She says the actual data, available to anyone at the time, "showed that Covid incident rates amongst the vaccinated were disproportionately higher than those of the unvaccinated during the Omicron surge."
minute read
ADVERTISEMENT
According to Dr. Regina Watteel, a 2022 study funded by the Canadian government that blamed the unvaccinated for the persistence of Covid was a “fraud” and “hate science” that was produced to justify Covid mandates and lockdowns.
In her book “Fisman’s Fraud,” Watteel takes on a study published in the prestigious Canadian Medical Association Journal (CMAJ) entitled, “Impact of population mixing between vaccinated and unvaccinated subpopulations on infectious disease dynamics: implications for SARS-CoV-2 transmission.” It was authored by David N. Fisman, Afia Amoako, and Ashleigh R. Tuite
After an appearance on the independent media broadcast “Redacted,” Watteel’s book shot to number one on Amazon when its hosts urged viewers to buy it. In an exclusive interview with The Post Millennial, the Ottawa statistician expressed amazement at the power of social media to promote books that are ignored by the mainstream media.
“I can't tell you just how crazy and busy it's been. And you know, when I woke up and I looked at it, it actually had went to number one in Canada out of all the books. And I was like, I don't even know what to say, I'm so appreciative,” she says.
Watteel faults the Fisman study because it based its findings on models, not people, and in so doing, “flipped reality,” as she writes in her book.
She says the actual data, available to anyone at the time, “showed that Covid incident rates amongst the vaccinated were disproportionately higher than those of the unvaccinated during the Omicron surge … So it's opposite to what the media was running with, it's opposite to what the politicians were saying. And [the data] was readily available,” Watteel says.
“And then what David Fisman and his colleagues did is they modeled, basically, the Omicron surge. But in their model, they had the opposite: they had the unvaccinated [with] higher rates than the vaccinated, and that just merely hanging out with them was a risk to others.”
Watteel says what was most absent from the study was real people suffering from Covid.
She says the data was therefore “fabricated” and ignored “readily available information.”
Watteel notes that Canadian taxpayers “were forced to pay for the study, and the study within days, was waved around in Parliament to justify extending the travel restrictions. And it's been, you know, the whole pandemic of the unvaccinated that never really went away,” she says, adding that the paper was used “to blame the unvaccinated for everything.”
“It is horrible that not only do we pay for it, but the way it's being used going forward. When you look at the study itself, and the main reason for that study, it was to undermine the notion that vaccine choice is best left to the individual.”
Watteel argues that even though it is now common knowledge and experience that the Covid vaccine did not prevent anyone from getting the virus, the Canadian government won’t refute the study because that would be tantamount to admitting it put “everybody at risk to bring about these mandates.”
“So there are issues with them retracting it because they really do want to push for possible future mandates, not just the past ones.”
Watteel has coined what is perhaps a new phrase with her book when she discusses the “rise of hate science.”
“I would define hate science as scientific fraud, you know, false falsification fabrication, for the purpose of scapegoating and identifying an identifiable group … So that was the purpose behind this study: to cause harm to individuals … to blame the unvaccinated for the failure of the vaccines and to justify punishing them for it.”
Watteel told TPM that she has not received any threats of legal action for writing her book nor any concerted attempt to refute her arguments.
She has appealed to the CMAJ, the federally-funded Canadian Institute of Health Research, the University of Toronto (which facilitated the study) and even the Ontario Provincial Police to denounce the study but has been stonewalled at every attempt.
She says the links between government, academia and the mainstream media with big pharma are profound and troubling. The University of Toronto, just to name one example, has received substantial funding from Moderna.
“So I do feel that definitely this can happen again, unless we stop it. That's why I'm doing this,” Watteel states.
“Really, they've laid down the groundwork for doing this in the future. And they've shown no indication of stopping – none. They just twist things. And, you know, ‘Now it's different and we have to do it again.”
It's one of the things I try to do with this book … And I do think I make a solid case for why we need protections put in place to safeguard unvaccinated people going forward to make sure that that stays an individual right and that, you know, people are protected based on their medical choice.”
In her book “Fisman’s Fraud,” Watteel takes on a study published in the prestigious Canadian Medical Association Journal (CMAJ) entitled, “Impact of population mixing between vaccinated and unvaccinated subpopulations on infectious disease dynamics: implications for SARS-CoV-2 transmission.” It was authored by David N. Fisman, Afia Amoako, and Ashleigh R. Tuite
After an appearance on the independent media broadcast “Redacted,” Watteel’s book shot to number one on Amazon when its hosts urged viewers to buy it. In an exclusive interview with The Post Millennial, the Ottawa statistician expressed amazement at the power of social media to promote books that are ignored by the mainstream media.
“I can't tell you just how crazy and busy it's been. And you know, when I woke up and I looked at it, it actually had went to number one in Canada out of all the books. And I was like, I don't even know what to say, I'm so appreciative,” she says.
Watteel faults the Fisman study because it based its findings on models, not people, and in so doing, “flipped reality,” as she writes in her book.
She says the actual data, available to anyone at the time, “showed that Covid incident rates amongst the vaccinated were disproportionately higher than those of the unvaccinated during the Omicron surge … So it's opposite to what the media was running with, it's opposite to what the politicians were saying. And [the data] was readily available,” Watteel says.
“And then what David Fisman and his colleagues did is they modeled, basically, the Omicron surge. But in their model, they had the opposite: they had the unvaccinated [with] higher rates than the vaccinated, and that just merely hanging out with them was a risk to others.”
Watteel says what was most absent from the study was real people suffering from Covid.
She says the data was therefore “fabricated” and ignored “readily available information.”
Watteel notes that Canadian taxpayers “were forced to pay for the study, and the study within days, was waved around in Parliament to justify extending the travel restrictions. And it's been, you know, the whole pandemic of the unvaccinated that never really went away,” she says, adding that the paper was used “to blame the unvaccinated for everything.”
“It is horrible that not only do we pay for it, but the way it's being used going forward. When you look at the study itself, and the main reason for that study, it was to undermine the notion that vaccine choice is best left to the individual.”
Watteel argues that even though it is now common knowledge and experience that the Covid vaccine did not prevent anyone from getting the virus, the Canadian government won’t refute the study because that would be tantamount to admitting it put “everybody at risk to bring about these mandates.”
“So there are issues with them retracting it because they really do want to push for possible future mandates, not just the past ones.”
Watteel has coined what is perhaps a new phrase with her book when she discusses the “rise of hate science.”
“I would define hate science as scientific fraud, you know, false falsification fabrication, for the purpose of scapegoating and identifying an identifiable group … So that was the purpose behind this study: to cause harm to individuals … to blame the unvaccinated for the failure of the vaccines and to justify punishing them for it.”
Watteel told TPM that she has not received any threats of legal action for writing her book nor any concerted attempt to refute her arguments.
She has appealed to the CMAJ, the federally-funded Canadian Institute of Health Research, the University of Toronto (which facilitated the study) and even the Ontario Provincial Police to denounce the study but has been stonewalled at every attempt.
She says the links between government, academia and the mainstream media with big pharma are profound and troubling. The University of Toronto, just to name one example, has received substantial funding from Moderna.
“So I do feel that definitely this can happen again, unless we stop it. That's why I'm doing this,” Watteel states.
“Really, they've laid down the groundwork for doing this in the future. And they've shown no indication of stopping – none. They just twist things. And, you know, ‘Now it's different and we have to do it again.”
It's one of the things I try to do with this book … And I do think I make a solid case for why we need protections put in place to safeguard unvaccinated people going forward to make sure that that stays an individual right and that, you know, people are protected based on their medical choice.”
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Sign in to comment
Powered by The Post Millennial CMS™ Comments
Join and support independent free thinkers!
We’re independent and can’t be cancelled. The establishment media is increasingly dedicated to divisive cancel culture, corporate wokeism, and political correctness, all while covering up corruption from the corridors of power. The need for fact-based journalism and thoughtful analysis has never been greater. When you support The Post Millennial, you support freedom of the press at a time when it's under direct attack. Join the ranks of independent, free thinkers by supporting us today for as little as $1.
Remind me next month
To find out what personal data we collect and how we use it, please visit our Privacy Policy
Comments