On April 25, 2022, many Canadian news outlets (mainstream media) ran articles titled similar to these:
Unvaccinated people increase risk of COVID-19 infection among vaccinated: study
By Irelyne Lavery Global News
Posted April 25, 2022 12:01 am
Mixing with unvaccinated increases COVID-19 risk for vaccinated people, study finds
The Toronto Star:
Remaining unvaccinated increases risk to the vaccinated, says U of T COVID study
Research in CMAJ finds the modelling holds true even when vaccination rates are high.
By Megan Ogilvie Health Reporter
May Warren Staff Reporter
Kenyon Wallace Investigative Reporter
And SHAME on them for these lying, deceitful reports on covid science, according to Dr. Bryam Bridle of the University of Guelph. Before we get started, who is Dr. Bridle? Here is part of his CV:
He is an Associate Professor of Viral Immunology in the Department of Pathobiology at the University of Guelph. He specializes in vaccinology and is also leader of the Vaccine Task Force of the Canadian COVID Care Alliance’s Scientific and Medical Advisory Committee.
More of Dr Bridle’s qualifications and evidence of expert status can be read at the end of this article. To say the least, he is FAR more qualified to comment on the Fisman paper (which the news articles above are referring to) than any journalist, touting the government and ‘bought and paid-for’ medical types.
Dr Bridle starts his article with:
“The legacy media has been like pigs at a trough today and yesterday with the publication of an atrocious ‘peer-reviewed’ ‘scientific’ article by Dr. David Fisman, Dr. Ashleigh Tuite, and a graduate student. After all, with raw public health data unable to support the only COVID-19 narrative that has been deemed acceptable, fresh fuel was apparently needed. Lots of media outlets have been reporting on this study; one of them being CTV News. Here is the headline for their article:
“Being with unvaccinated people increases COVID-19 risk for those who are vaccinated: modelling study”
This kind of messaging will only fuel hatred and segregation and the potential development of harmful policies. And it is all in the name of bad science.”
Obviously, you can read the article, but let me outline a few of the more important points:
1) Fisman was quoted by CTV News as saying “We thought what was missing from that conversation was, what are the rights of vaccinated people to be protected from unvaccinated people?”. The only reason why Fisman is trying to turn people against other people is due to the abject failure of the COVID-19 ‘vaccines’ to function like vaccines. That is to say that the purpose of a vaccine is to protect people from a pathogen; to prevent both the disease and transmission of the causative agent. Such a medical product does not require one to pit people against people. This ‘vaccine’ has done neither.
2) “antivaccine sentiment, fuelled in part by organized disinformation efforts, has resulted in suboptimal uptake of readily available vaccines”.
In fact, the article by Fisman, et al. represents one of the most egregious examples of disinformation that Dr Bridle has ever seen.
Most of the people that remain ‘unvaccinated’ are not ‘anti-vaccine’ by any stretch of the imagination. Due to critical thinking and following the science, they are not in support of the current crop of COVID-19 jabs. Remember, the definition of a vaccine was changed to accommodate these jabs. They are nothing like any of the historically mandated vaccines, such as those used in the childhood immunization series.
People have been wary because the initial clinical trials to evaluate these ‘vaccines’ are still ongoing, literally meaning the jabs are still in the experimental phase…(much more in the article.)
Dr Bridle refers to this as a major issue because Fisman and his colleagues are labeling people and using subjective argumentation in an attempt to justify it. This sentence in the paper has no place in the world of objective science.
3)“We also assumed that some fraction of the unvaccinated population had immunity at baseline owing to previous infection and that a fraction of the population was vaccinated”. Initially, this seems reasonable. But then one learns that the number plugged into the simple mathematical model was only 20% of the population having naturally acquired immunity. Really?!? After more than two years of living with SARS-CoV-2 and and Delta and Omicron sweeping through Canada, one is to believe that only 20% have immunity? Where is the evidence for this? A paper showing that a vast majority of Canadians might have some degree of naturally acquired or cross-reactive immunity against SARS-CoV-2 can be found here. He feels that even more unvaccinated Canadians would now have natural immunity.
4) “We treated immunity after vaccination as an all-or-none phenomenon, with a fraction of vaccinated people (as defined by vaccine effectiveness) entering the model in the immune state and the remainder being left in the susceptible state. For example, a vaccine that is 80% efficacious would result in 80% of vaccinated people becoming immune, with the remaining 20% being susceptible to infection.”
There are multiple major issues here. First, the COVID-19 ‘vaccines’ fail to confer immunity, which is protection against disease and transmission. It is common knowledge that ‘vaccinated’ people get infected and sick at least as much as, if not more than the ‘unvaccinated’. This is why a desperate emphasis has been placed on the debatable possibility that disease severity is merely dampened by ‘vaccination’. A such, a biologically incorrect assumption was made here.
Also, the effectiveness of the vaccine that was plugged into the model started at 40% and went up from there. However, these high percentages represent relative risk reduction, not absolute risk reduction. Do you remember when we were told that Pfizer’s ‘vaccine’ was 95% effective? That did not mean that 95% of the population was protected against getting COVID-19 (or 80% as used in the example in the paper). That 95% reduction was a relative risk reduction. What many people were not told is that most of the people in Pfizer’s clinical trial never got COVID-19, which is the disease that can occur in some people who get infected with SARS-CoV-2. In fact, the absolute risk reduction at the population level in the study was a mere 0.84% as a result of ‘vaccination’.
As such, it is completely inappropriate for Fisman, et al. to plug values for relative risk reduction into their population-level models and treat them as though they represent absolute risk reduction. Conflating relative versus absolute risk reduction was misleading. As expert epidemiologists the authors must surely know the difference between absolute versus relative risk reduction. This is evidence that what they disseminated was disinformation.
5) “We did not model waning immunity”. Dr Bridle was flabbergasted by this assumption. COVID-19 ‘vaccine’-induced immunity is ridiculously short-lived. In contrast, naturally acquired immunity is much longer-lived. This differential effect would have had a major influence on the outcome of the mathematical model. This assumption by the authors ignores obvious scientific facts.
6) There was no discussion about assumptions with respect to the safety (or lack thereof) of the COVID-19 ‘vaccines’ that might offset the perceived value of ‘vaccination’. Regardless of their viewpoint, they should have discussed this and provided evidence for their stance.
7) “Boosting with mRNA vaccines appears to restore vaccine effectiveness at least temporarily against Omicron”. This is not an accurate assumption to make. The paper that was cited to justify this statement used data derived from a simplistic model in a petri dish. It provided evidence of the presence of SARS-CoV-2-neutralizing antibodies in the blood of people who received COVID-19 booster ‘vaccines’.
However, this lacked a functional context. First, these antibodies were measured in blood, but the virus infects the airways, so the anatomical location that was studied is irrelevant. Second, it is possible that there were non-neutralizing antibodies that could actually enhance disease but no testing was performed to detect these; non-neutralizing antibodies were ignored. There are other issues, but the point is that there was no way of knowing whether the subset of antibodies measured in the cited study would translate into any degree of protection against ‘real world’ infection. This shows a bias by Fisman, et al. in pushing booster doses with the weakest of data to support it.
8) Fisman declared the following competing interests: “David Fisman has served on advisory boards related to influenza and SARS-CoV-2 vaccines for Seqirus, Pfizer, AstraZeneca and Sanofi-Pasteur Vaccines”! These seem like inappropriate conflicts of interest, especially in light of the major flaws in his paper. In combination, these are suggestive of an inappropriate bias in judgement.
There is so much more in the paper, which I highly recommend you read.
In the section: Proof that the Paper by Fisman, et al. Should be Retracted Immediately, Dr Bridle takes the actual date from Fisman’s study and plugs in the proper numbers as mentioned above. It results in a complete negating of Fisman’s claims. So abhorrent.
As Dr Bridle concludes: Correcting only this one assumption completely reverses the conclusions of the paper. All of a sudden every ratio drops below ‘1’, meaning that transmission is occurring disproportionately from ‘vaccinated’ people. Now the ‘unvaccinated’ are serving as a protective buffer for the ‘vaccinated’.
Now one must ask how skewed the conclusions of the paper would go in the opposite direction if the several other incorrect assumptions were to be corrected. As you can plainly see, this paper by Fisman, et al. is nothing short of preposterous. How could a paper be allowed to be published in what used to be a respected medical journal when its conclusions get completely reversed when only one of several reasonable corrections are made! The paper by Fisman, et al. is a classic demonstration of ‘garbage in, garbage out’.
So just WHO is getting Covid? Well, this data was taken from the Ministry of Health of Ontario’s own website April 26, 2022. And yep, you got it…the Vaccinated!! Not the Unvaccinated! Why? I explain that on my page here
Messages from Dr Bridle For Those Who Need A Slap Up The Side….
A Direct Message to Fisman, et al.
Fisman and Tuite: Your paper, which can be flipped on its head by correcting just one of your multiple incorrect immunological assumptions, stigmatizes the ‘unvaccinated’ and could potentially be used to justify policies as draconian as forced inoculations. Why are you even promoting messaging based on theoretical models using assumptions that you are not qualified to opine on when concrete scientific evidence about transmission could be generated via biological sampling? You owe Canadians an apology for disseminating harmful disinformation. Should you wish to contest my immunological critiques, I would invite you to arrange a forum where we can have an objective third party moderate a respectful discussion about COVID-19 vaccinology in front of the Canadian public with equal representatives on both sides of the debate.
A Message to the Administration of the University of Toronto
You should launch an investigation into the academic conduct of Drs. Fisman and Tuite.
A Message to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada
You should investigate Dr. Fisman and the harms that may be caused by his actions as a physician in publishing a misleading scientific paper in a medical journal.
A Message to the Canadian Medical Association Journal
Do the right thing and immediately retract the paper by Fisman, et al. There is a rumour that you may have sent this paper directly to Canadian physicians. If true, make it very clear to them that the paper represented disinformation disseminated by a physician who knows better. You should reconsider future recruitment of the services of the reviewers that promoted the publication of this paper and recommend that their academic institutions review their conduct. You should also review the conduct of your editorial board and peer review process.
A Message to the Legacy Media
Make the right choice and do everything that you can to blunt the profound harms caused by your rampant and widespread dissemination of misinformation. It is promoting hatred against critically thinking people who made highly informed and justified choices to avoid inoculations that are still in their initial clinical experimentation phase and for about which there is profound scientific debate. Protect the people that you have inappropriately placed at risk. You know where it will lead if you promote polarization of two groups of people and fuel feelings of anger and hatred in one of them against the other. Replace journalists with those who are willing to think critically and who will not support censorship of legitimate experts with ‘dissenting’ views. Nor should peer-reviewed scientific papers be treated like the gospel truth. The anonymous peer review process is fallible.
A Message to All Canadians
We are more alike than different. Do not fall into the trap set in the paper by Fisman, et al. to equate ‘likeness’ with ‘vaccination’ status. As an expert vaccinologist who has been closely following the accumulating science and, more importantly, as a fellow human being, I implore you to promote unity.
There are more conclusions to read in Dr. Bridle’s paper and please do so. Most of this article has come from his paper because it could not be said any better. I want to truly thank him for the work he has put into this for the benefit of all Canadians…no, for the benefit of all humankind. Kudos!
Make sure to subscribe to his substack thread to keep informed: Here
My other pages on Covid:
What To Do If You’ve Been Vaxxed And Are Ill: Read Here
More On Vaxx Dangers: Read Here
Bottom Line? Mainstream Media is LYING To You!
Dr Reiner Fuellmich is a German Lawyer who is leading the movement to bring all these criminals to justice in his ‘Crimes Against Humanity’ Campaign. Listen to what he has to say…
More on Dr. Bryam Bridle’s Qualifications:
His research program focuses on the development of vaccines to prevent infectious diseases and treat cancers, as well as studying the body’s immune response to viruses. He teaches several courses at the undergraduate and graduate levels on the topics of immunology, virology, and cancer biology. The overall aim of his research efforts is to develop safe and effective new immunotherapies for people. Indeed, one of my previous cancer vaccine strategies progressed into four human clinical trials.
He is also involved in training Canada’s next generation of multidisciplinary researchers, especially in vaccinology. He received funding from the Ontario Government (COVID-19 Rapid Research Fund, Ministry of Colleges and Universities) and the Government of Canada (Pandemic Response Challenge Program, National Research Council of Canada) to conduct pre-clinical research with vaccines against COVID-19. He also holds numerous grants in support of his cancer research and basic viral immunology research programs, including but not limited to the Canadian Institutes for Health Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, Terry Fox Research Institute, Canadian Cancer Society, and Cancer Research Society. He has received numerous teaching and research awards including the prestigious Terry Fox Research Institute’s New Investigator Award and the Zoetis Award for Research Excellence.
Dr Bridle has served as an expert witness for court cases related to the science of COVID-19, including vaccines.
Since the COVID-19 pandemic was declared, He has been actively involved in providing fact-based, balanced, scientific answers to questions posed by the public to help them make fully informed decisions. This has included ~300 media engagements ranging from radio shows, published articles, and appearances on televised news programs, spanning the local to international scope. He has also been an invited keynote speaker at international conferences that focused on COVID-19 and have served as an invited member of numerous COVID-19-focused discussion panels.
Vaccinology is a highly specialized sub-discipline of immunology. He is called upon as an expert in this specialized field to comment on the critical importance of high-quality, well-validated, robustly safety-tested vaccines and he routinely promotes their use. He supports the concept of vaccine mandates in well-defined scenarios. However, the definition of a vaccine had to be altered to allow the term to be applied to the current COVID-19 inoculations, which do not prevent infection, do not prevent disease (i.e, COVID-19), and do not stop transmission of SARS-CoV-2, which is the causative agent of COVID-19. In stark contrast, historically mandated vaccines, including the childhood series, provide robust, very long-lasting protective immunity. These vaccines confer near-sterilizing immunity, which means that people cannot contract the targeted disease, nor can they transmit the targeted pathogen to others. After receiving these true vaccines, individuals not only do not need to be isolated, masked, or practice physical distancing, they are actively encouraged to interact with others. Further, historically mandated vaccines were assessed for adverse events over long periods of time. The current COVID-19 inoculations had proper safety assessments ended after four months. Notably, the six-month update report provided by Pfizer showed that adverse events were higher in the vaccinated group as compared to the placebo-treated controls, and demonstrated only modest absolute effectiveness against the original variant of SARS-CoV-2. The vaccine failed to reduce COVID-related hospitalizations and deaths and is now outdated and irrelevant in the context of the currently circulating variants of SARS-CoV-2.
Based on hundreds of peer-reviewed scientific publications, it is his professional opinion that the risk-benefit profile of SARS-CoV-2 inoculations currently being used around the world demands that mandates for these vaccines be rescinded to avoid exposing any more people, especially youth, to their enhanced risks.