A Tale of Two Studies
One supports vaccine mandates and gets wide coverage, the other doesn't and gets no coverage...
When writing my piece How Researchers Overwrite Reality to Vilify the Unvaccinated, I was reminded of another research study on COVID vaccines that I had come across back in November of 2022. This study, titled A Deeper Dive into Publicly Available Ontario Data on COVID 19 Vaccination, was apparently conducted for the Liberal Party; “solely for public health policy development going forward in this phase of the pandemic.”
The name of whom the study was prepared for and the name of the independent researcher on the cover page of the study are both redacted for some reason.
This study was released in June 2022, but didn't get the same attention and media coverage as the study the Trudeau Liberals had contracted Dr. David Fisman to conduct titled; Impact of population mixing between vaccinated and unvaccinated subpopulations on infectious disease dynamics: implications for SARS-CoV-2. A study designed to vilify the unvaccinated as COVID 19 spreaders, using falsified data based on modelling rather than available real-world data, to obtain that result.
“Although risk associated with avoiding vaccination during a virulent pandemic accrues chiefly to people who are unvaccinated, their choices affect risk of viral infection among those who are vaccinated in a manner that is disproportionate to the portion of unvaccinated people in the population.”
The book by Canadian statistician and mathematician Dr. R.N. Watteel, PhD, Fismen’s Fraud, provides a detailed account of the fraudulent methods used by Fisman and his teams to arrive at the above conclusion.
The ‘Deeper Dive” study, which essentially measured vaccine effectiveness, was actually based on real-world data collected by Public Health Ontario (PHO) between December 2020 and May 2022. It is likely to have been in development around same time frame that Fisman was working on his study, but wasn’t officially released to the government until June 2022. Dr. Fisman’s study was published earlier in the Canadian Medical Association Journal (CMAJ) on April 25, 2022. A Deeper Dive into Publicly Available Ontario Data on COVID 19 Vaccination, appears to have only been published by the Canadian Health Alliance (CHA) in September of 2022. CHA is a non-profit organization that, based on its website and Facebook site, appears to advocate for informed consent and bodily autonomy for patients on medical matters and also supports more holistic and homeopathic approaches to healthcare. It did not support most of the measures and restrictions imposed by governments in their response to the COVID 19 pandemic.
Why A Deeper Dive into Publicly Available Ontario Data on COVID 19 wasn’t published in the CMAJ is a mystery, as well as the fact that it doesn’t appear to have received much play in the media. However, the study’s Summary of Results from reviewing the data from PHO, may be the reason, because its findings did not fit the narrative the Liberal government and the mainstream media was pushing on the vaccines. This was that the vaccines were effective in preventing infection, that the unvaccinated were posing a risk to the vaccinated and therefore vaccine mandates were necessary, and that the vaccines were safe and effective.
The study’s findings make three things clear that one; the vaccines didn’t prevent infection or hospitalization — two; the unvaccinated had lower infection rates and therefore were not the spreaders of the virus and therefore mandating vaccines was not a viable solution, and — three; the vaccines do pose some serious safety risks including causing numerous cases of myocarditis and pericarditis, particularly in young men, so the vaccines were neither safe or effective.
In its conclusion the study’s authors recommended that all the public health policies related to the government’s COVID response such as vaccine campaigns, mandates, passports and travel restrictions should be re-evaluated given “the abundance of evidence from PHO, and top tiered scientific journals that the vaccines do not prevent infection or hospitalization.” The report further states that since there are known risks of adverse effects and unknown long term effects, these must be also considered in developing vaccine policies. The empirical evidence investigated in this report does not support continuing mass vaccination programs, mandates, passports and travel bans for all age groups.
The conclusion is clear, blunt and to the point, backed up by real-world data. But, this type of information would have blown up the Liberal government’s entire narrative regarding the COVID 19 pandemic, its response measures and its push to insist that everyone must get vaccinated and boosted. Is that why this study has been, buried, for lack of a better word? One study contracted by the Liberal government, the Fisman study, produces findings, based on faulty data, that fully endorses the government’s approach in mandating COVID 19 vaccines and boosters receives wide media coverage and gets mention numerous times in Parliament. But another study, released just two months later, that completely contradicts the Fisman study gets no attention at all — not from the media, not from the government and apparently not from the medical community that being the CMAJ.
Just one final observation on this conundrum. The Liberal government would have received the final copy of the report in June of 2022, the same month in which they announced they were suspending travel mandates. They made the announcement on June 14, 2022 Whether this ‘Deeper Dive’ report had anything to do with this decision is anyone’s guess. But this is still a very strange tale of two studies.
I guess my main takes from reading the Deeper Dive report are:
1) Vaccination was important to reduce hospitalization and death in the older population..notably 70 and up but even 60 and up. We knew the elderly were the main ones at risk from very early on so not sure why we all needed to get the vaccination. I b.elieve its even more nuanced than this. It was often people with comorbidities that died and had serious health issues and of course this is way more likely in the elderly. But I am pretty sure healthy elderly people with no comorbidities likely did quite well without the vaccine.
We should have made sure the elderly got the shots especially the sick elderly and put resources into isolating them notably in nursing homes. The unvaccinated in these age groups were multiple times more likely to be in the hospital or die.
2) Not sure what the point of their point 2 is? Of course early on most cases were in unvaccinated as nobody was vaccinated and eventually the vast majority of people were vaccinated hence most hospital cases and deaths were in the vaccinated. The real question which do they do get to later is what are the rates of hospitalization and death per 100000 in both groups.
3) Their point 3 makes no sense to me other than make it appear that the vaccines were completely uselesss. By just showing the actual number of cases in the hospital without taking into account the size of the vaccinated versus unvaccinated group is misleading. For instance they show roughly 5 to 6 times more vaccinated people in the hospital by June 2022. Yet by then 85 percent or more of the population was vaccinated. In the 60+ group it was 92 percent which were the most likely to be in the hospital. Hence there were 6 to 11 times more vaccinated people than unvaccinated people in the population. Luckily they make up for this in points 4 to 7. There is also no mention of the fact that the unvaccinated are going to clearly be a younger healthier group hence way less likely to have severe outcomes in any case. The weakest in society of course would all be taking the vaccine but even so in many cases it was not enough as they were such sick people to begin with.
4) There were clearly many vaccine injuries notably among the youngest who had no benefit in taking the vaccine. They were the ones screwed the most in the end. They and many of us were effectively forced to take it otherwise no job, no school, no activities, no travel and no life. Thats having a gun at your head so anyone who tells me no one was forced can stuff it.
Even though I agree with what this report is trying to say it felt like they were trying to present the information at times in a way to really make it look like the vaccines were totally useless when in fact they were quite useful for the elderly (likely the sick elderly). I think they could have worded their points 2 and 3 in a more objective way and still make the case.