To prevent a slide into totalitarianism, scientists must work for the truth, not for dominance.
It is way past time to conduct a REAL WORLD documentation of ACTUAL health outcomes between vaccinated and the TRUE "controls" who avoided the jabs. But instead, they do "studies" grounded upon nothing more than literal LIES (baseless assumptions) that were never based upon any DATA.
And when we go into court, we go in with all courts pressing the presumption that any and ALL injectable drugs that get classified as "vaccines" produce a net public health benefit. And even when we produced clear and irrefutable evidence that NONE of these drugs produce anything other than a net destruction to public health, these conflicted judges (who are heavily invested in pharma) refuse to acknowledge that any evidence has been presented.
It will not stop UNTIL some prosecutors grow a set and start tossing these scumbags in prison. If they refuse to allow us any CIVIL remedy to prevent our own extermination at the hands of government,....... I guess there won't be enough security in the whole world to stop what's likely coming from the FURIOUS victims, who are now realizing what's been done to them and their loved ones. Genocide is a very risky way to make a living;-)
Thank you, thank you! I have not gotten a covid jab and don't plan to. But when I read a mainstream media news story about Fisman's study, I was concerned. Am I putting other people's health at risk? Your post reassurred me that my decision to remain unjabbed is the right one for me.
Another to add to the list of critiques: "We did not model waning immunity." Um....what? So the authors assumed one gets a new jab every 6 weeks or so. (Note that Fisman "has served on advisory boards related to influenza and SARS-CoV-2 vaccines for Seqirus, Pfizer, AstraZeneca and Sanofi-Pasteur Vaccines...") That might explain why he thinks 6 weeks is a good period between jabs.
And then there's the editorial language in the introduction, which has no place in science. Unless, of course, one begins from a biased conclusion and hides it behind a methodology that smells a bit like "science" but is actually a political assertion of segregation.
Weak mathematical models have driven public policy through the Covid period. They will continue to do so as long as the decision-makers and public health officials hold this unprecedented level of power.
Here's an enlightening piece about Fisman from May of 2021 --
"Meet David Fisman: OST; ETFO; Gaslighting; When a Side Hustle Goes Horribly Wrong"
"The Dalla Lana School of Public Health, or DLSPH, is effectively a branch of the World Health Organization. While masquerading as scientists, this UofT cabal provides political cover for Doug Ford. There are conflicts of interest everywhere.
This focuses on David Fisman. It’s not because he has anything particularly interesting or insightful to say. Instead, it’s because his side grift with ETFO accidentally exposed a huge problem."
Archived here -- https://archive.ph/RQOJ9