al., from their base at Canada's top research university, have published a nonsense paper that has made a nonsense of the Canadian Medical Association Journal, while showing the Toronto Gobe and Mail to be the publication of elite correct thought that we have always supposed it to be.
But why this particular lie?
Let the reader decide. But one thing's for sure, that headline in the Globule sure helps cover wannabe dictator, Justin Trudeau's arse over his irrational and tyrannical vaccine mandates and his Hitlerian diatribe of hate directed at Freedom Rally supporters.
Another aspect of this which must be repeated over and over and over-- there is a good side to having been infected. It is called antibody production and the development of natural immunity. Natural immunity-- far superior to the kind of immunity the damned so-called vaccine gives, which is none of the kind.
ReplyDelete"Been infected with Covid19, and looking so chipper today? FANTASTIC. You're in the clear, buddy. Good health and long life to you."
Yes, a report from Qatar in the New England Journal of Medicine showed a 90%+ reduction in severe illness from a first Covid-19 infection to a second infection.
ReplyDeleteIf the unvaccinated have been infected with Covid19 and are walking around doing whatever, it is impossible for them to infect other people. They've recovered from whatever symptoms they had (which may have made them bedridden for awhile-- who knows?), gotten over them, and developed immunity. Being immune means they can't be re-infected, and not being infectible means they don't have the virus in their bodies to spread around and infect others.
ReplyDeleteThis is somewhat complicated by the existence of variants.
Maybe it is irrelevant to comment on, but anyone who knew anything knew a difficulty with a vaccine for Covid19 would be the general difficulty of viral vaccine development-- each season the virus is different. Also: there were already variants in the population of the original "Covid19". Selecting one variant as characteristic of the entire population has always been hit or miss. It is well known some years the seasonal flu vaccine was based on a less common variant in the flu virus population.
I tell you, man, this is another sign what is really going on here is political, not medical. This is an effort to stigmatize people who resist complete domination by the authorities. They are a danger to others. That's pretty scary, and people are terrified of this disease. (My right to live disease free trumps your desire to not get vaccinated. You have no right to endanger me, and if you do, you are acting not only anti-socially, but criminally.) The science doesn't support this, but most people are not scientifically trained to even begin to sort this out. They have also been indoctrinated into believing medical doctors are "authorities" who basically know everything. Plenty of M.D.'s are M.D.'s because they dig this and have had no problem playing the role they've played during the pandemic.
There's been so much touted as true which has been false, and there have been so many signs most of the population didn't ever get word it was false. I sense traces of the old "asymptomatic transmission" lie in this current lie. If you didn't get word "asymptomatic transmission" was a lie, this one seems more probable. You might think the fact the unvaccinated were walking around apparently healthy was not of significance.
ReplyDeleteThen there are interpretational complexities introduced by such remarkable, and perhaps inexplicable, choices as to use mRNA technology never before used. I do not merely refer to side effects, which scare me, especially the long-term ones. What if there are basically ecological effects affecting viral populations? How would we even know? We could be looking at it and thinking it was caused by something else. We're assuming we know more about genetic modifications than we probably do know.
Also, you are quite right. The cited paper is based on computer modeling. This is pathetic, absolutely pathetic. You can design the model to give you any result you might wish. "Lies, damn lies,-- and models!" Adapted from Mark Twain.
ReplyDeleteYou link to a great article-- by John Ioannidis. What can I say?
ReplyDeleteI have a kind note in response to my inquiry from Dr. Harvey Risch, Professor of Epidemiology in the School of Public Health at Yale University. Concerning the paper by Fishman et al. discussed my post above he comments:
ReplyDeleteThe main failing in the Fisman paper is the use of initial herd immunity of 20%. It is more likely about 75%, and with that parameter change alone, new infections become disproportionate in the vaccinated, not the unvaccinated.
Being no mathematical modeller or epidemiologist I have to think about that for a bit. But it's encouraging to know that my own evaluation is consistent with expert opinion.
That's incredible, CS. There it is: GIGO. (Garbage In, Garbage Out.) The paper was peer reviewed, too, wasn't it? What you are reporting here needs to become widely known. Imagine if people understood new infections are disproportionate in the vaccinated, not the unvaccinated.
DeleteThat's the empirical fact of the matter. It can't be ignored for very long.
(I'd really like to know the underlying biology/physiology behind this remarkable state of affairs.)
Out of curiosity, did you poll more epidemiologists, or just Dr. Risch? It bolsters my opinion of scientists when they reply to enquiries this way. MSM-wise, we're probably exposed to the dregs of the scientific crop, not the cream.
I asked only Dr. Risch for a comment, but I think any responsible academic should respond to such an inquiry. But clearly Dr. Risch is a conscientious and honest man --- as I had inferred from his past contributions to the public debate on Covid.
DeleteI suppose you've seen this:
ReplyDeleteModerna seeks emergency use authorization for Covid-19 vaccine for children ages 6 months through 5 years
https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/28/health/moderna-vaccine-eua-young-children/index.html
(1) Pharma continues to access approval through the FDA's accelerated "emergency use" procedures (the hustle);
(2) The article says, "We believe mRNA-1273 will be able to safely protect these children against SARS-CoV-2, which is so important in our continued fight against COVID-19, and will be especially welcomed by parents and caregivers." Of course this is precisely what you are debunking.
Also,
"Pfizer has said the data on a third dose of the vaccine will be available this month."
Continue to dose the public to prevent a disease of exaggerated consequence, with a vaccine of exaggerated effectiveness ... This could never end, unless, that is, there turn out to be serious side effects from the vaccines...Even then, the side effects can be blamed on the virus, not the vaccines.