The researchers published their findings in the New England Journal of Medicine as well as a letter to the editor and appear to have tried to downplay the difference.
“…We found no major differences in the median duration of viral shedding between the participants who were unvaccinated, those who were vaccinated but not boosted, and those who were vaccinated and boosted,” they wrote.
But as the data shows, the vaccinated were contagious longer than the unvaccinated, reports Thecountersignal.com .
For example, after being infected with COVID for 10 days, only 31% of the unvaccinated individuals in the study were still positive on the PCR test, compared to 70% of the vaccinated individuals and 61% of the vaccinated plus boosted individuals.
In addition, five days later, only 6% of the unvaccinated participants were positive, compared to 22% and 7.5% of the vaccinated and boosted subjects, respectively.
It should be noted that the sample size was small, with only 66 subjects in total.
Yet that’s 66 more people than the government-funded study we wrote about in March , in which researcher Fisman used “modelling” (not real data) to “find” his desired conclusions.
dr. Byram Bridle has blamed Fisman for what Bridle said was a very flawed study – including the fact that Fisman failed to take into account the waning immunity provided by vaccines.
Of course, this hasn’t stopped politicians and mainstream media reporters from repeatedly referring to Fisman’s study.
When that study came out, more than a dozen media outlets patched her up for a day to scare the public about the risks of “mixing” with unvaccinated people.
In addition, a Liberal MP referred to the shady study last month when he justified continued discrimination against unvaccinated people entering Canada.
Unfortunately, it is safe to assume that this latest study, which contradicts Fisman’s, will be ignored. The big media and liberal politicians will continue to refer to “science” as if they weren’t arbitrarily choosing which science fits into their political agenda—and which science contradicts it.
VIA : frontnieuws.com