New CMAJ "Study" "Proves" Unvaccinated Are As Good As Rabid Dogs

Or so they say. And there is not much we can do about how this message will be received by "the lemmings".

“The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.” (George Orwell, “1984”).

The breaking news of today! A new Canadian Medical Association Journal study unequivocally proves that unvaccinated must be put down, lest they threaten the vaccinated: “Unvaccinated People May Increase Risk For Others“ (MSN India). Run for your life! And it is just a re-publish from countless other such re-publishes of today, and I've heard it on the local radio first thing this morning, as the most important scientific take-away of the day. It seems to be a contest for the most scary caption. Here are just SOME examples:

• https://medicalxpress.com/news/2022-04-unvaccinated-people-sars-cov-vaccinated-vaccination.html: “Unvaccinated people increase risk of SARS-CoV-2 for vaccinated people even when vaccination rates are high”

• https://www.scimex.org/newsfeed/unvaccinated-people-put-vaccinated-people-at-higher-covid-19-risk-when-they-mingle: “The unvaccinated increase the risk of COVID-19 for the vaccinated when they mingle”

• https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2022/04/25/remaining-unvaccinated-increases-risk-to-the-vaccinated-says-u-of-t-covid-study.html: “Remaining unvaccinated increases risk to the vaccinated, says U of T COVID study”

• https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-unvaccinated-covid-risk-for-vaccinated-canada/ “Unvaccinated disproportionately risk safety of those vaccinated against COVID-19, study shows”

This is how “the lemmings” are kept in their constant state of fear of the unvaccinated. As we all know, they don’t read past the article’s title, let alone think for themselves.

In all reality: as the association, as the study. As it turns out, the “study”, pompously titled “Impact of population mixing between vaccinated and unvaccinated subpopulations on infectious disease dynamics: implications for SARS-CoV-2 transmission“, is a modelling study, i.e., a bunch of parameters that are plugged into some mathematical model (to earn your respect) and then adjusted to produce any result required by the study sponsors. In particular, these are the landmark assumptions.

The “study” assumes that:

• 80% of the population vaccinated. As of Feb 1. 2022, more or less.

• 20% of unvaccinated have prior immunity to Covid-19, after 2.5 years of being the most vulnerable ones?! Assumption, so!

• 40%-80% of vaccinated are immune, due to the “protection” conferred by vaccines, duh! That’s totaly bogus, let’s see how they frame it: “Our lower-bound estimate for vaccine effectiveness (40%) reflected uncertainty about the emerging Omicron variant, whereas our upper bound (80%) reflected the higher effectiveness seen with the Delta variant.“ “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. We did not model waning immunity.“

• then they presume these to be the initial conditions for the start of their “model pandemic” (how lame is this artificial setup?) and calculate the progression of the number of infections among the unvaccinated and “vaccinated” with time, under different “mingling” assumptions (unvaccinated mingling mostly with the unvaccinated and jabbed with jabbed, or randomly to a different degree). Here are the revolutionary results of such fake setup:

  

Let me explain what we see after a strong like-to-like mixing in such “epidemic”. All the unvaccinated got sick and recovered in 25 days (or died out, as the case may be), while the jabbed continued to spread the pestilence among themselves for up to 75 days.

If mingling totally randomly, the “epidemic” lasts for 100 days or so, with cases among the unvaccinated in sync with the “vaccinated”.

The scoop is the last bar graph: the more random the mingling (more mingling of unvaccinated with “vaccinated”), the more “vaccinated” get infected, but the overall number of infected remains about same in all scenarios, as this is balanced by fewer unvaccinated cases. Overall, on the population level, no difference whatsoever. Keep calm and carry on?

As to how “scientific” the “study” actually is, this is what the estemed authors claim as one of their key “results”: “Results. We found that the risk of infection was markedly higher among unvaccinated people than among vaccinated people under all mixing assumptions.“ Come again? Wasn’t it the key part of the “study” setup that postulated 80% of the unvaccinated are susceptilbe vs merely 20-40% of the jabbed? And then you’ve “found” it as a “result” of your “study”? What are you smoking? I want that too!

Implications for SARS-CoV-2 transmission? Zero. This doesn’t provoke, even remotely, the “conclusions” about the current Covid-19 situation arrived at by the “media”, even if you try to read between the lines. There was no vaccine at the start of the pandemic, nor the large numbers around the world already jabbed. The “vaccines” turned out to be duds, the “vaccine” protection cooked up through statistical tricks and outright fraud, said “protection” turning strongly negative in the course of mere months, if not weeks with the boosters, the continuous jabbing feeding the emergence of new variants, countless “vaccine” recipients ending up injured or dead (no one knows which is better), and, and, and… If anything, this study suggests that at this stage of the Covid-19 “pandemic”, the vaccinated should be only concerned with themselves, as the unvaccinated have all been naturally immunized long time ago. By hey, who looks at the graphs?

And that is the contribution of this modelling “study” to our deep understanding of the Covid-19 epidemic dynamics: the “study” authors produced some fake graphs based on some fake inputs. Does it relate to the real world Covid-19 “pandemic” data? If you answered “it doesn’t”, you’ve earned a bonus point.

Note that “not fully vaccinated” in this Ontario statistic include freshly jabbed (0-14 days post-jab), greatly contributing to their cases. And, even so:

As of now, we see that vaccinated and, especially, boosted are the real spreaders of the virus and the danger to themselves, mostly.

As the reader cmpalmer75 points out in the comments section below: “The UK Health Security Agency week 13 report showed the triple-jabbed had an infection rate of 2 to ~5 times that of the vaxx free. Nearly 90% of the deaths at 28 days were in people who had at least one jab. The UKHSA found a cure, though. They just stopped reporting infections, hospitalizations, and deaths by vaxx status. Itsamiracle! (pp 41-54): https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1066759/Vaccine-surveillance-report-week-13.pdf

Walgreens (a US pharmacy chain that has conducted tests and administered jabs) has also reported the same phenomenon (Slide 3): https://www.walgreens.com/businesssolutions/covid-19-index.jsp“

And there are numerous such examples from other countries, like Denmark or New Zealand, or Yamanashi Prefecture in Japan (thanks, Guy Jin); feel free to contribute to this list. Nothing in this “study” correlates with the reality on the ground, from the assumptions, the setup, the results, or the conclusions. Except to provide a headline for the gazillion of articles in the world “news” media today that all will be shouting, ad nauseam, “Unvaccinated people are a menace to the society!!!“ Selfish and irresponsible at that.

Now, we know that this is just another psy-op. Isn’t it the best time to get your second boosters, lemmings?

I stand corrected!