Navigating through the Numerical Warfare

Pandemic fraud must be fought and defeated

It's been a while since I last wrote on Substack — since the fall of 2022. Once I realized the extent of scientific fraud within the academic establishment and their intention of keeping the C19 deception alive, I put all of my effort into forging a defense. Everything else took a back seat, including my posts.

Since that time, much has transpired. So, I thought I’d write about my journey so far, starting with a quick recap of where I left off since my last post before discussing where I’m going with things.

It has become clear that the “pandemic of the unvaccinated” was a political narrative – a fraud fueled by HATE SCIENCE. It was used to deceive people into getting an experimental vaccine and to vilify anyone who chose not to be a lab rat. Tenured University of Toronto professor, David Fisman, and his two colleagues, Ashleigh Tuite and Afia Amoako, played a pivotal role in keeping the faux narrative alive long after mother nature had done her damnedest to shut it down.

The research trio basically overwrote the Omicron wave with a fake simulation that showed trends opposite reality — namely, that the unvaccinated had higher C19 incident rates than the vaccinated and thus posed a disproportionate risk to others. They attempted to pass off their fabricated data and results as fact, and used their fictitious facts to vilify the unvaccinated, scapegoat them for the vaccine’s failure to curtail transmission, and to justify vaccine mandates, passports and travel restrictions.

The fraudulent government-funded study was slopped-up by mainstream media — headlines warning of the risk of merely hanging out with the unvaccinated circled the globe within hours of the study’s publication. Within days of it’s official release, the study was waved around in Parliament by Liberal MP Adam Van Koeverden to justify extending the Trudeau government’s travel restrictions against “the unvaccinated.”

Figure 1: Liberal MP Adam Van Koeverden uses Fisman’s faux study to justify travel restrictions against “the unvaccinated”

The study was appalling on so many levels, its implications deeper than many people realized at the time.

I spent over seven months attempting to get the fraudulent paper retracted. At first, I naively thought that the Canadian Medical Association Journal (the journal that published the study) and the University of Toronto would want to distance themselves from such academic malfeasance. Instead, they proved to be complicit. The Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), the federal agency that funded the study, also chose to not to investigate the fraud and not to set the public record straight.

So, I gathered my evidence and sought a police investigation, not only into the researchers, but all three organizations involved in the study. I put together a 150-page evidentiary report, sent it to the Anti-Rackets Branch of the Ontario Provincial Police and provided Ontario Premier Doug Ford’s office a copy. Unfortunately, they too were not eager to investigate. Indeed, the detective sergeant who interviewed me, “quad-vaxxed Todd”, openly stated that he, personally, hadn't suffered from the deceit and was quite happy with how the government played its (heavy) hand during the pandemic. Case closed.

What was I to do?

I decided if authorities weren’t going to investigate and set the record straight, then I would have to do it for them. But that would require public support.

So, I wrote Fisman’s Fraud: The Rise of Canadian Hate Science. Within its pages, I spelled out the fraud, its implications and the need to establish protections. The book is not merely an exposé of the scientific gaslighting and political scapegoating that we endured, but a call to action. We all play a role in how this pandemic charade unfolds.

The road to publication was not a smooth one. Unsurprisingly, I faced numerous obstacles and censorship shenanigans early on. But ultimately, I did manage to make the book available world-wide. And, with the help of independent journalists and podcasters, the book has picked up momentum. I am very appreciative of these efforts and opportunities, thank you!!! A big break came when Natali Morris from @TheRedactedInc read my book, gave it a 5 star review and asked me to appear on her show!!!

Figure 2 (Video, Tweet): Fisman’s Fraud received international attention on Redacted!

The international exposure certainly helped Fisman’s Fraud gain traction. It placed 7th on Amazon Charts CA the week of the Redacted interview — wedged between books on Matthew Perry and Britney Spears! 🤭

Figure 3: Fisman’s Fraud places 7th in Amazon Charts following Redacted interview!

Despite the exposure, the faux study has not been retracted and no corrections have been issued by the parties involved. And, instead of being reprimanded for his fraudulent research, Fisman now sits at the helm of the modelling and strategizing unit of the University of Toronto’s Institute for Pandemics (IFP). He is set to lead Canada and the globe in modelling future pandemics and emergencies. The fraudulent study’s co-author, Ashleigh Tuite, is also a member of this new institute.

When researchers are able to commit overt acts of scientific fraud without negative consequences, it emboldens them to continue engaging in such acts. David Fisman and Ashleigh Tuite demonstrate this perfectly in their recent publication on the impact of community mask mandates — a study co-funded by CIHR and IFP.

Fisman has been Canada’s frontman for pandemic modelling since the early days of 2020 — his analysis was used to champion all things draconian: lockdowns, school closures, masking, vaccine mandates, travel restrictions etc. His latest masking study continues in that vein, relying on statistical sorcery to get the desired results. In it, David Fisman, Ashleigh Tuite and three other colleagues from University of Toronto’s Dalla Lana School of Public Health, claimed that mask mandates introduced in Ontario municipalities over the latter half of 2020 were highly effective — masking prevented thousands of deaths and resulted in hundreds of millions of dollars in savings in the first 6 months alone! The study was published in a peer-reviewed American Journal and has been presented at a Yale seminar for public health modelling.

Once you are able to sift through the convoluted statistical jargon (which is by no means easy), it becomes apparent that the study is beyond bad. The methodology used can be summarized in three steps: (1) apply a fudge-factor to the raw data to get a more policy-friendly dataset (2) fit an apocalyptic model to the fudged numbers and show how things “would have been even worse” without the pandemic measure, and, (3) completely abandon statistical principles in order to estimate bogus benefits.

Figure 4 (Tweet): Fisman’s Bogus Masking Study in Three Simple Steps

The masking study is a joke, but that joke is on us.

Throughout the pandemic, Fisman and other University of Toronto colleagues have demonstrated that they are not only willing to completely fabricate data and pass it off as fact, but they are willing to make up their own nonsensical measures (for example, the Ψ measure used to to assign blame to “the unvaccinated”) and will go the extra mile by inventing bogus statistical methodology to get the results wanted.

The level of academic foul play is off the charts. Yet, it is being taken up by peer-reviewed journals and used to influence or justify harmful public policy.

Ironically, the masking study provides an admission of sorts. Fisman, his fellow researchers, and the journal, have inadvertently admitted that COVID-19 case counts are unreliable and that the true number and time trends of C19 cases were likely to be much larger and bear little to no resemblance to the actual cases reported. The official counts are so unreliable that the researchers felt free to fabricate what they believe is a better representation of what occurred, inflating case numbers up to 25 times those reported before masking and up to around 4 times the reported cases after masking. As COVID-19 cases were used to justify school closures, lockdowns, masking etc., an admission of their inadequacy by pro-narrative “experts” is worth noting — I will file that away for future reference.

Since the beginning of the pandemic, manipulated statistics and absurd modelling have been used to give government carte blanch when it came to power, spending and human rights abuses. Many of the statistical tricks used wouldn’t pass the slightest scientific scrutiny. Thus, to keep the political narrative alive, scientific discourse was all but eradicated through a combination of censorship and punitive action against medical professionals and qualified experts who dared to speak out.

Despite a profuse number of breakthrough cases, higher C19 incident rates amongst the vaccinated (especially the boosted), mounting reports of vaccine injury, and huge safety signals in passive tracking systems such as VAERS and EudraVigilance, the “safe and effective” vaccine mantra continues. Faux studies continue to be pumped out in support of C19 vaccines with new statistical tricks building on the old ones.

There has been no acknowledgment of wrongdoings.

No apologies.

No course correction.

No accountability.

How do we bring about the necessary change in a system that shows no desire to self-correct?

While Omicron forced a temporary reprieve from the most brutal government measures (namely vaccine passports, mandates & travel restrictions) the federal government has warned that such actions can be reinstated at any time if the right opportunity presents itself. Indeed, the machinery to do so has been set. If we do not want to see a repeat we must demand reform and protections. To that end, it is important to identify (1) key manipulations that drove the faux narrative (2) key players and (3) key acts that demonstrate malfeasance.

David Fisman has shown himself to be a key player in the scientific deception as have other members of the Ontario COVID-19 Science Advisory Table (OST). Moreover, it can be shown that they engaged in skillful contrivance to support the political C19 narrative post-Omicron, once the early systematic tricks no longer sufficed. That is, they demonstrated an intent to deceive and cause harm.

Figure 5: Fisman and the Ontario C19 Science Advisory Table were central figures in Canada’s pandemic response

Once Omicron hit and cases surged amongst vaccine-passport holders, pro-vax zealots hit a new level of desperation. Politicians doubled-down on the “pandemic of the unvaccinated” rhetoric and looked for additional ways to stick-it to those who declined the jabs. Trudeau brought in additional restrictions against unvaccinated truckers and, when peaceful protestors showed up on Parliament’s doorstep to oppose the tyrannical mandates & restrictions, the Liberals and NDP supported the unconstitutional invocation of the Emergency Act. Then, to support the harsh government measures and further undermine the notion of bodily autonomy, David Fisman, Afia Amoako and Ashleigh Tuite fabricated data and results. Other pro-vax scientists looked for more subtle tactics.

While the federal government leaned on Fisman et al.’s fraudulent study to justify punitive policies, some employers turned to the Ontario Science Table for support of their unscientific vaccine mandates. But a look on the Science Table’s online dashboard reveals some troubling analysis. For example, consider this side-by-side comparison of official Government of Ontario C19 case rates compared to the “age-standardized” rates calculated by the Science Table.

Figure 6: The Science Table used an inappropriate and unsound reweighting scheme to inflate estimated COVID-19 case rates amongst the unvaccinated population.

According to raw Government of Ontario data (above figure, left panel) the vaccinated group had disproportionately more reported COVID-19 cases than the unvaccinated group during the Omicron wave — a real problem for those who advocated for restrictions against the unvaccinated. The reweighted incident rates calculated by the Science Table (right panel) conveniently eradicated this problematic Omicron trend by falsely inflating unvaccinated estimates so that they always sit above those of the vaccinated. The vaccinated curve appears virtually unchanged.

The Science Table contends that comparing raw incident rates is misleading since the vaccinated population is older, with disproportionately more seniors than the unvaccinated population. They argue that the reweighted incident rates indicate what would have been observed had vaccination uptake been similar across the various age groups, and thus provides a more appropriate comparison. While this hand-waving argument may seem reasonable, its legitimacy hinges on whether some basic underlying assumptions are met. Unfortunately, when routine validity checks are conducted, it is apparent that the assumptions do not hold — not even close. Indeed, inspection of the data shows that incident rates amongst vaccinated youth and working-aged individuals far exceeded those of the unvaccinated during the Omicron wave. Moreover, it appears that the Science Table exploited overblown incident rate estimates in the unvaccinated senior age group to reweight the data and obscure unwanted findings. I will be posting a detailed examination of this skullduggery and will link it here once published.

**Note: This statistical sleight of hand has serious implications for unvaccinated workers who were terminated or put on unpaid leave, especially those involved in workplace tribunals where reweighted (fudged) Science Table estimates were used to justify the punitive measures (eg. Toronto Fire fighters Association vs City of Toronto; Toronto v Toronto Civic Employees’ Union, CUPE Local 416. Note that Jüni’s evidence went unchallenged by the unions).**

Figure 7: Dr. Peter Jüni appears to have used fudged Science Table estimates in his testimony in order to support vaccine mandates in the workplace post-Omicron

It is important to note that both the reported Ontario C19 incident rates and the “age-standardized” Science Table estimates incorporate systematic biases in favor of vaccination. The standard practice of misclassifying cases as “unvaccinated” if they test C19 positive within 14 days after the first jab serves to inflate the reported C19 incident rates amongst the unvaccinated, while not considering individuals fully vaccinated until 14 days after the second jab serves to decrease the reported C19 rates amongst that group. This misclassification results in massive bias as discussed in the videos by Dr. Fenton out of the UK (see clips below).

In addition to the misclassification bias, prior to September 2022 COVID-19 case rates were based on outdated population estimates which undercounted the true number of unvaccinated individuals. Once again, this shortcoming drove up the reported incident rates in the unvaccinated population (this was particularly noticeable in the senior age group).

Despite these pronounced biases that favor vaccination, the raw Government of Ontario data showed that the vaccinated group had disproportionately more reported cases than the unvaccinated group during the Omicron wave.

Figure 8 (Video, Tweet): Dr. Fenton discusses how misclassifying vaccinated individuals as unvaccinated for two-weeks immediately following the first jab creates the statistical illusion of strong efficacy that wanes over time.

Figure 9 (Video, Tweet): Misclassification: a cheap trick to drive claims of reduced transmission, serious illness & death

It must be emphasized that it was never appropriate to use C19 case counts, whether raw or weighted, to justify restrictions against the unvaccinated. As discussed in Fisman’s Fraud and elsewhere, reliability issues, misclassification bias, selection bias and confounding issues severely limit any inference. It is irresponsible to use such faulty data to infer that the C19 vaccines caused a reduction in community transmission. What’s even more concerning is the purposeful misuse of aggregate population-level C19 statistics — not broken down by age and presence of comorbid conditions — to misrepresent the risk of severe illness and death.

It has been well known since the start of the pandemic that risk of serious C19 complications varies by orders of magnitude depending on a person’s age and health status. Yet, many “trusted experts” refuse to stratify data based on these key risk factors and, instead, continue to make inappropriate generalizations. Instead of emphasizing the need for stratification, as one would expect an expert panel to do, the Ontario Science Table leveraged an inappropriate weighting scheme to further obfuscate C19 trends. In the end, they succeeded in making the bias and misrepresentation even worse in order to bolster a false narrative.

Given the huge risk differential across demographic groups, any analysis that utilizes a re-weighting scheme to adjust for confounding (as opposed to stratification) is likely to introduce more bias while providing little, if any, useful insight. Any such analysis should be viewed with extreme caution, no matter the scale of the study. Consider, for example, a recent large-scale observational study that claimed COVID-19 vaccination reduced the risk of post-COVID-19 cardiac and blood clotting outcomes (Mercadé-Besora et al., 2024). This retrospective study of 20.5 million people in the United Kingdom, Spain and Estonia utilized a weighting scheme in an attempt to correct for the vastly different demographic and health-related characteristics between the vaccinated and unvaccinated datasets. That is, the researchers created a weighted population to balance important confounding factors between the two groups, then compared cardiac-related outcomes using their counterfactual mathematical construct.

What meaning can be ascribed to their generalized results and did the reweighting solve the issue of confounding or introduce more bias? The Science Table was able to flip C19 risk between the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups with an easy re-weighting scheme that utilized only one confounding variable (age). Just imagine the possibilities when researchers "rebalance" using 10+ factors and a more complicated algorithm, as in the Mercadé-Besora et al. study.

One cannot simply apply a mathematical reweighting scheme to magically resolve the issue of confounding. Often this introduces more bias.

I intend on writing a short post discussing the Mercadé-Besora et al. study… after I write the post addressing the Science Table’s fudging scheme. I will link here when published.

Final Thoughts

There are countless ways to misuse and abuse statistics, especially when critical voices are silenced and scientific gatekeepers shun their responsibilities — or worse, themselves engage in the deception.

How do we combat such tactics when those institutions trusted to protect us from such malfeasance are complicit in the abuse?

Those of us willing to fight the institutional fraud need to strategize. Instead of simply responding to each and every garbage study designed to push the false “safe and effective” narrative, we need to take the lead in crafting our own communications strategy, being selective in who and what we target in our messaging and remain steadfast until we reach our goals. Identifying and building a strong case against main players who engaged in obvious acts of deception that had large impacts on Canadians is a solid step towards holding specific individuals and organizations to account and bringing about safeguards.

Fisman’s CMAJ study was not just another garbage study, it connected scientific fraud to government mandates and it implicated top institutions. The fudging exercise by the Ontario Science Table also was not a harmless exercise, it helped destroy careers and much more. Fisman and members of the Ontario Science Table were central in propping up the faux “pandemic of the unvaccinated” narrative, even after Omicron exposed the façade. Indeed, the emergence of Omicron marked a period of desperation in which these researchers engaged in clear acts of harmful deception.

Fismans Fraud: The Rise of Canadian Hate Science and its companion guide Fisman’s Fraud: The Accomplices documents the faux science used to extend federal vaccine mandates and travel restrictions. It demonstrates that top research institutes were complicit in that deception and that neither they, nor the Ontario Provincial Police, intend to do anything about it. Fisman’s Fraud builds a very strong case for amending the Human Rights Act to include vaccine status and medical choice as prohibited grounds of discrimination.

The recent exchange in the House of Commons captured in the video below further demonstrates the need for protections against vindictive government policy. When asked about funding Fisman’s faux science, Liberal MP Kevin Lamoureux’s response was to double-down on the lie that unvaccinated individuals posed a heightened risk to others. He then expressed appreciation that millions of Canadians were marginalized during the pandemic.

In the weeks following the above Parliamentary exchange, CIHR has been under pressure to provide Canadians answers regarding its funding of the faux Fisman study. Conservative MP Cathay Wagantall submitted a detailed Order Paper Question asking whether there was any direct federal government involvement with, or communication regarding, any component of the application review process, research study, or media outreach. Rebel News also followed up with CIHR asking about their oversight and corrective measures for scientific misconduct, and whether they had launched an investigation into the allegations against the Fisman study, why or why not? So far, the institution has deflected responsibility and refused to give any information specific to the faux study.

It is important to continue putting pressure on the institutions involved in pandemic fraud until Canadians are provided answers and appropriate action is taken against the misconduct:

1. Acknowledgment

2. Accountability

3. Reparations

4. Protections

Regarding the Science Table’s role in perpetuating the faux “safe and effective” vaccine narrative, it is impossible to overstate the financial and psychological devastation caused by their support of needless C19 vaccine mandates. In the fall of 2021, the Ontario Science Table pushed Premier Ford to impose vaccine mandates on all hospital workers. When Ford declined to do so, the Science Table supported employer-imposed vaccine mandates by conducting vaccine-biased analysis. Peter Jüni, the paid science director until summer 2022, provided testimony on behalf of employers when vaccine mandates were challenged. His successor, Fahad Razak, pushed for universities to continue with their harmful vaccine mandates for students long after Ford had dropped the provincial vaccine passport and after Dr. Kieran Moore, Ontario’s Chief Medical Officer of Health, warned about the heightened risk of vaccine-induced myocarditis in youth. Data never supported these measures. The malfeasance is palpable.

As I mentioned earlier in the post, I will be shining a light on the Science Table’s dodgy reweighting scheme that has been used to misrepresent C19 vaccine effectiveness...

Please stay tuned and thanks for reading!

-Regina Watteel

This work is driven by a deep desire to bring about acknowledgments, accountability, protections and reparations. Any support is greatly appreciated!