University of Toronto gives discrimination and defrauding Canadians the green light
Complaint filed against U of T: Breach of Research Integrity Policy
The #FismansFraud fiasco continues.
At the end of June, I sent my third and final letter to the University of Toronto requesting an investigation into Fisman’s fraudulent study1 that was used to vilify the “unvaccinated” and provide justification for the government’s discriminatory policies and restrictions against anyone who refused to take the rushed-to-market covid “vaccines.”
My previous two attempts had been stonewalled: First the integrity office denied that my allegations of fraud were covered under the university’s Framework to address such allegations. Then, once I pointed out the specific sections within the Framework that directly applied to the allegations made, the ethics officer (Professor Lori Ferris, associate Vice-President, Research Oversight and Compliance) pretended not to know the difference between what constitutes well-accepted research methodology and what constitutes a textbook case of scientific fraud.
Well, I think she was pretending.
In any case, I sent my third and final letter that spelled it out for her thus eliminating any excuse for inaction. Indeed, the letter presented a damning indictment of the university’s decision not to investigate. My scathing letter can be found here.
The university has since responded.
“Case-Closed” - U of T’s Ethics is Compromised
Professor Ferris’s letter was short and to the point: “The University’s file on this matter is closed.”
The study is indefensible, so the university simply closed the file without addressing a single concern.
However, their knowledge of the violations and decision to look the other way are now on record. This implicates the university, perhaps more than first realized.
My efforts have successfully documented the following:
The university received my letters requesting an investigation into the allegations of research misconduct by tenured professor David N. Fisman and two of his colleagues, Afia Amoako and Ashleigh R. Tuite;
The university received my 20-page supporting document that articulates the many acts of scientific misconduct and fraud that were committed (the 20-page detailed critique/supporting document can be found here);
The university’s response to my letters confirm that they are aware of the work by Fisman et al. whereby the authors develop a model to simulate hypothetical covid incident rates then attempt to pass off the results as fact;
The university is aware that the fabricated results are contrary to real data and that they are being used to support discriminatory policy against those who choose not to get the Covid-19 vaccines;
The university is aware that the erroneous and falsified findings were widely distributed to the public through numerous media outlets and that the fraudulent study was used in Parliament to justify extending federal travel restrictions against the “unvaccinated”;
The university is aware of data trends within Ontario and globally that show that Covid-19 (Omicron) incident rates have been disproportionately higher amongst the vaccinated, especially those boosted;
The university is aware that dozens of other scientists and researchers have rebuked the study by Fisman et al.; at least 22 scientists and researchers had submitted written concerns to CMAJ within the first week of its publication.
The university’s position is that the conduct by David Fisman, Afia Amoako and Ashleigh R. Tuite does not deviate from the norms of their research community; and,
The university has chosen not to conduct an investigation into these egregious acts contrary to their documented Framework to Address Allegations of Research Misconduct and their commitment to CIHR.
Though disappointing, it is not overly surprising that the university refused to even entertain the notion of investigating this overt and far-reaching case of fraud. First, the study was widely publicized, it appeared to be taken up by every legacy media outlet on the government’s payroll. Walking those claims back could create a public-relations nightmare. Second, an investigation into #FismansFraud opens up the possibility of disciplinary action that could trigger a broader look into the unjustified Covid-19 policies being implemented by the university.
AFTER closing the #FismansFraud file, the university announced the reinstatement of a discriminatory policy supported by the false findings of the Fisman study. More specifically, the University of Toronto announced that it is reinstating and enhancing vaccination requirements for students and employees living in residences this fall — mandating at least three doses of a COVID-19 vaccine — despite the knowledge that government data does not support such segregation measures. The university also warned,
“Vaccination requirements may be reinstated with little notice, which could result in de-enrolment or ineligibility to work.”
It gets worse.
Dr. Fahad Razak, assistant professor at the University of Toronto and scientific director of the Ontario COVID-19 Science Advisory Table, has encouraged other universities to get on board. And less than two weeks before the start of the fall semester, the University of Western Ontario did just that, mandating boosters for ALL students and staff if they want to remain on campus this year.
These acts of unscientific malice defy the mounting evidence of increased risk of cardiovascular damage after covid vaccination in young adults, especially males. In a recent presser, Ontario's Chief Medical Officer of Health, Dr. Kieran Moore, did not recommend booster shots for everyone. Instead, he stated that a personal risk-based approach should be taken. Furthermore, he acknowledging that the risk of myocarditis for young, healthy adults following vaccination should be weighed against the "very, very low" benefit from these "therapeutics"2. While some doctors "don’t believe it’s as great a risk as Moore suggested,"3 that belief demonstrates ignorance, a lack of scientific reasoning, a complete disregard for the known under-reporting in passive databases, and an unawareness of recent studies that indicate that Moore's concerning myocarditis estimate of 1/5,000 may actually understate the true risk by orders of magnitude4.
The University of Toronto and UWO have chosen to snub a risk-benefit approach and instead demand that students surrender their bodily autonomy and comply with irrational, harmful policies.
The obvious question is: Who's interests are these universities serving? Clearly it is not the best interest of students.
Another question: What role has the University of Toronto played in pushing unscientific policies onto other institutions and the larger community?
Clear Conflicts of Interest
Fisman, Amoako and Tuite were transparent in their agenda to influence public policy in support of discriminatory restrictions against individuals they falsely presume put others at greater risk. The overt bias and fraudulent claims made in their CMAJ publication serve to benefit several pharmaceutical companies that David Fisman, the main author, has ties to, namely: Seqirus, Pfizer, AstraZeneca and Sanofi-Pasteur.
Until his resignation in August 2021, Fisman also served on the Ontario COVID-19 Science Advisory Table. The table is quite influential – it informs the Ontario government’s response to the pandemic and provides information to public health and health care professionals. Following his departure from the table, Fisman has publicly berated and insulted the Ontario Conservative Party for not going far enough with lockdowns and mandates during the pandemic, while actively promoting the Liberal and NDP parties and their pro-mandate agendas.
On the federal front, within one week of publication, the Fisman et al. study was cited in Parliament by Liberal MP Adam van Koeverden as justification for extending travel restrictions against the unvaccinated. The Liberal government had been under increased scrutiny regarding the lack of scientific justification for their discriminatory policies, so Fisman's paper was rather timely. In fact, recent court documents reveal that the head epidemiologist for the Public Health Agency of Canada had never actually recommended vaccination for air travel because “the scientific evidence doesn't support that it would be effective.”5 6
Was the Fisman paper, funded by CIHR, meant to fill that evidentiary gap?
The conflicts of interest are obvious and far reaching.
So obvious, it raises further questions about the University of Toronto’s decision not to investigate #FismansFraud.
One doesn’t have to look far to find potential conflicts of interest at the university level:
In April 2022, the University of Toronto announced a partnership with Moderna Inc to advance research in RNA science and technology7.
The Ontario COVID-19 Science Advisory Table is predominantly comprised of University of Toronto affiliates. They operated out of the Dalla Lana School of Public Health at the University of Toronto before moving to Public Health Ontario in April 2022.
Large financial incentives have been granted to the university from the Government of Canada to address “vaccine hesitancy” and other related matters8.
The bottom line is, the university has strong ties to the pharmaceutical industry and stands to benefit from coercing individuals to vaccinate. Moreover, the university exerts a considerable amount of political influence. Refusing to investigate known cases of fraud, imposing unjustified vaccine mandates onto students, and ignoring important studies that warn of vaccine harm, all show the university in very poor light.
It seems pretty clear to me that the University of Toronto’s dedication to ethics and integrity is not as advertised.
So, on July 25th, 2022 I filed a complaint against the University of Toronto for breaching their Tri-Agency Research Integrity Policy with CIHR.
Will CIHR do its duty and investigate the fraud?
CIHR funded the Fisman et al. study. That fraudulent study was waived around in Parliament. CIHR is accountable to Parliament through the Minister of Health.
There is onus on CIHR to investigate this matter, inform Parliament of the falsehood AND to correct the public record. THAT is their mandate.
In order to remedy the wrongdoing, I respectfully requested the following actions be taken by CIHR:
Issue a letter of concern to the main researcher David N. Fisman.
Request the authors retract their CMAJ publication.
Request that the researchers make a public statement clarifying their research findings and set the record straight that their work does not relate to real events – past, present or projected. The main “finding” that people who forgo vaccination contribute disproportionately to risk is unsupported and contrary to real-world observations and must be retracted.
Notify Parliament of the fraud and inform members that the study findings presented in the House of Commons on May 2nd, 2022 by Liberal MP Adam van Koeverden, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, were erroneous and in fact contrary to real-world data. The study does not, in actuality, provide any scientific support for “public actions aimed at enhancing vaccine uptake and limiting access to public spaces for unvaccinated people” nor does it support any other restriction against those who are not vaccinated.
The researchers’ credibility is clearly compromised in this area and this brings into question any previous work, recommendations, and advocacy these researchers have conducted regarding the pandemic. As such, it is advisable that:
All relevant public institutions and agencies be notified of the fraud9;
All such work funded by CIHR be reviewed for errors and bias, especially in regards to Covid-19 vaccination or anything derived from mathematical modelling exercises done in part, wholly, or influenced by any of the three researchers; and,
The Agency not accept applications for future funding from the researchers in relation to the Covid-19 pandemic.
This last request is a pre-emptive strike just in case the authors are on political standby for another simulated fail-safe in the fall.
Will CIHR give this request due consideration? CIHR has confirmed receipt of my complaint and has reached out to the University of Toronto to give them the opportunity to respond to my concerns. I will provide an update as more information becomes available.
Next Steps
There are an abundance of shoddy studies being used to prop up harmful government policies. It’s important to identify key papers that are driving the narrative, scrutinize the work, and call out the scientists that are enabling the abuse. By going through the formal complaint process with the Fisman study, I have established a document trail that identifies and creates a public record of specific individuals and organizations who have chosen to be complicit in the fraud. The disturbing web of harmful policy enablers has shown itself to be massive and highly influential. It appears that the University of Toronto is at the center of that web, but they are not alone.
Certainly, public health officials have played a huge role in twisting facts in order to excuse punitive government measures and political power grabs. While objective analysis shows that harsh measures such as school closures, lockdowns and vaccine mandates have utterly failed at controlling the spread of covid and have caused great harm, our government is congratulating itself on a job well done. First, they manipulated data to convince the public to go along with self-harming measures, now they're simulating imaginary benefits. My previous substack post discussed some of the latest deceptive tactics by public health experts, including the latest exercise in confirmation bias and propaganda by Theresa Tam10. That post can be found here.
Recently, it was announced that the Ontario COVID-19 Science Advisory Table was being dissolved on September 6th, 2022. Indeed, the Ontario government seems to be moving away from some of the table’s questionable pandemic recommendations. I see this as a positive step forward, although it remains to be seen whether the smaller committee formed in its stead will provide better, more objective guidance void of the strong political and ideological bias demonstrated in the past. Either way, it may be worth taking a deeper look into the scientific quality of the table’s recommendations over the pandemic alongside any political or financial conflicts of interest of its various members.
I welcome any comments or suggestions on next steps. I’d love to hear from lawyers as to whether any legal avenues can be pursued.
https://fb.watch/fdTO79mTh6/ (25:20 mark)
The Competing Interests section of the paper notes, “David Fisman has served as a volunteer scientist on the Ontario COVID-19 Science Advisory Table and has served as a legal expert on issues related to COVID-19 epidemiology for the Elementary Teachers Federation of Ontario and the Registered Nurses Association of Ontario. He has also served on advisory boards related to influenza and SARS-CoV-2 vaccines for Seqirus, Pfizer, AstraZeneca and Sanofi-Pasteur Vaccines. Ashleigh Tuite was employed by the Public Health Agency of Canada when the research was conducted.”
Excellent report on your principled and evidenced work to take down these corrupt scientists and the bad actors profiting from their grifting.
The Fisman paper was deliberately deceptive. Many credible scientists complained at the time and requested a retraction from the Journal. I am very glad this is still being pursued. It is shocking to realize how many or our institutions, politicians, health advisors and researchers have been compromised.