A new study links unvaccinated individuals and their psychological condition known as, "vaccine hesitancy" to an increased risk of serious traffic accidents, but this simply isn't true.
Great article and love the comments. Just my 2 cents here - I refuse the medical paradigm of forced injections and I refuse to follow the paradigm of 'I NEED A CAR' - both of which I find pretty dangerous and frankly, just stupid.
1 in 107 chance of dying in a car wreck, or something like that, in one's lifetime. Totally smelly anti-social paradigm. Yep, I hate cars - the smell, the noise, and how car drivers are removed from the public space and then do whatever they want in their hidden dark bubbles - like torture the rest of us with loud music and motors.
And why should cars get to hog road space with parking? While us pedestrians are dodgy jerks on bikes on the sidewalks.
Now car drivers with cell phones? I don't know how many times I've almost been knocked over by some tool on a phone in a car.
And no - I don't have a cell phone anymore either. Even the pedestrians are idiots when on their phone - so many idiots that cannot watch where they walk - 10+ years now.
This is one of the dumbest hypothesis I've ever read. “We theorized that individual adults who tend to resist public health recommendations might also neglect basic road safety guidelines,” the authors wrote. “The study question was, “Does COVID vaccine hesitancy correlate with the risks of a serious traffic crash?” The question should be: "Does COVID vaccine hesitancy indicate higher IQ and critical thinking skills leading to better life decision-making?"
This, to me, is basically propaganda fodder, and no different than eugenics “research.” They are conditioning the public to be wary of “those people,” who for whatever mysterious reasons are foolish enough to resist their “scientific” advice. Arrogant and elitist to the core.
I heard that the experts are no longer calling this a crisis of the unvaxxed. And for good reason. This study is more MK Ultra mind control programming designed to convince everyone foolish enough to take the experimental jabs that they did the right thing. No one who has resisted is buying this BS.
Like all these studies out of the prostitution institution "research systems", confirmation bias is probably an integral part of this "study." With these colleges, universities and so-called "think tanks", some multibillionaire pays some prostitute (like a major university) to do a study whose outcome is supposed to please said multibillionaire. If it doesn't, that concubine doesn't get paid. Harvard, MIT, and all the big name academic institutions are guilty of this and have been doing it for years. Take a look at the yes-men "scientists" who are trying to sell the climate change/global warming nonsense, just like the "scientists" who are trying to sell the "covid" crapcines.
I wonder if there is any data showing the percentage of vaccinated who were out and about as compared with unvaccinated. Seems to me that, if most of the vaccinated were staying home, they were less likely to be in a car at all, driving one involved in a crash, being a passenger involved in a crash, or being hit by a car...
Was any consideration given to miles driven? Are remote workers' injection status skewed either way? Are "essential workers" more likely to be injected or uninjected?
They're also inferring they know "why" a person is unvaccinated at the moment of the crash, and presuming they are less likely to be a rule follower because of that. Not every person (including teen, young adult, cancer patient, etc) is unvaccinated because they are "vaccine hesitant". Like you pointed out, younger age groups have a lower rate of vaccination than older age groups, and the younger age groups are at a higher risk of auto accidents. I can't believe they wasted their time trying to convince people unvaccinated people are bad drivers.
The study authors actually made several key observations that they then proceeded to ignore:
1) The unvaccinated in their study were more likely to live in rural areas.
Why is this important? Canadian data show that most severe car crashes occur in rural areas!
From Transport Canada: “...two-thirds of all “deadly accidents” happen on rural roads, in the country, where speed limits are faster and the roads aren't as well-lit as they are inside the city. Drivers are more likely to find poor or unexpected conditions on rural roads, than in the city, and there's always the danger of coming across animals that can appear out of nowhere."
2) THE STUDY AUTHORS ACTUALLY NOTED THIS: "Those who had not received a vaccine also were more likely to have a diagnosis of alcohol misuse or depression and less likely to have a diagnosis of sleep apnea, diabetes, cancer, or dementia.”
Why is this important?
Well, let's ask the study authors why they chose to focus their study on likelihood of car crash (knowing that the correlation is already explained by Canadian demographic data having NOTHING to do with vaccination status), rather than focusing on the fact that refusing the vaccine is associated with several better statuses of health issues.
For example, they could have asked: does dementia increase likelihood of complying with vaccination recommendations? Or does getting the vaccine increase the likelihood of dementia? And what about cancer? And diabetes?
Yes and low socioeconomic too. More of the vaccinated were of higher socioeconomic status, who also had fewer accidents, whereas low socio was associated with both reduced vaccine uptake and car accidents.
I love this little note under the picture that it may financially reflect on your insurance. They know where people are most likely to fall in the trap.....
Great article and love the comments. Just my 2 cents here - I refuse the medical paradigm of forced injections and I refuse to follow the paradigm of 'I NEED A CAR' - both of which I find pretty dangerous and frankly, just stupid.
1 in 107 chance of dying in a car wreck, or something like that, in one's lifetime. Totally smelly anti-social paradigm. Yep, I hate cars - the smell, the noise, and how car drivers are removed from the public space and then do whatever they want in their hidden dark bubbles - like torture the rest of us with loud music and motors.
And why should cars get to hog road space with parking? While us pedestrians are dodgy jerks on bikes on the sidewalks.
Now car drivers with cell phones? I don't know how many times I've almost been knocked over by some tool on a phone in a car.
And no - I don't have a cell phone anymore either. Even the pedestrians are idiots when on their phone - so many idiots that cannot watch where they walk - 10+ years now.
Here in New Jersey I’ve noticed an increase in car accidents lately and seriously doubt that it’s because of us pure bloods.
This is one of the dumbest hypothesis I've ever read. “We theorized that individual adults who tend to resist public health recommendations might also neglect basic road safety guidelines,” the authors wrote. “The study question was, “Does COVID vaccine hesitancy correlate with the risks of a serious traffic crash?” The question should be: "Does COVID vaccine hesitancy indicate higher IQ and critical thinking skills leading to better life decision-making?"
This, to me, is basically propaganda fodder, and no different than eugenics “research.” They are conditioning the public to be wary of “those people,” who for whatever mysterious reasons are foolish enough to resist their “scientific” advice. Arrogant and elitist to the core.
I heard that the experts are no longer calling this a crisis of the unvaxxed. And for good reason. This study is more MK Ultra mind control programming designed to convince everyone foolish enough to take the experimental jabs that they did the right thing. No one who has resisted is buying this BS.
Like all these studies out of the prostitution institution "research systems", confirmation bias is probably an integral part of this "study." With these colleges, universities and so-called "think tanks", some multibillionaire pays some prostitute (like a major university) to do a study whose outcome is supposed to please said multibillionaire. If it doesn't, that concubine doesn't get paid. Harvard, MIT, and all the big name academic institutions are guilty of this and have been doing it for years. Take a look at the yes-men "scientists" who are trying to sell the climate change/global warming nonsense, just like the "scientists" who are trying to sell the "covid" crapcines.
Did anyone notice that "likelihood of traffic crash" included pedestrians, as well as drivers and passengers?
The "study baseline" date was July 31, 2021, and there was ONE month of followup. According to Wikipedia, this was in the middle of a Covid "infection wave." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_COVID-19_pandemic_in_Canada
I wonder if there is any data showing the percentage of vaccinated who were out and about as compared with unvaccinated. Seems to me that, if most of the vaccinated were staying home, they were less likely to be in a car at all, driving one involved in a crash, being a passenger involved in a crash, or being hit by a car...
Was any consideration given to miles driven? Are remote workers' injection status skewed either way? Are "essential workers" more likely to be injected or uninjected?
Anyone who believes this rubbish is a bonified idiot.
They're also inferring they know "why" a person is unvaccinated at the moment of the crash, and presuming they are less likely to be a rule follower because of that. Not every person (including teen, young adult, cancer patient, etc) is unvaccinated because they are "vaccine hesitant". Like you pointed out, younger age groups have a lower rate of vaccination than older age groups, and the younger age groups are at a higher risk of auto accidents. I can't believe they wasted their time trying to convince people unvaccinated people are bad drivers.
True!
Even more relevant:
The study authors actually made several key observations that they then proceeded to ignore:
1) The unvaccinated in their study were more likely to live in rural areas.
Why is this important? Canadian data show that most severe car crashes occur in rural areas!
From Transport Canada: “...two-thirds of all “deadly accidents” happen on rural roads, in the country, where speed limits are faster and the roads aren't as well-lit as they are inside the city. Drivers are more likely to find poor or unexpected conditions on rural roads, than in the city, and there's always the danger of coming across animals that can appear out of nowhere."
https://tc.canada.ca/en/road-transportation/motor-vehicle-safety/rural-roads
2) THE STUDY AUTHORS ACTUALLY NOTED THIS: "Those who had not received a vaccine also were more likely to have a diagnosis of alcohol misuse or depression and less likely to have a diagnosis of sleep apnea, diabetes, cancer, or dementia.”
Why is this important?
Well, let's ask the study authors why they chose to focus their study on likelihood of car crash (knowing that the correlation is already explained by Canadian demographic data having NOTHING to do with vaccination status), rather than focusing on the fact that refusing the vaccine is associated with several better statuses of health issues.
For example, they could have asked: does dementia increase likelihood of complying with vaccination recommendations? Or does getting the vaccine increase the likelihood of dementia? And what about cancer? And diabetes?
These are all great points.
Yes and low socioeconomic too. More of the vaccinated were of higher socioeconomic status, who also had fewer accidents, whereas low socio was associated with both reduced vaccine uptake and car accidents.
Ill take my chances on the road....vaxing is a clear pathway to premature death...after you suffer from poor health
I'll take my chances. 🤣🙄
I love this little note under the picture that it may financially reflect on your insurance. They know where people are most likely to fall in the trap.....
Teens are talking about Vaxx Brain in their peers. It means they are acting Dopey and just not with it or alert.
Funny how they see it and are observant of these things yet we are being gas lighted that it’s the unvaccinated.
It might be that the researchers in this study are the victims of “Vaxx Brain”. Beep beep!
Indeed, because anyone believing and especially those publishing this nonsense are not the sharpest knives in the drawer. Shocking idiocy.
They’ve just been reading the same books as Bill Gates. “How to lie with statistics”
Funny thing is they may be paid by the same Bill Gates lol.
You could very well be correct, or someone affiliated with that filth.
What a load of bollocks you wankers! Don't forget most sheep that got the shots have died or will be dead with in next 3 years. So there's that.
And, many if not most are suffering all manner of "mysterious" physical and mental ailments.