Source: https://tinyurl.com/2tz594xb | This two-part series delves into allegations of scientific misconduct during the COVID era. The first part of the series featured statistician turned author, Dr. Regina Watteel, who joined Rebel News to shed light on the rise of what she terms "hate science" in Canada through her book titled “Fisman’s Fraud: The Rise Canadian Hate Science.” | https://www.amazon.ca/dp/1988363241 | https://www.amazon.ca/dp/1988363268
One key figure in this discourse is David Fisman, a scientist riddled with conflicts of interest, who advocated for segregating vaccinated and unvaccinated populations well before vaccine passport systems were implemented across the country. Watteel, armed with a Ph.D. in statistics, highlighted the statistical manipulation evident in Fisman's paper, which suggested that mixing vaccinated and unvaccinated populations put the vaccinated at risk – a claim contradicted by real-world data. PART 1 HERE: https://tinyurl.com/2s97a48n
Watteel's investigations uncovered how flawed modelling influenced harmful policies such as vaccine passports and mandates. Despite expectations of checks and balances within public institutions, Watteel was met with silence or dismissal when she attempted to correct the record of the flawed “study.”
In Rebel News’ endeavour to unravel this, we first contacted the Canadian Medical Association Journal (CMAJ), responsible for peer-reviewing and publishing Fisman's paper with several critical questions regarding their review process and the lack of corrections to the paper.
In response, Kim Barnhardt, a senior strategist at CMAJ, defended their peer review process and pointed to the open platform for scholarly discourse. It’s worth noting that Barnhardt is also a strategic communications consultant for health research centres funded by provincial and federal government, including CANImmunize, a company specializing in vaccination tracking software that has been lobbying nationwide vaccination policy for over a decade.
Additionally, Rebel News contacted the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), which funded Fisman's research, seeking clarity on their oversight and corrective measures for scientific misconduct. Their response shifted responsibility onto researchers and institutions, deflecting any accountability.
Furthermore, attempts to engage with key figures involved, such as Adalsteinn Brown, Dean of the University of Toronto's Dalla Lana School of Public Health where Fisman works and conducted this research, yielded no response. Even David Fisman himself remained silent when asked to comment on the allegations of scientific misconduct.
Despite mounting evidence of flawed modelling and misrepresented data, esteemed institutions like CMAJ and CIHR have failed to uphold scientific integrity. The lack of accountability from key figures underscores the urgent need for greater scrutiny and transparency within scientific institutions to prevent further misrepresentation and public manipulation.
