Spitting in Prometheus' Fire

How the CMA Uses Fraudulent Science to Justify Medical Rape

In ancient Greek myth, Prometheus stole fire from the gods and gave it to mankind. The fire was knowledge, reason, and truth that allowed man to escape the existence of beasts with the spark of divinity. To control fire is to have light when the world is dark, to have warmth when the world is cold and to ultimately not be helpless in the face of the vicissitudes of nature’s caprice. Prometheus’ fire is not merely a metaphor for the enlightenment, it is the typological myth that prophesies it.

The 18th century enlightenment was the revolutionary idea that indeed pushed the first real political revolutions of America and later France. It was the radical claim that all human beings have inalienable human rights, that King serves the subjects and not the other way around, that the secrets of nature can be known through the scientific method. It was an age of beautiful art, fantastic discovery and a love of truth.

The enlightenment has been dying for some time. Prometheus’ fire does not roar the way it once did. In this essay, I will assess one concrete example of the perpetrators of this demise of truth: Dr. Fisman and the Canadian Medical Association.

A peer reviewed scientific paper entitled, “Impact of population mixing between vaccinated and unvaccinated subpopulations on infectious disease dynamics: implications for SARS CoV2 transmission” was recently published by Dr. David Fisman, Afia Amoko and Ashleigh R. Tuite in the Canadian Medical Association Journal (April 25, 2022). This paper asserts that the unvaccinated are causing increased risk to the lives of the vaccinated. All of its conclusions are fraudulent and wrong.

The paper is used to justify a fundamental violation of people’s right to bodily integrity by asserting that the decision for one person to remain unvaccinated harms people who are already vaccinated. It is the age-old, unsubstantiated farce of “herd immunity” that is repeated as gospel by medical professionals and so-called scientists alike.

If the Covid-19 mRNA vaccine provided herd-immunity contingent upon 100% or near 100% vaccination, then populations who achieve these values should not have any Covid-19 cases. In the case that they do, it is clear that 100% vaccination does not provide herd-immunity. There have been many opportunities to test this idea. The Ruby Princess Cruise ship embarked on its journey with 100% double vaccinated crew and guests. It returned on March 29, 2022 with a Covid-19 outbreak. This would not be possible if the concept of herd-immunity were true. In an even more isolated situation, the Princess Elizabeth Polar Station in Antarctica experienced a Covid-19 outbreak earlier this year despite a 100% double vaccinated team. This is not to mention entire countries that achieved 100% double vaccination but nevertheless experienced severe Covid-19 outbreaks. The efficacy of these vaccines to prevent outbreaks is not only questionable, it is an outright lie. To suggest otherwise would be to reject real-world data.

Fisman’s paper, like many other pro-vaccine papers and safety trials, assumes that immunity and vaccination are the same thing. This is untrue. An individual can achieve immunity to a disease even if they have not been vaccinated. An individual who has not been vaccinated, can still be vulnerable to infection. As a result, it is inappropriate and unscientific to assume that a fully vaccinated individual is immune or that vaccination guarantees immunity. The paper also ignores other ways that protection from Covid-19 can also be achieved such as managing vitamin D deficiencies, reducing obesity, and internationally validated prophylactic protocols including ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine.

Fisman and many others in mainstream “science” presume that vaccination confers greater immunity and protection than natural immunity despite the paucity of data to support this claim. It is clear that the unvaccinated population experiences infection at a far lower rate than the vaccinated population according to “Our World In Data” (Fig 1).  

In a paper published in the Journal of Clinical Investigation, the authors found that natural immunity had a 90% absolute risk reduction in the population against infection from Covid-19. The authors write: “Using a highly sensitive multiplex assay and positive/negative thresholds established in infants in whom maternal antibodies have waned, we determined that more than 90% of uninfected adults showed antibody reactivity against the spike protein, receptor-binding domain (RBD), N-terminal domain (NTD), or the nucleocapsid (N) protein from SARS-CoV-2.”

Those who contend that all scientific papers are useless because one was found to be fraudulent, must also refrain from using the English language because it has also been used to lie. Just because scientific papers can be fraudulent and misleading, doesn’t mean that all scientific investigations are therefore untrustworthy. The peer review process hitherto served as the filter to distinguish the good quality science from the poor quality or the misleading.

When the peer review process is corrupted by mercenary or political interests--indeed they are now, often, one and the same--the burden falls on each individual to assess each study on their own. This is an epistemic burden for which the majority of people are unprepared. 

Fisman’s paper relies on a mathematical model to conclude that when unvaccinated people mix with vaccinated people, the chances of vaccinated people becoming infected with Covid-19 increase. Fisman’s paper states, “Nonvaccination is expected to result in amplification of disease transmission in unvaccinated subpopulations, but the communicable nature of infectious diseases means that this also heightens risk for vaccinated populations”. A mathematical model is only as good as its inputs. When the premises for the model are incorrect, the results from the model are, ipso facto, false. Byram Bridle’s excellent substack article on the topic of Fisman’s fraudulent science details its scientific problems.

Bridle’s most important finding was that Fisman’s model, when input with accurate data, outputs results that indicate the opposite of Fisman’s conclusions. The model is available for download at this link. Fisman’s model assumes a baseline immunity for the unvaccinated to be 20% (Fig 2). This is contrary to the peer-reviewed studies that reveal 90% of unvaccinated individuals have immunity to Covid-19 because the virus has become endemic in the population. Even when Bridle input a more conservative estimate of 85% immunity for the unvaccinated into the model, it was revealed that the vaccinated were not only unaffected by the unvaccinated, but that the vaccinated put the unvaccinated at greater risk for infection (Fig 3). This should be a rude awakening for all those who excoriate the unvaccinated for exercising their right to bodily integrity.

The vaccine efficacy value in the model behaves as an absolute risk reduction. The absolute risk reduction value indicates the risk that the treatment reduces compared to the baseline risk. The risk for infection from Covid-19 is so low in the first place that a further reduction of this risk is statistically insignificant. Relative risk reduction takes the change in risk from baseline to treatment and presents it as a percentage.

This can be difficult to understand without an example so I present one below:

If 2 people out of a cohort of 1000 get heart attacks and then a new medication is introduced which results in only 1 person out of 1000 getting heart attacks, the absolute risk for the heart attack has only been changed by 0.001. However, the medication company will fraudulently advertise the medication as reducing the number of heart attacks by 50%. This statistic would falsely imply that where 1000 people were getting heart attacks before, only 500 people get them after they have been given the medication. This is because that statistic ignores initial risk completely and presents relative risk reduction as absolute risk reduction. Fisman et al. are doing the same thing by using the relative risk value in their model rather than the absolute risk value.

Fisman et al. input the values 80% for vaccinate efficacy, which is to say that compared to the placebo, 80% less vaccinated people would be at risk for infection. If 100 unvaccinated people are infected, only 20 vaccianted people are infected. This 80% value is false. The safety and efficacy trials for both Moderna and Pfizer reveal that the absolute risk reduction for these vaccines are actually 0.7% and 1.1% respectively¹. 

The violation of the fundamental human right to bodily integrity has been falsely justified by the unscientific claim “my vaccine doesn’t work unless you get yours”. This abuse of science has led to a death of the discipline that has brought so much good to humanity. The age of enlightenment lays bleeding at the steps of the university, and the scientific institutions we once revered step over its body to take their bribes. Institutions that were founded on a devotion to truth and reason as the beacons that will carry humanity to greatness, now choke the very truth and reason they purported to love. The consequences for the actions of individuals like Dr. Fisman, and institutions like the Canadian Medical Association, are that the general public will no longer trust anyone who carries the flag of science. We will return to a dark-age and will need to build up these institutions once again. Hopefully this time, we will be more fastidious in excluding and punishing those who would sacrifice the truth for political gain. 

Prometheus’ fire flickers because the politicians are spitting in it. Dr. Fisman is one of these unscrupulous spitters.

1. Brown, Ronald B. Outcome reporting bias in covid-19 mRNA vaccine clinical trials (Feb 2021) Medicina 57(3): 199.