Conclusions from last article only
The literary critique of Firman etal's paper in just most important conclusions for those who do not want to read a long essay...
April 25/22 publication in CMAJ titled “Impact of population mixing between vaccinated and unvaccinated subpopulations on infectious disease dynamics: implications for SARS-CoV-2 transmission”. By: David N. Firman, Afia Amoako, Ashliegh R. Tuite.
Skewed or disingenuous models/studies equals skewed outcomes and invalid conclusions. Garbage in = garbage out. Using a simulation model based on extreme assumptions as exclusive evidence that unvaccinated people impose a greater risk for those who are vaccinated is a profound deviation from acceptable standards of medical research and it’s possible conclusions. Their use of definitive, provocative and persuasive language about these false results is pernicious. Fisman etal’s claims are serious with vast potential for harm and stigmatization to millions of people. Unvaccinated people are already suffering from heavily biased and unscientific policies that affect them disproportionately. When examining closely the chosen language, we clearly see the divisive and derogatory sentiments targeted at a specific minority population. Many instances of the authors’ rhetoric serve to ‘other’ a large group of our population, which is a paternalistic, colonialistic, and dehumanizing. Adding insult to injury by pejorative wordsmithing is unethical, and is fundamentally eroding the integrity of medicine, science, literature and our very social values and norms. We already know of the many egregious conflicts of interest Fisman has; which, ought to trigger some alarm for concern or at the very least provoke an awareness of the possible influence of that on his study methods and results. In directing the reader to believe their claims at face value we see many different types of fallacies. For a thought experiment, I invite readers to find the reference below to see how many fallacies you can find within their publication. Rigorous scrutiny of all scientific and medical publications, especially when suggesting the results should inform discriminatory public policy that will inevitably harm the targeted minority group these authors are attacking.
It seems the authors of this study, the editor of CMAK, and those who peer reviewed and approved its contents need to answer in response for the inadequacies, assumptions, bias, and rhetoric used to inform the public in the name of transparency, accountability, and trust in our formidable experts and institutions. Otherwise, immediate retraction is required to reduce harm and restore public trust.
References: