Coronavirus: Thread

[grarpamp]

By Hook, Crook, and Fake Science they trick Sheeple
into Dependency and giving up Freedom...



Study Claims Unvaccinated People More Likely To Be Reckless, Cause
Traffic Accidents

A new study released this month by members of the Temerty Faculty of
Medicine at Toronto University in Canada makes the bizarre claim that
being unvaccinated is an indicator of psychological risk-taking and
recklessness.  The authors, Donald A. Redelmeier, MD, Jonathan Wang,
MMASc, and Deva Thiruchelvam, Msc argue that data involving traffic
accidents in which one or more people are admitted to the hospital for
injuries shows a correlation between vaccination status and car
wrecks.

Not surprisingly, the data sources involved in the study strongly
support the original premise.  But we'll get to that in a moment...

The first question one might ask is why in the world anyone would
engage in such a study in the first place?  The notion is out of left
field and requires a couple initial assumptions – That unvaccinated
people are a monolithic group that share the same psychological
motivators, and that those motivators are dangerous.  Without this
rather biased assumption, it's unlikely that a group of doctors or
scientists would dream up the study in the first place.

Of course, strange premises are not necessarily proof of rigged
conclusions.  So, let's get into motivations:

The authors of the study are all member of the University or Toronto
Temerty Faculty and the Sunnybrooke Health Sciences Centre.  This
faculty and section of the university was funded by a $250 million
grant from James C. Temerty and the Temerty Foundation in 2020; it was
the single largest gift in Canadian history.  The money was designated
to various areas of the university, but a large portion went directly
into Covid-19 research projects.

So who is James Temerty?  He is a Ukrainian born citizen of Canada and
the founder of Northland Power, but his non-profit foundation appears
to be his primary focus.  He is also on the advisory board of the
Atlantic Council, a globalist think-tank out of Washington DC with
many of the same ideological aims promoted by the World Economic
Forum.  In fact, members of the Atlantic Council are often invited to
speak at WEF functions and none other than Klaus Schwab was the very
first recipient of the Atlantic Council's “Global Citizen Award”
several years ago.



The Atlantic Council advisory board is a long list of global elites
and corporate heads.  The institution also had previous connections to
Charles Koch, though this relationship has apparently ended.

Does anyone in the vaccine industry and Big Pharma have a close
relationship to the Atlantic Council?  Of course.  Albert Bourla, the
Chairman and CEO of Pfizer.  Bourla is often invited to speak at
Atlantic Council events and was awarded the council's Global Citizen
Award just last year.

As many people are now aware, the methodology of globalist think tanks
is to use philanthropy (large sums of tax deductible money) as a means
to control society by influencing (or corrupting) the top 10% in the
professional class/academic class.

If you can buy the people that run the colleges, buy the people in
suits and buy the people in lab coats then you can own the narrative
and control the other 90% of people who simply “defer to the experts”
without doing their research.  The Temerty Foundation clearly has a
high level of influence over the University of Toronto and their
medical wing, and James Temerty is on the advisory board of a
globalist institution that has aggressively supported the Pfizer
narrative on covid mandates and vaccination.

Any covid based study funded by members of the Atlantic Council should
be immediately treated as suspect.

But what about the science itself?  How did the Temerty Faculty come
to the conclusion that lack of covid vaccination indicates reckless
behavior?  Where did they get the vaccination data?  Where did they
get the traffic data?  How did they tie it all together?

The study claims to have developed their reference points using
encrypted identifiers from official government registries.  In other
words, they exploited private medical data tracked by the Canadian
government.  By cross referencing vaccination status with severe
traffic accidents the group asserts that the unvaccinated are 72% more
likely to harm themselves or others in the process of a car wreck.

There are two problems immediately evident from a scientific standpoint:

One, the group admits that a much larger portion of people who are
unvaccinated were younger, ages 18-39.  This makes perfect sense,
because the vast majority of young people are at near zero risk of
mortality from a covid infection.  The median Infection Fatality rate
of covid is a tiny 0.23%, and the younger you are, the more the IFR
shrinks.  Why get a vaccine for a virus that is no threat to your age
group, and that doesn't prevent transmission to those around you
anyway?

But beyond that, younger people are also statistically more likely to
get into car accidents by virtue of age, inexperience and more
reckless behavior.  While teens are known for auto accidents,
insurance companies rate people ages 25 – 34 as the deadliest drivers
on the road.  This age group, coincidentally, makes up the bulk of the
Temerty Faculty's unvaccinated test case.

In other words, the study seems to ignore the age factor in an effort
to support the unvaccinated factor.  Maybe their vaccine status has
nothing to do with their risky behavior and their younger age is the
actual cause?  Which is more likely given the circumstance?

Two, another problem with the study is the complete lack of peer
review and the inability for independent analysis of their core data.
The group claims to have used encrypted government medical data that
is unavailable to the public (rather convenient, right?).  While
certain government officials might be able to get quick access, there
is no way for the general public to look at this data to see if their
claims are accurate or if the study is rigged.  They could, frankly,
say whatever they want about the unvaccinated being dangerous and no
one would be able to disprove it for quite some time.

Perhaps a couple of years down the road the study will be debunked,
but as in most cases of dubious and potentially politically motivated
science the headlines stick in people's minds while no one notices the
retractions.

But what would be the motive for exaggerating this kind of study other
than to try to make the unvaccinated look bad?  Consider the
possibility of insurance as leverage.

Most people are required by law to have insurance of one kind or
another, including car insurance, and the premiums they have to pay
are based on a company's (or government's) determination of risk.
Imagine if your insurance rates in every area skyrocketed because you
are unvaccinated and are considered high risk?  This is likely the
root purpose of studies like the one in Toronto.

Punish the unvaccinated by institutionalizing vaccine status into
every facet of life, including car insurance, health insurance, life
insurance, home insurance, business insurance, etc.  Another point of
leverage would be credit.  Many bank loans are also based the concept
of low risk, but if you are unvaccinated and labeled high risk in life
and in finances then you could be rejected for future access to funds.

The basic strategy is this:  Use high costs to force the unvaccinated
into compliance, and slowly whittle the public down.  These people
won't give up easily, and since the direct route of medical tyranny
has failed, they have decided to use indirect chicanery to get what
they want.