Byram Bridle, a viral immunologist at the University of Guelph in Ontario, Canada has come under attack from the media for his interpretation of the facts regarding COVID19 vaccines.
One thing that is common in almost all fact check articles, is that the people doing the fact checking are vastly less qualified on the subject of immunology than the person they are fact checking……
The Byram Bridle “fact check” articles
Someone has even created a website using his name…..
Health Feedback (which appear to specialise in debunking) https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/byram-bridles-claim-that-covid-19-vaccines-are-toxic-fails-to-account-for-key-differences-between-the-spike-protein-produced-during-infection-and-vaccination-misrepresents-studies/
Byram Bridle says the criticism of his comments amounts to harassment https://www.guelphtoday.com/local-news/u-of-g-prof-says-he-is-receiving-workplace-harassment-after-sharing-vaccine-concerns-3888634
The other side
So we have seen what less qualified people have said.
What does the inventor (Robert Malone) of the mRNA vaccine have to say?
Robert Malone does an interview with Trish Wood to go over the claims and to give the facts as he understands them.
Interview > https://pca.st/p8d3xu1v
Some highlights from the interview
Some nuggets of gold from Robert Malone in regards to the attacks on Bridle and the way the COVID19 vaccines and the COVID19 response in general are being managed
–We are crossing fundamental bio ethical boundaries.
–We are crossing norms, we have a way of deciding risk benefit but I don’t see it happening here and we should
–Show me the data that says vaccinating two year olds is worth the risk versus the reward
–I’m suggesting a risk benefit analysis of vaccinating different groups
–If a country said a specific region would require people to remain in their homes until they accepted an experimental product to a frequency of 70%, if I submitted that as a research protocol I would be called out for coercion. Yet this is a policy decision (in the USA)
–We need to take a moment and think of the bioethics of what we are doing here
–Normally a novel vaccine product would reach its end of phase 3 targets after following at least 3000 people (volunteers) for at least two years … but we haven’t done that
–Those that would assert the vaccines as safe, blanket assertions, I don’t think they are being honest. You can’t say these vaccines are safe at the moment, we don’t have the data
–When we delete the Facebook groups of people who claim to have had adverse vaccine effects, imagine what that tells you as a patient who has experienced something. Its the worst form of gas lighting, it’s saying you don’t matter. Its just wrong.
–I find this doctor (Bridle) extremely knowledgeable, extremely eloquent precise in his thinking, grounded in the literature and I’m a bit gobsmacked in the push back
–I don’t understand why it’s getting so hard to publish peer reviewed papers
Doctor Byram Bridle
The show then has Doctor Bridle on himself. He comments that the smear campaign appeared to be extremely well co-ordinated, rapid and libelous.
The campaign included a website using his name as the domain name (included above) and fake Twitter accounts.
Its hard not to speculate on the possibility of a hidden handBridle’s thoughts on the attacks
Bridle continues that a member of Ontario’s COVID19 scientific advisory table, the people who are advising the Canadian government, was the first to publicise the libelous website (the website using Bridle’s name as the domain name). Needless to say, highly unprofessional behaviour.
But it goes further, this same government advisor (who is a practicing physician) also published confidential medical information about Bridle’s parents.
Bridle who has no social media presence found all this coverage of him overnight overwhelming.
In my opinion, the behaviour of this physician against Bridle is completely outrageous. But on the other hand it serves to expose to the type of people who are pushing for the so called “science”.
CPAC Canada have a piece on Bridle here, hosted by MP Derek Sloan
What exactly did Bridle say that was so controversial and why did he say it?
The vaccine is supposed to say in the shoulder but it appears to be travelling throughout the body and one study claims it is concentrating itself in the ovaries after 24 hours as detailed in this podcast. Pointing this out is apparently a huge problem for people with 100% faith in vaccines.
Bridle points out that spike proteins can circulate through the body and cause harm. His detractors say that this is not problem because the amount is so small.
He also highlights that the Canadian government stopped the Astra Zeneca vaccine because 1 in 55,000 people were getting a blood clot. He says the circulation of the spike protein, for it to be identified as a problem, we would have to sample 55,000 people to identify the one case where it was causing the potentially lethal blood clot, something we are not doing.
I think it is important to stress that Bridel himself is saying that this is his opinion not a fact ie that the spike protein circulating is a problem. However Bridle is a professor in virology, I think one can assume that someone with his level of knowledge and experience should be taken seriously when they say this circulation could be a problem and especially when the people who are “debunking” his opinion are considerably/totally less qualified to comment on his opinion.
In short, we need to listen to the experts. The opinion of experts matter.
This is covered in 1hr:46mins of the podcast
But the expert sees even more problems
The spike protein circulating through the body could create an immune response from many more places in our body leading to an auto immune response the problem of which we might not understand until much later.
In short, Bridle is not saying that we defintaly have a proiblem with these vaccines.
He is saying that he can easily see how we could be looking at a big potential problem.
His alarm is coming from the fact that no one else appears to be acknowledging the obvious risks which is extremely unusual. The potential risks, in his opinion are obvious, why are not more experienced and qualified people also highlighting this obvious problem.
“Certainty is the last refuge of the fool”
Finally in the interview there are two further guests, one of which states it is “absolutely mind boggling” that we are not testing people for antibodies for COVID19 prior to vaccinating them.
It is inevitable, without testing people prior to the vaccination, that we will be “vaccinating” people who are already vaccinated by their own immune systems.
Are you in Canada?
Have you had an adverse effect from the COVID19 vaccine?
Contact these guys, they want to hear from you