Breaking News

New Modelling Study concludes ‘Unvaccinated are a danger to the Vaccinated’; but Real-World Data proves COVID Vaccines INCREASE Risk of Infection by 400%

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

A new study which has been publicised by Forbes, makes the bold claim that “unvaccinated people increase the risk of Covid infection among the vaccinated”.

But with UK Government data showing the Covid-19 case-rate per 100,000 is significantly higher among the triple vaccinated population than it is among the unvaccinated population, and New Zealand Government data showing the Covid-19 hospitalisation-rate per 100,000 is also highest among the triple vaccinated, the conclusions of the paper don’t seem to match what’s happening in the real world.

So how have the authors of this eagerly publicised study come to their conclusion?

It could have something to do with one of the authors serving on advisory boards related to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines for Seqirus, Pfizer, AstraZeneca and Sanofi-Pasteur Vaccines.

By Guy Hatchard

Business magazine Forbes has published a story with the arresting headline:

“Unvaccinated People Increase Risk Of Covid Infection Among Vaccinated, Study Finds”.

The work they are referring to is not in the normal sense a study but is actually a modelling exercise published by the journal of the Canadian Medical Association. Did the Forbes staff writer read the paper very well? I am quite sure they didn’t. At the end of paragraph one of the Method section of the original paper, it describes their model saying:

“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.”

Now I am sure you know that the mRNA vaccines do not stop infection and also wane in effectiveness. You only need to look at official Government data in the UK to see that –

In other words, mRNA vaccination does not confer immunity and its effectiveness does not remain constant as the paper assumes. So what use is this paper and to what do its conclusions apply? Apparently not to the mRNA Covid vaccines.

Conflicts of interest are at work

Lo and behold, one of the paper’s authors, David Fisman, declares competing interests:

“He has served on advisory boards related to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines for Seqirus, Pfizer, AstraZeneca and Sanofi-Pasteur Vaccines.…”

Another author, Ashleigh Tuite, was employed by the Public Health Agency of Canada when the research was conducted (aka the domain of Justin Trudeau).

So why would Forbes publicise this story which prima facie has little relevance to the real-world data of the current pandemic? Forbes magazine is 51% owned by a Hong Kong based company Integrated Whale Investments about which little is known. The Washington Post has suggested that Forbes editorial policy has been influenced as a result, but by whom no one really knows.

At this point in the pandemic, it has become clear that boosted individuals are becoming more vulnerable to Omicron than the unvaccinated. So I can only suggest that it might be advantageous for some scientists and politicians to blame the unvaccinated for everything in order to cover up their own mistaken ideas. Or perhaps there are commercial interests anxious to sell more arguably useless vaccines for billions of dollars. You decide.

The unwitting public are the victims here.

If the government and their compliant media friends are our one source of truth, as has happened in New Zealand (by decree), then you have no option except to blame the unvaccinated whatever happens. For our government, it is quite useful to be able to quote a study (???) that affirms just that, even if it is irrelevant and unrelated to the real world we are living in.

The actual NZ situation is quite different, the unvaccinated are currently less likely to be hospitalised than the boosted. Thank you to Grant Dixon for compiling and graphing NZ Ministry of Health data, below.

Carefully masked from reality

This morning my mask exempt friend entered a haberdashery shop, whereupon two other potential customers turned and fled. Yesterday she was turned away from a fabric store. I am sure many of you have had similar experiences. The fact of the matter is that almost the whole of the New Zealand population has become subject to fear-based government-sponsored group-think.

Are we all being conditioned to vote for Jacinda Ardern in next year’s election based on the carefully constructed myth that she is keeping us all safe? We should be keeping our feet on the ground. We should recognise that public relations experts and propaganda promoters are at work full time, but they are working out of touch with reality.

Is it the economy?

Meanwhile, our whole economy is becoming more and more dysfunctional. As people are too afraid to associate with one another in public, the whole basis of commercial activity is being undermined.

The two large supermarket chains are laughing all the way to the bank. As small businesses are forced to close and their monopoly grows, supermarket prices and profits are entering the stratosphere. Smart individuals are now ordering their vegetables and groceries direct from Australia (as far away from us as Moscow is from London) because they are so much cheaper.

This week in the UK the government was forced to intervene to control prices as the cost of tomatoes (mostly imported) rose from NZ$1.10 to $1.80 per kilo. The public were outraged and made their disapproval known in no uncertain terms, forcing the government to act. Here in New Zealand (where tomatoes are easily grown), Countdown is charging at this minute, as I write, on its website from $6 to $16 per kilo for tomatoes.

The government is clueless to control this rampant price gouging, as it is clueless about most things including the pandemic. The public is equally hoodwinked, we are queueing up fully masked and fully vaccinated to pay through the nose for everyday items without so much as a squeak of dissent.

The ten-year-old son of a friend asked his mother the other day “Which do you think our society is more like—Brave New World or 1984?” I doubt either Aldous Huxley or George Orwell could ever have imagined anything so incomprehensibly doublethink as 2022 New Zealand.

This is the state we have reached through our government’s careful rationing of information and saturation conditioning.

Time we reopened the flood gates of free speech and social media—hold your horses, we might endanger our one source of truth.

Share this page to Telegram
5 1 vote
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
26 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
lofax
lofax

Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week.
 I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it outit.. 🙂 AND GOOD LUCK.:) HERE====)> https://www.homzjob.com

Last edited 20 days ago by lofax
KatrinaShaw
KatrinaShaw

I made $92/hr. It’s time to take some action and you can join it too.It is a simple, dedicated and easy way to get rich. Three weeks from now you will wish you had started today.Simply give it a shot on the accompanying site.
GOOD LUCK… http://Www.cashapp1.Com

Last edited 19 days ago by KatrinaShaw
benellitre
benellitre
20 days ago

ahhhh. the old modelling disinformation trick. Garbage input = Garbage output

exiled off mainstreet
exiled off mainstreet
Reply to  benellitre
20 days ago

Those making these models are proven to be criminals pushing dangerous drugs according to the factual information which proves the injections are injurious.

betidi
betidi
Reply to  exiled off mainstreet
20 days ago

I make more then $12,000 a month online. It’s enough to comfortably replace my old jobs income, especially considering I only work about 11 to 12 hours a week from home. I was amazed how easy it was after I tried it…GOOD LUCK.. https://www.makemeboost.com

Last edited 20 days ago by betidi
Melissa
Melissa
Reply to  benellitre
20 days ago

I make more then $12,000 a month online. It’s enough to comfortably replace my old jobs income, especially considering I only work about 11 to 12 hours a week from home. I was amazed how easy it was after I tried it… 🙂 AND GOOD LUCK.:)

HERE====)> https://www.hmjobz.com
        

Last edited 20 days ago by Melissa
Tommy
Tommy
20 days ago

Was Neil Ferguson involved in this modelling.?

Juriean Brands
Juriean Brands
20 days ago

I suppose they mean with ‘unvaccinated’ the ‘just vaccinated’ (14days remember).

Zerro85
Zerro85
Reply to  Juriean Brands
19 days ago

$95 an hour! Seriously I don’t know why more people haven’t tried this, I work two shifts, 2 hours in the day and 2 in the evening…And whats awesome is Im working from home so I get more time with my kids. Heres where I went, ===))> https://www.fuljobz.com

Last edited 19 days ago by Zerro85
foobs
foobs
20 days ago

“So why would Forbes publicise this story which prima facie has little relevance to the real-world data of the current pandemic? The Washington Post has suggested that Forbes editorial policy has been influenced as a result, but by whom no one really knows.”

Forbes pander to the rich and the rich worshippers, so they publish articles that these people want to read. The readers want to read about how much money they have or can make, and the drug pushers are making a lot of money. People that read forbes don’t want the truth, they want to look at big houses and what they can buy with all their money. The idea that forbes are concerned in any way with the truth is laughable. The editors only care how many copies are sold so that they get paid a higher percentage. Nothing in forbes is worth reading, unless you’re an idiot.

Fleur
Fleur
20 days ago

Sick and tired of this scum.

Winston Smiff
Winston Smiff
20 days ago

The pronlem with all this Covid data is that its based on the useless RT PCR tests and LFD and modeling. So knowing this, you might aswell print all the stats onto toilet paper and sell it because thats all its good for. No claims about anything covid related can be taken seriously one way or another….its completely useless data – full stop !

Last edited 20 days ago by Winston Smiff
Chris
Chris
20 days ago

They won’t be able to keep lying forever. Eventually they will catch themselves out or it will be proven through a court of law how they have tricked & deceived so many people. Unfortunately, for the sheep that have been taken in & got themselves jabbed it will soon not matter.

Paul Watson
Paul Watson
Reply to  Chris
19 days ago

If only the courts were interested..

Rob
Rob
20 days ago

There is a reason the word “pharmakeia” is translated “sorcery” in the book of Revelation:

https://sumofthyword.com/2021/02/02/pure-from-the-blood-of-all-men/

M Dowrick
M Dowrick
20 days ago

“New study shows the unvaxxed”…why when it is clear here in the Uk via UKHSA the triple jabbed dropped like flies with covid. I live here and witnessed nearly every neighbour, family member and friend, all triple jabbed went down. Why then is the model regarding the unvaxxed the leading sentence in this article. Personally I would rather see more attention paid to just WHY the triple jabbed went into free fall negativity post jabs, rather than a misleading model about the unvaxxed. Thanks.

Paul Watson
Paul Watson
20 days ago

We are a danger too them.
No one likes to hear they have been completely fooled and injected themselves with a bio weapon.

Rosemary
Rosemary
19 days ago

Dr Jessica Rose has debunked this study in a recent substack piece. She shows that the conclusion is based on an assumption that immunity among the unvaccinated is 20%; real data shows it to be 90%. Simply putting in the true value gives the complete opposite conclusion ie that the vaccinated are a danger to the unvaccinated. It is also a very poor example of mathematical modelling with a large number of variables.

Greeboz6
Greeboz6
19 days ago

These modelers, are they the same ones who “predict” the Climate Change warming? They work for the same groups & their results are equally suspect.

SkippingDog
SkippingDog
19 days ago

The real test is what the percentage of deaths resulting from a Covid-19 infection is when compared between the vaccinated and unvaccinated populations. In the U.S., the unvaccinated have a fatality rate 10-15 times higher than the vaccinated do.

Paul Watson
Paul Watson
19 days ago

The opposite is true.
Just using this to maintain division and justify shipping the unajnbed off to camps next year…
Majority of the triple jabbed are constantly sick.
Taking weeks to recover from a common cold.

trainman6
trainman6
19 days ago

No matter how you dress up the bull–it, it is still bull–it. you expect us to believe this, when at the very first you said that vaccines will protect you from covid now you push these charts and say look at the evidence, you have soiled your reputation and are no longer credible.

trackback
18 days ago

[…] 26.  !! New Modelling Study concludes ‘Unvaccinated are a danger to the Vaccinated’; but Real-World Data… […]