In this follow-up report, I am going to discuss the vaccinated versus unvaccinated claims espoused by the mainstream media with credentialed expert in the field of vaccinology, immunology and virology, Dr. Bryam Bridle who calls it a misrepresentation of the facts.
In less than 48 hours after the original “study” hit mainstream news, there have been multiple publications refuting these assumption-based findings. Bridle’s rebuttal, titled “Fiction Disguised as Science to Promote Hatred,” approaches the deeply flawed article from an immunological standpoint.
The first flaring error that he points out is the assumption that unvaccinated people only have 20% baseline immunity. Sourcing a robust, peer-reviewed paper, Bridle notes that a more evidence-based number would be in the ~90+% range. For arguments sake, he changed this one assumption in the model to a more practical number and “it flips the entire thing on its head.”
By adjusting even just one assumption to a more practical real-world number, the modeling then reflects what the real world data is showing.
Researchers at the Ontario civil liberties association, namely Denis Rancourt, published a separate statement on this article. Rancourt calls it a travesty that Fisman et al “concocted a new parameter, never before defined in the scientific literature” to falsely obtain a desired conclusion.
Such modelling to “inform” policy is a travesty but what @DFisman did goes beyond that: concocting and disinterpreting an ad hoc parameter (psi) to falsely obtain a desired conclusion.
Read our short paper about it. @oncivlib— Denis Rancourt (@denisrancourt) April 28, 2022
The second publication was by researchers from Kaleidoscope Strategic and the University of British Columbia titled, “Dispelling the Myth of a Pandemic of the Unvaccinated.” Their 20-page report examines government data and concludes that while “health officials claim that the unvaccinated are driving infection rates and that mandates are necessary to keep from overwhelming hospital capacity, a careful inspection of the data indicates that not only were policies based on low quality and seriously biased evidence, but closer examination of the actual data demonstrates the opposite of what the government claimed.”
Citing Public Health’s terminology, Bridle calls the current scenario “clearly an epidemic of the vaccinated, especially the boosted. In fact, he says, “when you plug in the correct parameters of the model, you end up with an output that says that the unvaccinated are the safest people to be around and are actually serving as a buffer for the vaccinated.”
I have reached out to the Canadian Medical Association Journal, The College of Physicians of Surgeons of Ontario and the Dean and Epidemiology Department Head at the Dalla Lana School of Public Health to see if anyone is taking these claims of professional misconduct and scientific misrepresentation seriously.
Source link
Author Tamara Ugolini
