Author of Study Used to Vilify Unvaxed Had Ties to Pfizer — New Peer-Reviewed Research Shows Why the Study Was Flawed

During the COVID-19 pandemic, politicians, scientists and media organizations vilified unvaccinated people, blaming them for prolonging the pandemic and advocating policies that barred “the unvaccinated” from public venues, businesses and their own workplaces.

But a peer-reviewed study published last week in Cureus shows that a key April 2022 study by Fisman et al. — used to justify draconian policies segregating the unvaccinated — was based on the application of flawed mathematical risk models that offer no scientific backing for such policies.

Dr. David Fisman, a University of Toronto epidemiologist was the lead author of the April 2022 study, published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal (CMAJ), which the authors said showed that unvaccinated people posed a disproportionate risk to vaccinated people.

Fisman has worked as an adviser to vaccine makers Pfizer, Seqirus, AstraZeneca and Sanofi-Pasteur. He also advised the Canadian government on its COVID-19 policies and recently was tapped to head up the University of Toronto’s new Institute for Pandemics.

Fisman told reporters the key message of the study was that the choice to get vaccinated is not merely personal because if you choose to be unvaccinated, you are “creating risk for those around you.”

“Headlines like Salon’s, “Merely hanging out with unvaccinated puts the vaccinated at higher risk: study,” Forbes’ “Study Shows Unvaccinated People Are At Increased Risk Of Infecting The Vaccinated” or Medscape’s “My Choice? Unvaccinated Pose Outsize Risk to Vaccinated” proliferated in more than 100 outlets.”

************

Why would an unvaxed person be a risk to a vaxed person IF THE ‘VACCINE’ WORKED???

From the posted article: “But a peer-reviewed study published last week in Cureus ...”

Cureus publications spend an average of less than 33 days in peer review.

“A study conducted by librarians of Emory University found that Cureus was in the top 2 of institutional publications deemed predatory or untrustworthy.”

“Predatory journals—also called fraudulent, deceptive, or pseudo-journals—are publications that claim to be legitimate scholarly journals, but misrepresent their publishing practices. Some common forms of predatory publishing practices include falsely claiming to provide peer review, hiding information about Article Processing Charges (APCs), misrepresenting members of the journal’s editorial board, and other violations of copyright or scholarly ethics. Because of their increasing prevalence, this article aims to provide helpful information for authors on how to identify and avoid predatory journals.”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7237319/

Question: why did the authors chose such a predatory and often misleading journal to publish their article?

Question: why did Childrens’ Health chose to use this questionable article from such a questionable source?

I had an old almost neighbor, Dr. Fishmann

He was a great guy, and fed birth control pills to the tree growing through his ceiling to make it grow faster.

but that was a long time ago.

I hope retired for many years by now

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.