Breaking News

Canadian study finds “vaccine hesitancy” is linked to “risky driving” so vaccination should be encouraged to avoid accidents

Print Friendly, PDF & Email


A new study from Canada set out to test whether Covid “vaccine hesitancy” was associated with the risks of a traffic crash.  It claims there is a link between “vaccine hesitancy” and “risky driving.”  But the point of the study is revealed in their conclusion so read on …

Any rational person would read the title – ‘Covid Vaccine Hesitancy and Risk of a Traffic Crash’ – and assume it was satire.  But the editors of The American Journal of Medicine didn’t think it was a joke – they published it.  And the Stanford Department of Biomedical Data Science and the Princeton University Centre for Behavioural Science & Public Policy didn’t think it was a joke either – they provided “helpful suggestions on specific points.”

It’s worth noting it took three researchers to conduct this study. Plus, another seven to give “helpful suggestions.” Because of their great service to science and humanity, we feel the authors deserve to be named.  The lead author is Donald A. Redelmeier, a doctor in Toronto, Canada.  He was assisted by:

  • Jonathan Wang, at the Department of Medicine University of Toronto, and
  • Deva Thiruchelvam, who is affiliated with Evaluative Clinical Sciences, Sunnybrook Research Institute and Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (ICES).

The number of researchers involved is not the only surprise the study holds.  Incredibly, it has been peer-reviewed, which calls into question who the peers were and the value of their “review.”

Funding for the researchers to carry out what must be the most senseless study ever conducted was provided by a Canada Research Chair in Medical Decision Sciences, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Graduate Diploma in Health Research at the University of Toronto, and the National Sciences & Engineering Research Council of Canada.


Let’s not lose touch…Your Government and Big Tech are actively trying to censor the information reported by The Exposé to serve their own needs. Subscribe now to make sure you receive the latest uncensored news in your inbox…


The main problem is its moral compass, tweeted pathologist Dr. Clare Craig, but the entire thing is based on a data error.  Dr. Craig posted a summary of the study in a Twitter thread which we’ve copied below.

[The study states that] because of “a distrust of government or belief in freedom that contributes to both vaccination preferences and increased traffic risks.”

It goes on …

“A different explanation might be misconceptions of everyday risks, faith in natural protection, antipathy toward regulation, chronic poverty, exposure to misinformation, insufficient resources, or other personal beliefs.”

These claims are based on accidents which resulted in hospitalisation.  Each person injured is referred to in the paper as a “crash” – even when the injured person was a pedestrian!

“Results show substantial incidence of serious traffic crashes that is increased for those who are not vaccinated relative to those who are vaccinated.”

There is a fundamental error in how they reached that conclusion. They used two sets of data:

  1. the numbers of people presenting to hospital after a traffic accident
  2. The number of people in the government vaccination database

Nowhere do they talk about people who are not in the system.  Someone not in the government [vaccine] data could still be in an accident. They would still go to hospital if injured. Only then would they be added to the government data.  All those people who are not in the system and remained healthy are not counted.

Accidents in [vaccine] are measured as a proportion of those [vaccine]. Accidents in the [no vaccine] are measured as a proportion of those [no vaccine] and in the system.

This table shows the problem clearly.  No matter which way you chop the data the risk is apparently increased by about the same amount.  The vertical line at point 1 should be picked up and lifted across to where all the dots are.

You still see an increased risk for people with dementia who were not vaccinated (and highly likely to have been pedestrians).  You also see a lower risk for the old, those with diseases of the old and those who had covid.

Using their same methodology, you could estimate that the unvaccinated had a higher rate of anything:

  • giving to charity
  • recycling
  • buying the most Christmas presents

… whatever you want when the levels are actually the same – because the denominator is artificially small.

The point is probably best made by the number of people they claim to have in the database: 11,270,763.  Not 11,300,000.  It was exactly 11,270,763.  It is not possible to measure the size of a city that accurately.

Their conclusion is worth sharing too:

“These data suggest that Covid vaccine hesitancy is associated with significant increased risks of a traffic crash. An awareness of these risks might help to encourage more Covid vaccination.”

Dr. Craig ended by reposting and remarking on a reply to her thread, see below. “Good point!” she wrote.

“An awareness of these risks might help to encourage more Covid vaccination.”  This sentence, this is what the funders paid for. It would be interesting to know how much that sentence cost the funders, how much they were prepared to pay to have it published in The American Journal of Medicine.

Professor Norman Fenton tweeted: “Great thread by @ClareCraigPath exposing flaws in the ludicrous article claiming unvaxxed are more likely to be in a car accident. I’d note one additional confounder: unvaxxed are more likely to travel since they aren’t too scared to leave home.”

And then made a video about it:

Prof. Norman Fenton: A Study in Stupidity: does the covid vaccine really lower your risk of being in a car accident? 15 December 2022 (8 mins)
Share this page to Telegram

Categories: Breaking News, World News

Tagged as:

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

25 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Leslie
Leslie
1 month ago

This is so stupid, it’s not to be taken seriously.

GundelP
GundelP
Reply to  Leslie
1 month ago

Oh no, they explained it. 😀
That those are the people who like not to follow rules because of it antivaxxers are a threat to society. (I saw this news earlier, elsewhere.)

Richard
Richard
1 month ago

Still another stupid attempt at fooling people into submission..

Pat
Pat
1 month ago

Note the study is published in The American Journal of Medicine. In other words, a mouthpiece of the medical CARTEL. They will latch on to ANYTHING to try to FORCE more people to get the clot shots. They argue that people who refused the shot are more likely to defy authority, so more likely to disobey traffic laws.

Here’s the fallacy: people who didn’t get the shots are being PRUDENT. And prudent people are more likely to drive safely, whether they specifically obey this or that traffic law at a particular moment or not. Furthermore, they’re not subject to sudden death, heart attacks, strokes, seizures, and other events caused by the death shots while driving, so they don’t cause vaccidents. Any honest research would have discovered these things.

Oh, maybe they should exclude people who were so disabled by the shots they can no longer drive in the first place.

Oh, and by the way, the last point is true of me: I never locked down. I was not afraid of going out. I have never gotten the death shots, nor will I. I’ve never worn a mask, either.

This may not be a hoax but it sure as heck is fraud and a scam.

Pat
Pat
Reply to  Pat
1 month ago

PS, I am a good example of being prudent. I drive back roads instead of major streets whenever possible, just to avoid the idiots who got the death shots in the first place. Fewer cars and pedestrians, less likelihood of an accident OR a vaccident.

bluearea
bluearea
Reply to  Pat
1 month ago

I like your idea, I’ve noticed more idiots on the main roads these days , whether there got the thing or not, I’m leaning not so much to blood clots but to the blood worms

GundelP
GundelP
Reply to  Pat
1 month ago
GundelP
GundelP
Reply to  Pat
1 month ago

This time I agree with you.

GaryP
GaryP
Reply to  Pat
1 month ago

This is a good article to remember.

Any time someone refers to an peer reviewed article in a prominent medical journal, point out this article and laugh in their face.

bangbangsilverhammer
bangbangsilverhammer
1 month ago

I’ve commented on here this year about the exact opposite.. I’ve noticed more bad drivers and seen more crashes than ever before, notice how many of these seem to be people falling ill behind the wheel, notice how crashes are often near a hospital, doctors surgery, or death jab centre.

Bob - Enough
Bob - Enough
Reply to  bangbangsilverhammer
1 month ago

Yes lots of videos coming out about that on the likes of Odysee and Rumble now; drivers having strokes, heart problems, blanking out and crashing.

Mark Deacon
Mark Deacon
Reply to  bangbangsilverhammer
1 month ago

You are also an unvaxxed driver if you have not had any booster shot … so the research needs to clarify their definition of unvaxxed.

VoicefromEurope
VoicefromEurope
1 month ago

These studies are proof that Justin was right al along. He must be proud of himself.

bluearea
bluearea
1 month ago

aliens are coming next week to and I have some prime property to sell in the mountains to, so give me a break, what did you leave out that call this BS

julal
julal
1 month ago

this beggars belief, these people need to get a different job and quickly. They must be complete morons to do this kind of study in the first place, anyone who keeps pushing this poisonous vaccine really needs to be held accountable as it’s been proven not to protect you and the harm it’s been proven to do

GundelP
GundelP
Reply to  julal
1 month ago

I’ve never thought we reach this day, Dr Kaufman as he changed colors.
One of the thing he questioned was the death vax’ poisonous effect. He couldn’t see it proven that people die off on an elevated level because of the vax. Allow me to show it in points, I think he can be wrong or a bit ignorant on one but all?

He questioned the presence of graphene oxide and nanotech (both) He said: graphene is black, during autopsy that should have been seen. First of all, its colour depends on the number of layers, can be transparent. Secondly they told lies about graphene, one of this,Diego Peña, professor of chemistry, LIED to everyone, including Dr. Albarracín, telling us that graphene was black.
https://www.laquintacolumna.info/translations/we-were-told-that-graphene-was-black/
Thirdly, many laboratory found it and identified including the UK’s, that and the NZ’s were even given to the police as proof.

Then he questioned the reliability of the funeral workers / directors like O’Looney telling that how could they know that the dead had got a vax (they knew, many times the family told to them while chatting)

He questioned the famous white blood clots what embalmers found telling that there was SOME before the covid vax. Can be, but he failed to mention that it was 10 or 20 or 100 years ago. Because if it was recently, they very likely tested the stuff on a smaller amount of people, the tech before the actual worldwide manufacturing.

He questioned that the elevated death is connected to the vax – or rather didn’t see it proven.

At this point I stopped and started to think as when we see him first? He came out of nowhere but in a kind of loud way. Questioning viruses and questioning PCR and proving that viruses never were properly isolated and the PCR never was reliable. Those videos were excellent – but still – being a no named someone he suddenly became a ‘celebrity’ with plenty followers (including myself). The glitch. – The virus fraud was uncovered a decades ago by Dr Stefan Lanka, then by Jane Massey (FOI requests) by Jon Rappoport, etc. The PCR fraud also, Rappoport, the inventor of it, etc.

This is like a pattern, someone (who was not the first) shows up with a truth-bomb then some more, people start to believe to the one, then when the credit is established the one turns color. But it is still sad, I really liked him (and supported his work, too).

GundelP
GundelP
Reply to  GundelP
1 month ago

This one (as the link was not approved).

nonapprovedlink.JPG
Susan Askew
Susan Askew
1 month ago

Clearly Vernon Coleman is correct – presumably the authors have had the vaccine themselves and are brain damaged. Even if there were a correlation (and clearly this study is just bad science) to then argue a jab would make any difference at all to road traffic accidents is crazy. They should lose their jobs. Those who gave them money should lose their jobs. Those who published this rubbish should lose their jobs. They are ALL mad.

Dong Fong
Dong Fong
1 month ago

Ironic …one would think the jab tested dumbies are more likely to crash!

Captain Steve
Captain Steve
1 month ago

They are idiots to think this means anything important. Older people drive less and drive more cautiously and get jabbed more. Surprise.

trainman6
trainman6
1 month ago

What a bunch of lies, the Medical Journal that did this study is corrupt as the day is long total Bull Crap and they are still pushing the jab and taking away doctors License if doctors refuse to go along with the narrative.

Poppie
Poppie
1 month ago

Rubbish. Utter rubbish. I am so-called ‘vaccine hesitant’ because I am cautious and careful by nature, and prefer to weigh up the evidence. I have never rushed headlong into anything. I have been driving for 55 years and never had an accident.

Richadio
Richadio
1 month ago

IF you are vaccinated and drive a vehicle, you should be forced to have a flag on your antenna to alert others to use caution.

Mark Deacon
Mark Deacon
1 month ago

Go for it … being unvaxxed and expected to pay for vaxxed if this article was not so ludicrous as too be true then the vaxxed can pay for my poor driving like I am paying for their poor medical choices.

If this was true, the military wuld be all in on it … so as to enforce vaxccination all all F-35 planes and M1A1 Abrahm Tank drivers don’t you think?