The study was driven by data from Ontario (pop. 14,789,778) and the study analyzed 11,270,763 of them. Of that 11 million or so people, 9,425,473 had received the vaccine.
In the 18-39 age range, 3,000,000 had received the vaccine and 938,000 hadn't.
So unless there was more nuance to what Jikky was arguing than presented here by @freenemo, their analysis is incorrect.
EDIT: And to follow up (I'm digging on it some more), another thing that is impressive on this study is it's probably the only cabal vaccine study I've seen that doesn't treat one dose as "unvaccinated":
It's all in the 18-39 age range. That's too big to filter out the differences in the ages. 18 yo are by far the most likely to get into a serious crash and by far the most likely to not be vaccinated. It would be obvious if they compared each age. They can hide the data by lumping them all in together. Likewise, the 80+ yo group is by far the most likely to be vaccinated, and by far the least likely to be driving much.
And there could also be some "survivers bias" I think is what it's called. Meaning traffic accidents leading to ER visits are counted but they acknowledge for privacy reasons, they didn't have data on people that died at the scene. So, it's possible that the vaxxed were more likely to die at the scene and the pure bloods were more likely to survive but need medical treatment.
In short, pure bloods naturally fall into groups that are more likely to be in traffic accidents (young and male).
Correlation, definitely not causation as they imply when they suggest that doctors talk to pure bloods about their risk for traffic accidents.
Does anyone have the link to the argument "Jikky" made?
I've seen multiple "debunks" of this study from our side but honestly haven't come across one that washes with the data.
https://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343(22)00822-1/fulltext#%20
The study was driven by data from Ontario (pop. 14,789,778) and the study analyzed 11,270,763 of them. Of that 11 million or so people, 9,425,473 had received the vaccine.
In the 18-39 age range, 3,000,000 had received the vaccine and 938,000 hadn't.
So unless there was more nuance to what Jikky was arguing than presented here by @freenemo, their analysis is incorrect.
EDIT: And to follow up (I'm digging on it some more), another thing that is impressive on this study is it's probably the only cabal vaccine study I've seen that doesn't treat one dose as "unvaccinated":
https://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343(22)00822-1/fulltext#seccesectitle0034
It's all in the 18-39 age range. That's too big to filter out the differences in the ages. 18 yo are by far the most likely to get into a serious crash and by far the most likely to not be vaccinated. It would be obvious if they compared each age. They can hide the data by lumping them all in together. Likewise, the 80+ yo group is by far the most likely to be vaccinated, and by far the least likely to be driving much.
And there could also be some "survivers bias" I think is what it's called. Meaning traffic accidents leading to ER visits are counted but they acknowledge for privacy reasons, they didn't have data on people that died at the scene. So, it's possible that the vaxxed were more likely to die at the scene and the pure bloods were more likely to survive but need medical treatment.
In short, pure bloods naturally fall into groups that are more likely to be in traffic accidents (young and male).
Correlation, definitely not causation as they imply when they suggest that doctors talk to pure bloods about their risk for traffic accidents.