Shaun Newman Podcast - #653 - Byram Bridle

Episode Date: June 5, 2024

He has his Ph.D. and is an Associate Professor of Viral Immunology in the Department of Pathobiology, University of Guelph. He went viral in the middle of Covid for discovering the vax crossed the blood brain barrier and since has had his life turned upside down. He will be in Alberta June 17th for the An Injection of Truth town hall. Let me know what you think. Text me 587-217-8500 Substack:https://open.substack.com/pub/shaunnewmanpodcast E-transfer here: [e-mail] Website: https://silvergoldbull.ca/ Email: [e-mail] Text: [phone] – and be sure to let them know you’re an SNP listener. Ticket for Dr. James Lindsay “Parental Rights Tour”: https://brushfire.com/anv

This is Tom Bodrovix. This is Alex Kraner. This is Sean Alexander. This is Tanner Nadegh. This is Tom Romago. This is Moka Bezergan. And you're listening to Sean Newman podcast. Welcome to the podcast.

Folks, happy Wednesday. How's everybody doing today? Oh, man, I got a few things I want to talk about. But before we get there, okay, before we get there, before we talk about a few things popping up on substack today, how about we start here? Government deficits running out of control, check.

Well, what can we do about it? Well, we might be able to, put some of your hard-earned savings into something they can print. That would be gold and silver. I'm talking about silver gold bowl, my favorite, my favorite precious metals dealer. You know, Alberta, started here in Alberta. I got a lot of time for the boys over there. Obviously, you know that.

They're offering a full suite of services to help you buy, sell, and store precious metals, and they ship your metal discreetly, fully insured, and with tracking straight to you. Text or email Graham down in the show notes for more details. if you're in Canada, silvergoldb bull.ca, if you're down in the States, silvergoldbull.com. Make sure you reference Sean Newman podcast. And if you want to just, hey, shoot him a text. Say, hey, thanks for supporting.

Believe me, it helps. All of it helps. Your guys' engagement is, man, I can't thank all of you enough for continuing to support this. And if you're going to be buying some silver and gold, which I think is a pretty smart thing to do, do. Why not an Alberta ran company? Silver Gold Bowl. Prental rights tour featuring Dr. James Lindsay. Yeah, they're going to be here in Alberta. Bonneville, Friday, June 21st, Eminton and Red Deer Saturday, June 22nd, Calgary Sunday, June 23rd, and Brooks Monday, June 24th.

He's been a guest of this show, but maybe you've never heard of him. Do you remember he's been on, I don't know, this show called the Joe Rogan experience multiple times. He's an American author. He has his Ph.D. in mathematics and hosts the new Discourses podcast. I assume those shows are going to be fantastic. I'm going to be heading to Bonneville myself. I hope to see you folks there. Down in the show notes, there's a link where you can get your tickets today.

Nice, simple, easy. Dr. James Lindsay going to be making the Alberta tour. Caleb Taves, Renegade Acres, they do the community spotlight. We have been spotlighting and an injection of Truth Town Hall June 17th in Calgary. You've been hearing some of the doctors. Today is another one of the doctors. Dr. Eric Payne, Dr. Chris Shoemaker,

Dr. Byram Bridal, Dr. Jessica Rose, Dr. Mark Trozy, Dr. William Macchus. You kind of get the point. Tickets at an injection of truth.ca. The tickets are sold out, but you can still buy the live streams and have viewing parties.

And I think they're encouraging. Heck, I'm encouraging, wherever you're at in the problem. province or across Canada, why not tune in and see what they're all going to have to say here in Alberta, June 17th. And I'm going to be facilitating that. I'm going to be on stage making sure the event runs smoothly, looking forward to that. The deer and steer butchery, it's 4-H season. They're open for bookings and slaughters for 4-H beef. So if you've got an animal, you want to get in, give them a call, 780870-2 Amber. That's their new butcheress, the mother of two,

from the small town of Wadena, Saskatchewan. So if you've got an animal that needs to get in, 780870-8700. Erickson Agro Incorporated at Irma, Alberta, Kent and Tasha, Erickson, family farm raising four kids, growing food for their community and this great country. And I just found out from Blair the other day. They got like 12 days of school left, and then, well, I don't know.

My first year is a billet dad. Out the door. I don't know. I don't know if I'm doing a great job or not. Either way, it'll be different not having Blair. in the house that's going to be soon enough i'm sure kent and tosh are excited about that um substack okay if you have not been paying attention um substack this week the cornerstone forum the uh video from it is releasing today is part two yesterday we had part one Thursday part

three and uh friday is going to be part four so it's going to come out in four substack posts in each post behind the paywall is going to be different parts of the day. Essentially, they run sequentially, so the first to last. And yeah, you can get that all for minimum fee of just subscribe to the substack. I think it's like $8 a month. And boom, you can watch the entire Cornerstone forum on four different posts. And I would love, love, love, love to hear people's feedback from what they see. I know the feedback from people that were in the audience on April 28th was, you know, the word I don't use lightly was their word, which was phenomenal.

They really, really enjoyed the day, the full day, which it was, and now you can watch it all online. Just go subscribe to Substack. That's in the show notes. My substack go over there. You can subscribe to it and look forward to hearing all your thoughts. And if you weren't able to make it, and now you want to, there you go. The next thing is it is Wednesday.

Did I mention it's Wednesday? And tonight, 4 p.m., 4 p.m., folks, Chuck Prodnick, a live Q&A with all of you, okay? And if you want to get the link, head over to Substack. You can find it. I'll put a new quick one out just today

so people can see it real brief, and then I'll probably remove it. But regardless, I'm going to have the link and the pass code in a quick substack post today. If you're early in, there's nothing there. Go to the Liz. Lee's Merle exclusive in that. There already is the Zoom link that you can get.

And I hope to see some people there for a live Q&A with Chuck Prodnick. When that's dumb, we're going to put it behind the paywall on Subdac as well so people can go over there and watch it. Okay. That's what I got for you today. Let's get on to the tale of the tape. He has his PhD and his associate professor of viral immunology at the University of Guelph. I'm talking about Dr. Byron Bridal. So buckle up, here we go.

Welcome to the Sean Newman podcast. Today I'm joined by Dr. Byron Bridal. So, sir, thank you for hopping on this morning. That's my pleasure, Sean. Now, I certainly know who you are, and I feel like most of my audience probably well, but if I've learned to any lessons over hosting this show in the last five plus years, it has come. You never assume anything.

And so all I want to start with is you can go for as long or as short as you want to go, Dr. Bridal. But I would really like you to just tell your story on how we get to today. You can go as early as you want, as short as you want, whatever you want to do. Sure. Yeah, I appreciate that, Sean. So, yeah, so for your audience, I'm an academic faculty member. I'm employed at the University of Guelph, where I specialize in virology and immunology.

And specifically, I have used that expertise for me. many, many years in developing and optimizing vaccination strategies. So I've got lots of experience with manufacturing, well, designing, and creating all kinds of different vaccines, both for infectious diseases and also to stimulate immune responses to target cancers. The interesting thing about that, Sean, is that means I've got quite a lot of experience looking at risk-benefit analyses, you know, and conducting risk-benefit. analysis and looking at the two ends of the spectrum. Because when you're dealing with somebody who's

going to die from cancer, you can afford to use much more potentially dangerous vaccines than you can if you're going to be vaccinating to protect against an infectious disease, in which case you are administering the vaccine to very healthy people, right? And it's a very different risk benefit analysis. And so that's kind of my background. I have lots and lots of experience. I've published extensively in the peer-reviewed scientific literature when it comes to vaccine. And so I guess my, I'll try and be as brief as I can, Sean, and you feel free to ask me questions after to fill in any gaps that you think are there. But I was, I was living a relatively quiet, you know, and happy life as an academic faculty member. I am a tenured faculty member.

And just to explain to your audience, that the concept of tenure in our universities is starting to disappear. Those positions are slowly being phased out, it seems, which I think is very dangerous. What tenure is, once a faculty member has tenure, it's very difficult for them to lose their position. They have to do something egregious, such as commit a crime, for example. So some people view that as, oh, once a professor has tenure, they can throw their feet up and relax and don't have to work nearly as hard. That is anything but true. Tenured faculty members, in fact,

we on average probably work often up to double our full-time hours that are typically expected. So where tenure is very important, and this is the whole purpose of tenure, and this is why it's become so important over the past three years, Sean, is a tenured faculty member because it's difficult to lose their position. The whole purpose of tenure is to allow true subject matter experts to be able to speak honestly to the public about messages and real answer questions the public has that falls within that individual's realm of expertise without having to worry about their job being leveraged against them, right? So it removes those coercive forces. It removes fears of losing

one's job for speaking truth. So that's what I am. I'm a tenured faculty member. And my career was on a very steep trajectory, I was considered a research superstar at my university, the University of Guelph. I had brought in research funding that the university had never received in its history. I held multiple grants simultaneously at any one time. I had a relatively large research team, and I was very productive. And like I said, my trajectory was very high. And then came along the COVID-19, you know, the declared COVID-19 pandemic. Everything changed for me. At first, it was gradual.

It was a gradual change, Sean. So initially, people came to me to ask questions because I was a recognized expert in vaccines. And so people wanted to know what I thought about the COVID-19 vaccines. And early on, they wanted to know what I thought about the so-called warp speed, the operation warp speed, right? This accelerated program to develop COVID-19 vaccine. And I spoke up. And right from the beginning, I shared concerns.

I had concerns because, you know, we've heard this infamous line, the speed of science. That was a term used that we heard from one of the Pfizer officials in Europe, in the European Parliament, you know, working at the speed of science, which they insinuated meant going very quickly. The true speed of science is slow and plotting, you know, and deliberate. it. And so I was quite concerned with the speed at which these COVID-19 vaccines were being developed. So I had a voice early on and expressed, and right from the get-go voiced concerns about the speed at which these were being evaluated in clinical trials and rolled out. But I had a voice in, I guess we call legacy media, things like CBC. I was interviewed on the West Block, CTV National News and programs like that, W-5.

And then it seemed like we reached a point where nobody, it was almost like legacy media had uniformly received some kind of memo, right? Which is we no longer want to hear any criticisms whatsoever of this. And what people have to understand is I spoke up about my concerns. And I stated early on, Sean, and I have all this on the public record. I wrote lay articles that are out there, an extensive number of lay articles. I've done an extensive number of media interviews. I've written open letters, and I'm very happy to have my established public record out there. And one of the things that I did early on, the reason why I was speaking up is I stated,

I knew what the plan wasn't what the goal was, right? And if we're honest, the original goal was it was not to develop vaccines to try and dampen the severity of COVID-19. The entire premise was we were going to roll out these vaccines to, as Anthony Fauci had stated, stop the virus in its tracks, right? To prevent people from getting COVID-19, stop transmission, and get the Canadian population to the point of what we call herd immunity, which is the point where not everybody has to be immune to SARS-Cronovirus 2, but the majority of the population.

And if we were able to achieve that, we'd be able to stop the spread of SARS-Cronovirus 2. And I pointed out early on that if we failed to achieve that stated goal, with a program that was overly rushed and we messed up and we messed this up, we would harm the entire field of vaccinology. And so I spoke up and I kept speaking the truth because I'm a vaccinologist and I did not want to see my field destroyed. And so when I started seeing things and I did start seeing things early on, go way off the tracks. Right.

And that's where I maintained my truthful messaging. Well, I saw others change to a so-called narrative. But I wanted people to know that there were at least some vaccinologists in the world who were willing to speak the truth to people. And now, if we jump to today, I would say the field of vaccinology has been very badly harmed, very badly harmed by our government public health officials pushing a singular narrative that is proven to be completely incorrect. And now we have to recover from that. Right now, these same people are wondering, why is vaccine, has a vaccine? residency sky high. Well, it's for the very reasons why I said it would go sky high, you know, three years ago, more than three years ago when I started speaking up. So I had a voice in the so-called legacy media. And then there were a couple things that happened, Sean, which, and then I was shocked by the treatment that I received. The first one, I didn't get, you know, too much pushback on, but I spoke out. This is, this is, what happened i'll never forget my son my youngest son who has down syndrome he came home one day

with a note from that the school had received and and and this notice came out from our local medical officer of health public medical officer of health and this he was sent home because a student in his class attested positive by the PCR test for SARS coronavirus two uh at the time this child was not sick, so they did not have COVID-19. I can tell you it was interesting. They did develop COVID-19, a very mild case. For a few days, they had, like, you know, cold-like symptoms. And that was it.

But what happened is every child in the classroom was sent home and forced to go to remote learning. And this policy came home. And it was one of the most draconian policies that had been issued in all of Canada. and my school district wasn't the only one. There were two or three other school districts in my province of Ontario that did this. But a lot of people haven't heard of this, Sean. This policy stated, when my son came home, we were supposed to quarantine him, my healthy son, for two weeks. And this was not just any, you know, casual type of quarantine.

I mean, this was a harsh lockdown of our child. They asked us to, so I sat there at the dinner table, never forget, and I read this letter. My two sons were there, my youngest son who were supposed to be placing in quarantine, and then my older son and my wife. And I read this out. And when I was done, my older son made a very interesting comment that to this day, I'll never forget, right? He asked me after. He said, why do we have to put Johnny into solitary confinement? And initially, Sean, I laughed, right?

Because I thought, okay, my older son, you've misunderstood. So solitary confinement is for criminals, right? They haven't asked us to put our, you know, my youngest son into solitary confinement, but rather isolated quarantine is what they were calling it. But then I realized, Sean, when you actually looked at what they were asking, you couldn't differentiate the two. In fact, notably, when it comes to solitary confinement, there are limitations on how long a person can be placed into solitary confinement,

and it is not for two weeks. And most jurisdictions, in fact, what you'll find is people can be put into solitary confinement. The time varies, but often it's maybe for up to 24 hours. And then they have to be reintegrated with people for a period of time. And then they might go back into solitary confinement. And that's how it works. There's limitations on how long a person can be placed into solitary confinement because it's well recognized that this has massive psychological implications and cause massive psychological harm. we were asked to place our son into the equivalent of solitary confinement for two consecutive weeks.

He was to be locked in his room. He was, when we went to give him meals, we were told we were supposed to have him go to the far back corner of the room so we could open the door and introduce the meals. I kid you not, Sean, there were people, parents bragging that with their kids, they were bragging about some of strategies they'd come up with. And they decided to put their child's meals on disposable plates and have disposable utensils. So nothing would be shared between them and their child. And so literally, just like you would see in a movie, right, where somebody's in solitary

confinement and a guard comes and they slide a plate, you know, through a little gap in the door. This is what parents were doing. They were having their child go to the back corner of the room. They would crack the door open. They would slide the meal in on a plate and then close the door. and then lock their child, you know, away from them. If homes were equipped, the children were supposed to be used a separate bathroom, everything.

They technically weren't allowed to go outside unless it was on a balcony that had, you know, that obviously had a railing so that they could not access, you know, any public space. They were allowed to go into yards if they were fenced. In other words, we were allowed to treat them like caged animals. But again, if they went into that yard that was fenced, we were not to go there with them. This is how crazy it was. And so what I did, Sean, is my wife and I recognized right away, this is abusive. This is completely abusive of children.

And we're not going to cater to that. So what I did after reading this letter is I promptly went out into my driveway with my son because we love to play basketball. And we have a basketball net in her driveway. And it is not fenced in, but it is our property. And we went out and he and I played basketball together. And I took a photograph of that. and I sent it to any newspaper that wanted to publish it because I wanted parents to know that as an expert, as an expert, there was no valid reason for essentially placing into solitary confinement children, especially children of special needs, and that this was absolutely unnecessary, not only unnecessary, but absolutely abusive of children.

So the Toronto Sun ran that article. There was a local newspaper that ran it as well. That's, I guess, when I first started getting some criticism because I realized at that time, Sean, there was this push towards a unified narrative. And that obviously did not fit the narrative. But I also then developed their reputation as a scientist who would speak bluntly and plainly to the public and tell them when I as an expert felt things were incorrect. And so what happened is then the big event, like my life has changed unbelievably over the, the past three years and it all comes down to one interview that I gave back in May of 2021 and it was on the radio show on point which was an Ontario radio program the the the person who hosted it her name was Alex Pearson and she did nothing wrong Sean what she did

is she asked me a simple question at that time there people were observing that there was an increase in cases of myocarditis among young males in Israel who were receiving the modified RNA shots for COVID-19. And so she simply asked me, did I, as an expert vaccinologist and somebody who was keeping up with all of the state of the art science in this area, did I think that there might be a genuine link between the COVID-19 shots and these cases of myocarditis? And there were three things that caused many people in the world and many of my colleagues, Sean, to absolutely lose their minds. Talk about emotional triggering and going absolutely stark, raving, mad, and bonkers over three things that I said. As you and I chat right now, to this day, I will stand firm on what I said back then.

And not only was it supported then, but it's supported by a massive avalanche of science since. So first of all, of all the egregious things that I said, I said there might be a link. And I didn't say there was a definitive link even. I said there might be a link based on the research that was available at time between the modified RNA shots and myocytitis. I mean, you and I now know, like, did I nail it or what? I mean, clearly. I mean, that is a well accepted side effect of these. The companies do not deny this.

It's on. It was added to the vaccine label. So I nailed it. And then, you see, when you see a link like that as a scientist, the other thing you look for, Sean, is you look for, are there potential mechanistic explanations for these kind of harms that were not foreseen, especially when they weren't foreseen, right? So is there something about the technology that might explain that? And I identified two things. So it was interesting the timing of this interview, because I was just focused in the previous couple weeks on a Japanese study, a study that I had got from the, it was publicly available.

Some people say it was, you know, through a freedom of information request. It wasn't. It was a circuitous route. But a colleague that I had that I was working with and speaking to about concerns, shared concerns in the United States pointed to me, pointed me to this study. And he focuses more on clinical aspects. I'm an expert in pre-clinical studies. And this was a pre-clinical study about the biodistribution of the lipid nanoparticles,

used as the foundation technology for the modified RNA shots. And although it was sort of a securitus route, it was available. If you knew where to look and you looked hard enough, you could find it on the Japanese health regulatory agency's website. And so there was something, what I found in that was very shocking shot. And it wasn't the science that shocked me. Because what I found is that the lipid nanoparticles were being widely distributed, got widely distributed through the body following intramuscular injection.

So that was not what actually concerned me. And remember, this interview was truncated at nine minutes. I was speaking off the cuff to a lay audience. So I couldn't get out all the details. But I was able to express my concern with that, that these were being systemically distributed through the body. My greatest concern was that not the science itself, because that science matched the decade, more than a decade of science leading up to the rollout of these modified RNA shots. I knew these or got systemically distributed throughout the body. In fact, that's what they were designed to do because they were originally,

the original purpose of these lipid nanoparticles was to use them to deliver drugs to treat things like cancers in the brain and also gene therapies, where you want wide distribution of these lipid nanoparticles throughout the body. What surprised me, Sean, and I didn't get a chance to express this in that interview, again, wasn't the science, it was the message. It was that the science did actually match what I understood, but I was being told by public health officials and government officials who are not experts in vaccines that these things acted like traditional vaccines. Now, where that stemmed from, Sean, if you recall, when these shots were first being rolled out, there was quite a bit of concern in the public about using these genetic vaccines. And people were worried, what could this genetically modify me?

The funny thing is now all this time later with the science, that is definitely open for debate still. But we were assured at the time, there's no way there could be any genetic modification. And to try and provide the public without assurance, what was being stated was that these acted, they behaved like all other traditional vaccine technologies. And people went so far as to explicitly state how that looks, which is that you inject the vaccine into the muscle. most of it stays there with a little bit going to the draining lymph nodes, which is what you want to activate an immune response. So what shocked me about it, Sean, was that to me, this was evidence that for the first time that we were very much being lied to, and very publicly so. Right? In other words, because I accepted what I heard publicly from places like Health Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada and their representatives because we knew that not everything about the technology was being disclosed. We were told that there were proprietary aspects that were being protected, right? And so when they said this stays at the injection site, an expert like me was saying, well, that's very strange because that's never how it's behaved ever in its history. But okay, obviously one of these proprietary tweaks was finding some way to get it to stay at the injection site, right?

Who might have questioned that? So when I found this data, that was the wake-up call for me, Sean. And then the third thing about it is, I recognize that there was a big oopsie that had been done. Because if these lipidana particles could get distributed throughout the body, I recognize from studying the literature, which was looking at, why is COVID-19 so dangerous in some people, right? Why, in severe cases of COVID-19, do all of these terrible things happen to these people, including potentially death? And what we were finding, what was very clear in the literature, is that the virus, when it could cause severe pneumonia, which means it got deep in the lungs. And once the virus is deep in the lungs, you're getting into those little alveolar spaces where gas exchange occurs.

And all you really need to understand, for gas exchange to occur, there's just the ever so tiniest physical barriers between the airspace and our blood vessels. And that's the facility gas exchange, right? Our body needs to get rid of carbon dioxide and we need to get oxygen into the body and to the cells throughout our body. So the dangerous thing about pneumonia is once a virus gets deep into the alveolar spaces, there's that, it can start crossing over and get into the bloodstream, right? when there's any kind of damage. And then the virus starts going systemically throughout the body. We call that viremia when it starts getting distributed systematically throughout the body. And that's when dangerous things could happen.

Massive inflammation and damage to the blood vessels and blood clots and all kinds of things. But what was interesting is the literature was telling us it's not just the virus, the whole virus itself. What the science was finding was that one component of the virus tended to be responsible for the vast majority of that harm. And people were able to show that what the component of the virus that was causing most of the harm in severe disease was the spike protein. And so I, of course, put two and two together and realize that if we have the spike protein now getting disseminated through the body, whether it be free floating in the blood, which was evidence at the time that that could happen, although the literature showed it was in healthy people, it was at very low concentrations, but that's what I expected for healthy people, people who weren't suffering severe side effects. right my prediction was that in those suffering severe side effects that concentration would be higher so there's no question the spike protein and we now know for sure the spike protein can be free floating in the blood and distributed systemically what i never forgot a chance to share in that interview Sean was in more and even more major concern because the spike protein was not designed to be secreted from cells and and be free floating it was actually designed to be expressed on ourselves like a flag planted on you know when a the astronauts went to the moon and planted the flag on the moon.

Same thing. So we would have the spike protein on our cells. Right. So I suddenly realized regardless of whether it was on cells and especially on cells that were mobile. And I knew at the time, and sure enough, research showed our cells can communicate with one another by having little fat bubbles blab off of their surface. We call them exosomes.

And sure enough, this has been proven. And so when those exosomes butt off to communicate with other cells at a remote location, they take proteins that are on the surface with them. So I recognize there are all these mechanisms whereby the spike protein could end up distributed throughout the body, expressed on cells throughout our body, migrating throughout our body on exosomes, migrating throughout our bodies as free-form proteins or portions thereof. And therefore, what we were doing was we were, by using these injections, we were getting people's bodies to distribute throughout the body a toxic protein.

The very protein of the virus that was causing so much harm during severe disease. And I recognize that as a potential mechanism of harm. And when it's being distributed throughout the blood, you would expect, therefore, cardiovascular issues to be at the forefront, including things like myocyditis. So I stand, the science shows that I was correct on all three counts. But my world was thrown upside down within 24 hours of that interview. You know, I, I forgot, I went to bed that night. It was an interview like all other interviews I had given.

I had speaking the truth. I had spoken based on solid science. And then when I woke up the next day, there had been a website had gone up. Like there was a clearly a very well-organized global defamation campaign that was launched against me. There was a website that went up to defame me. There was a, at that time, Twitter, now an X account that still exists to this day. and the website still exists to this day. Those are both now,

they have been the subject of a criminal police investigation for three years now. The police labeled that both of them as forms of criminal impersonation. If they can find out who, especially with the website, who was involved with that, they will charge them with criminal impersonation. But they so far have not been able to identify who that person or those people are, although they have several suspects. And they also contacted me because they deemed that my treatment from my, from my quotes, colleagues, I guess other scientists and physicians in the social media had quickly reached the point of criminal harassment.

Now, criminal harassment, the police of, you know, that's not typically something the police are going to prosecute because it's very difficult to prosecute successfully in court. But nevertheless, they identified that. So objective external police looking at this said this guy has been subjected to criminal impersonation and criminal harassment. That's not me saying that. That's what I was told by the police. And it has not stopped to this day. It continues to this day, even though the avalanche of science has shown that I nailed it on all counts with that. We have multiple known mechanisms of potential harm from the spike protein in the body.

And so it hasn't changed. And remarkably, so I mentioned, Sean, at the beginning, that I, I'm employed by the University of wealth, but I had colleagues there, people at the university who are named. And if anybody wants to get details, they can go to the, the constitutional right center where my statement of claim is posted. Because I've been, I was then placed in a situation where I have not now been able to access my laboratory or my office on my university campus for three years. And it is completely destroyed. Remember I told you my research program. So my research program, in fact, that trajectory that I was on before the declaration of COVID-19 pandemic had actually steepened. I had actually accelerated because I was recognized as an expert, I got very hard to obtain funding, right, to develop COVID-19 vaccines because of my recognized expertise. So if anything, at the beginning of the declared pandemic, my career trajectory actually rose. And then after this interview, it has crashed and burned.

People have attacked me incessantly. And I just keep constantly being accused of having spread misinformation. The interesting thing is these people accuse me of spreading misinformation, all they rely on is they keep pointing back to the fact checks, right? The fact checks that I underwent way back. And not one of those fact checkers ever talked to me, ever gave me an opportunity to explain myself. I was fact-checked again on a nine-minute interview, given off the cuff to a lay audience. And yet it was treated as though what I had put down, as though I had canonized some kind of gospel truth.

And then it was evaluated as though this was some kind of peer-reviewed publication. None of that information that I put out there was set up in a way to be subjected to that. So out of fairness, if people are going to treat it that way, you have to go, to the scientists, then give them an opportunity to respond to your criticisms and allow them to provide the fulsome story, the full story, the full scope of the science, all of their concerns. And I can give you just one example, small example, Sean, because anybody to this day, who accuses me of spreading misinformation, I'm happy for them to bring whatever fact check they want. So that's what most people will do.

I don't know if you or your audience have heard of the book that's been written, that was written relatively recently but turtles all the way down it's the same kind of principle and this is what's happened experts like myself Sean is early on so-called misinformation gurus you know did some kind of fact checks or whatever and declared uh declared various individuals like myself to be misinformation spreaders I can contest every single one of those but I've never been given the opportunity to do so and so now what people do is they and those were not based on science Those were political. And I can tell you, I'm not going to go into the details right now.

But just let me say very briefly, these fact checks, they're a complete matter of facade. And I can explain why. In fact, a couple of times where I was given, they never give you, they usually send you some kind of question and give you a handful of hours to respond before they publish. A couple times, I was sitting at my computer and notices came up and I saw them and actually responded. I could defend myself with all of the science to the chagrin of the fact checker. And what I can tell you is when fact checkers do get a response from you and it allays all of their concerns, remarkably, they never publish the fact check and market is true. They always look for the fact checks where you do not respond. You do not have enough time to respond.

I would typically see these things several days later. and then they go to other people who will pair it a narrative or they will not be genuine subject matter experts, certainly not to the degree that I am, who give their opinions. And then, of course, they fact check it is false, right? And then what happens is these people who accuses being misinformation spreaders, they build upon this false premise, just like that concept of turtles all the way down. And to this day, that's what's still used against me. But let me just give you one little example of one of those original fact checks.

just so your audience can see that I can contest these things. In that interview, I highlighted a study in which it was found that there was free floating spike protein in the blood following injection. And I cited a study where it was 13 health care workers, healthy health care workers who are still actively working following receipt of the shots. And 11 of those 13 workers, there was free floating spike protein. I cited this, and of course, is what I've never, people have not, you know, didn't allow me to defend my, the people who were accusing me. I cited that as proof of principle, right?

Everybody went off on this tangent that, well, does Dr. Brideau not realize that those were very low concentrations of free floating spike protein? So yes, we do have to admit that it can get into circulation, but we argue that the concentrations were so low as to be negligible to not have been able to cause harm. This is the crazy thing, Sean. Of course, I acknowledge that they were very low concentrations, and I would not have expected those concentrations to cause any harm. Why? Because they were identified in healthy people, people who were not experiencing,

who were not actively experienced side effects from these vaccines. In fact, to declare those concentrations could potentially be harmful would be a demonstration on my part that I don't understand what's going on because those people were healthy. What people didn't understand is this was proof of principle. And my whole argument was, which I didn't get allowed to do, wasn't allowed to explain way back then, was that it is free floating.

In fact, the majority of healthy people that aren't experiencing side effects had evidence of free floating spike protein distributing throughout the body. And so my argument was on those experiencing side effects, those experiencing side effects, I contended, would probably have higher concentrations. And indeed, that has been published. in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, Sean. So, for example, the first case study that I saw that actually looked at this and that was willing to look at people experiencing severe side effects when they quantified the spike

protein in a person who was experiencing a severe side effect, guess what? They found that the concentration was more than 100-fold higher. In other words, Sean, again, I nailed it. I nailed it. I could see the problem. And, of course, what they did is they got the authors. They said to the authors of the study, this Dr. Bridal is citing this as a concern. Is this a concern to you?

And of course, they're saying, well, no, it isn't. Look at how low the concentrations were, right? And nobody would ask the question that I wanted to ask because nobody would talk to me, right? Which is, of course, there are low concentrations in people who appear healthy after getting the shot. What about the people who have the severe side effects? Should we not look at that? Right. And I'm sure those same authors have asked that question would say, well, yeah, of course we should.

Because, yeah, we do after, on that, on that side, we have to agree with Dr. Bridal that this does show proof of principle that it can get, you know, be free floating in the blood. So that's just one of many, many examples, Sean, where I nailed it. And see, this is the problem. True subject matter experts can look at a relatively limited array of data and identify in those concerning patterns for which non-subject matter experts require a much larger data set, right, for that pattern to start emerging for them. And this is a thing. And so to this day, I can't access my lab or my office. So that trajectory that I told you I was on that went like this, has gone like this.

And my research program has crashed and burned. As a consequence, the University of Guel Faculty Association, which is the union that represents faculty members, has now filed a grievance. And prior to that, because they were quite delayed, because they were very much confused by the narrative. So that was very much delayed. So I had no choice to try and restore my career. You know, I had to launch a lawsuit.

And I stand by that. And like I said, anybody can go to the Constitution. Constitutional Rights Center and see my statement of claim there if they want details. But the point is that's being fought. But to this day, I've paid this price. And to this day, so you can imagine, I have not been able to take on any more graduate students because I cannot in good faith accept the graduate student and tell them you're never going to see your advisor.

I'm never going to be there in person to train you. I'm a research intensive faculty member. I'm going to train you to be a researcher. Well, actually, I'm not going to. I'm never going to be around you for the duration of your program. I believe, Sean, that I am probably, I might be the first person, literally, in the history of the world. I mean, somebody can identify if I'm wrong, but I suspect that I'm the first person in the history of the world, in terms of academia, to have had multiple graduate students start and finish their entire graduate program without me ever being able to be present in person. because I was kept out of their vicinity by my administration.

And so from that perspective, I cannot take on new graduate students, right? So those students that came through my program, they were students who had been with me as undergraduate students, and I had hired them as summer students, and I had trained them as undergraduate project students, and they liked me, and they trusted me. And so they stayed on as graduate students. But I could not in good faith accept brand new people into the program,

people that I'd never worked with before, right? And so to this day, I still can't recruit graduate students. And, of course, I can't, you know, it's just common sense. A research intensive faculty member, and I'm very much hands on. And there are certain procedures that have been approved in my laboratory to be performed that only I have received the approval for. And the only person on campus who has received the approval to do these methods. So clearly, that can't be done if I can't be there in person. And so as a consequence, here I am. I stand as a formally a very successful research intensive faculty member who has had my

career utterly destroyed by an administration and by colleagues who, for some reason, lost their minds when I spoke objective and demonstrable and defensive truths almost three years ago. and so that brings us up to date worth where I am right now. Well, I guess where I sit is, and I'm sure you've been told this a lot, but Kanda needs more Byron Britals, like we do. And I don't think I have the words to just utter my appreciation for you following your convictions. Just speak the truth. because one of the things that I find very intriguing is why you would stick to your guns

and so many others in similar positions never did. Like it's very, like fascinating isn't the right word by them because I mean, I just listened to your entire story of how you've basically had your life turned upside down and have lost, you know, I assume a job, you know, instructing graduate students and being hands-on and being at the lab and everything. I assume you love that. I assume that was part of the, you know, that... It was a gigantic passion of mine.

I was so passionate. And that's the thing is, I mean, that's one of the things that I haven't, I guess, spoken too much about, or I haven't spoken about at all. I may have spoken about sort of the scenario, the job, the physical scenario, the fact that I can't be present and so on. But yeah, there's no question that the experience over the past several years has robbed me of most, if not all, that passion. Not just for research, but even science in general.

Let's put it this way. It is certainly, I have lost all faith in the scientific system and the scientific method as it's currently practiced. Man, that's a statement right there, isn't it? Like, you know, hey, that's a statement that you've lost all faith in the, basically in the institution. And we're seeing that faith erode not just in the institutions you were involved in, but across the board. You know, you brought up very early on your career and just vaccinations in general and what was going to happen there if they went down this path. And I remember people talking like, listen, you go down this path. We're going to literally cause doubt in people getting vaccinations with their kids and the schedules and everything else.

And I would say across the board, that is very, very true. And the people that could see that early on, and the people that were listening to them, like, yeah, that makes sense. And yet there was this, ah, you guys are, you know, fear mongering. I think it was maybe one of the words

that was used an awful lot. And here we sit years later, and that is exactly where we are. And we're in this realm. And that, you know, that's, I think part of the reason why you're coming to Alberta for this town hall on June 17th is, there's this elephant in the room.

It's been kind of addressed, but it's obviously largely not been addressed. And that is, you know, I just had a conversation literally yesterday with a lady. I was sitting there talking to her and, you know, we got talking and she asked about the podcast by her. And I was telling her, you know,

and then she'll, who do you got coming on next? And I was, uh, brought up your name. And all, that's interesting. And, and she'd been double vaccinated and, you know, okay, and not a big deal. And we're carrying on and we're talking about it. And she goes, you know, it is funny though. like I had a blood clot in my arm. And I'm like, really? And the longer I talk to her,

you know, she's like, yeah, we knew it was a vaccine. I'm like, really? Well, like how long ago? And she's like, well, like, you know, two weeks after we got the shot. I'm like, why didn't she say anything? And that's where it kind of gets this, there's this barrier, you know, of people willing to talk about what happened to them. You know, trauma's been a key thought here in the last couple of weeks on why people can't speak out to the things they see. But the elephant in the room is, the more I talk to people, just everyday people, the more vaccine injured you realize they're out there. Like this isn't, this isn't, this isn't one in a million. Like, you know, oh, it's such a low percentage. Okay. Because everybody I keep running into knows people that had blood clots, myrocaritis,

tumors, cancers, on and on it goes. And all you got to do is talk to people. And it's just, It's so evidently there. And yet, if you talk about it, you know, June 17th in particular, anti-vaxxers, conspiracy theorists, spreading misinformation. I'm like, man, this is, you know, you think we've moved past us, but we really haven't. And you'd be the guy to talk directly to that because you're still right in the middle of the storm, so to speak. Yeah, I honestly have been shocked by the response of some people to this telemarked. to this town hall that's coming up. I think this is excellent.

Just so people know when I was invited, so this is an injection of truth. It's a town hall event that's coming up on June 17th in Calgary. And I've been asked to come and present and have an opportunity to share. My concerns are specifically about COVID-19 vaccines and the use of children. And it being added as a recommended vaccine.

for children as part of the vaccine schedule, the childhood vaccination schedule by Alberta Health Services. I came and one of the things that attracted me to that, Sean, was the fact that I was told that anybody, like experts of all stripes were being invited. I was told that experts representing Alberta Health Services were being invited so they could defend their decision to put this as a recommendation on the child. health of vaccination schedule. I was told that people who were accusing myself and others

and who had extensively accused us of being misinformation spreaders were being invited so that they could have their opportunity to prove to the public that we are indeed spreaders of misinformation, right? And have conversations that they have refused to have with us completely for three years now. So I happily accept it because that's exactly what we need And that's exactly what the public needs is open conversation about the science.

And the reason why an event like this is so important, Sean, is when you give people, scientists and physicians, experts who have differing opinions, the opportunity to speak, especially in real time and to speak alongside one another in front of a public audience, and especially allowing them to address key questions that the audience has, is genuine expertise those who hold genuine subject matter

expertise and those who base their messaging on the overall weight of the scientific evidence

becomes very obvious on those scenarios. I can't push this message enough. We all know inherently. Let's say you have

one person who's saying something like myself. And then you have somebody else. You know what, and I'm going to name an example. I have no problem because he's accused me, and I know he has gone, he has been completely emotionally triggered by this town hall as well.

It's your local recipient of the, the, what's I just, order of Canada. And I almost called them again, Dr. Timothy Caulfield. It's Mr. Timothy Caulfield or Professor Timothy Callfield. field. He doesn't have a medical degree. He doesn't have a PhD. So individuals like him are a great example. You go to their social media account. I say something. They say I'm a misinformation spreader. And what's the basis for them saying I'm a misinformation spreader? Because they'll go back to that fact check I just told you about, right? Which I can defend. And I can show how that was

incorrect based on an overly focused excerpt of what I was saying. So they keep saying this. But this is the thing. So actually, maybe he's not the greatest example because, honestly, I rarely see him present science. So maybe I've got to move on from him. There are other people who have, who come back with, you know, an argument or two, it seems. But this is the thing, Sean. When you go do it this route and it's through these little blurbs and social media, right?

These little soundbite. somebody can say something that's absolutely legitimate and based on the overwhelming evidence, scientific evidence is out there. Any of us could then go, take that and do an internet search, right, and look for something. One thing out there that seems legitimate, right? And I'll tell you, when there is active debate in the scientific literature, it's very easy to find papers that support either side. As a scientist, what you want to present to the public is not a singular paper that argues

what you're saying, you need to convince the public that the overall weight of the evidence, so it's like a balance, when there's a debatable issue, you have evidence being stacked up on both sides. And so what we do as scientists over time is we see, where is the overall weight of the evidence? Where does it sit? And that's the message that you start promoting, right? Because it's supported by the overall weight of the evidence. So the public has to understand, when you have these sound bites being issued in response to a

genuine experts speaking up, right? And again, they can take, it's just like an interview like this. Somebody like Timothy Caulfield can take this and he can take an excerpt from it. And again, I'm speaking off the cuff to a lay audience, right? So he takes some kind of excerpt of what I say. And then he goes and does a search, let's say, right? And he comes back with, here's a paper that contradicts this, right? I would say, let's bring the science and I'll show the overall way to the science is on my side. So we inherently know this. Everybody can do that. If you want to support yourself. It's very easy to Google search and find some resource, something out there that seems to support what you're saying. And so that confuses the public because then it seems like,

well, this is a genuine debate that's happening, a genuine debate that's happening in social media. No, no, no, no, no. And what happens is they take genuine subject matter experts like myself and they try and bog us down and consumer time and energy because what happens is there's a network. These individuals have a network of other so-called self-recllaimed, misinformation, experts or gurus. And they attack us incessantly. If it's not one, it's the other. If it's not the other, somebody else.

And these networks are interlinked across countries. It is a global network. And so somebody like Timothy Caulfield might get his good buddy in Detroit, right? David Gorski, who just also gets emotionally triggered and attacks people. And they take, and so these are the strategies they use. They try and overwhelm us. And they say, well, these people, I mean, they should be willing. I mean, they should just be able to express themselves in writing, you know, in social media.

No, social media is not amenable to publishing scientific-like papers and these types of things. And it becomes an unfair attempt at a debate when somebody like myself tries to put forward. And first of all, it's unfair because I don't go on social media. I mean, I look at what social media has done to me and how it's been used to defame me. And I've seen literally it used in criminal ways. So I'm not going to enter that forum, that horrible forum. But even if I did, what am I going to do? I'm going to publish scientific papers there and put in that kind of effort

only to have the person the other side turn around. I spend hours and hours and hours citing references, and they turn around and they say, oh, I'm writing this all off by referring to this one fact check from two years ago. No, the public has to start realizing. And the people who support these individuals and think that they might be correct, they have to realize if you really want to know if somebody knows what they're talking about you put them in a room together and you get them having a conversation or you at least at the minimum have them converse with the public and parallel side by side and it becomes very quickly in real time because in real time that person cannot go to the internet do a Google search and find that one document that seems to support their argument right so it becomes very obvious very quickly who the genuine subject matter expert is and who is not and this is the other thing I I I I I I I want to point out because it's amazing. I've been seeing this.

Happen in response to this event. So I guess what I'm really getting at here is I was shocked because when this was advertised, when it was first advertised, my goodness, legacy media lost their minds. I saw. Yes. I think it was global news, Calgary. Somebody pointed out an article to me actually from a couple weeks ago that was done in the Toronto Sun that identified my name.

I know the, and they've been basically saying. And all these people that are speaking there are these misinformation spreaders. I noticed that CTV, I think was CTV Calgary News, they misspelled my name. They, and this is a common sign of disrespect that comes from legacy media. They did not refer to me as a doctor. They did not refer to me as an associate professor. They just, you know, first and last name and they misspelled my name. And something that's been common with me, I've noticed when they're doing this.

And nobody is even attempted to talk to me. None of them even attempted to talk to me. And they try and write me off as I'm just some veterinarian or veterinary researcher at a vet college. All very defamatory types of approaches. And I recognize this propaganda. And then I saw people like they, then they were interviewing their favorite people like Timothy Caulfield, who very typically said, yes, these people have been fact checked, right? That's your proof. That's your proof that they're all misinformation spreaders, providing no science whatsoever.

I found it very interesting in his interview that he said, you know what, these people do have the right, you know, to speak their opinions. I thought, well, thank you very much, Mr. Timothy Caulfield. I'm glad we have your permission to speak our opinions. I mean, that's utterly ridiculous. Right. Right is basically saying when you read between these lines, these people should continue to be censored. And so I want to touch on a couple things when it comes to this, these accusations of misinformation. First of all, they, they, again, get very upset and they say, these people have not been censored. Look at all the forums in which they've been able to speak.

They'll say, look, he's on the Sean Newman podcast, for example. No, when we're referring to the censorship, it's reaching those audiences who are addicted to the legacy media, right, who only hear CBC news on their television, right? That's what we're talking about when we talk about censorship. We're not talking about, you know, us being able to speak to people who already are critically thinking and open-minded and don't get emotionally triggered by having discussions where there's differences of opinions being expressed. We're talking about the population targeted by places like CBC and CTV news, right,

where they have this population is largely in a bubble. And that's what we're being censored from. We're talking about that bubble of censorship. My goodness, Timothy Caulfield, you know, get off of your soapbox when you're talking about these things. you know what we're referring to. And then they come up with these excuses constantly, which hold no water.

And so typically what they'll say is, we're not going to go to these types of events because that would give the public the impression that we're legitimizing the other viewpoint. Well, guess what? Especially after all the science has come out and there's a growing number of people. We all recognize a growing number of people in the public

who are waking up and saying, you know what, there was something more than just the narrative that was being pushed. These alternative opinions over time are proving to be more and more correct. And there seems to be more and more legitimacy to them, especially when you have freedom of information requests, pulling out communicates from within Health Canada, where they're showing their lying to the public,

outright lying on some things. Like with the DNA contamination, issue in the COVID-19 shots and they say oh yeah we do have to admit that you know this this little sequence from this SV40 virus is in there and you know and it wasn't disclosed to us but it's not bioactive and then you then you have show the email communication prior to that where they openly admit that it's a bioactive sequence and so health candidate is saying it's bioactive and then later when it's not popular to have this contamination and everybody's concern is growing they say it's not And so people, whether or not they understand the science, what they can understand is they can understand lying.

And so as they see the lies start to come out and they start, you know, you start to see testimonies. I mean, as we speak today, Sean, there's, there's a testimony that's going to be given and sent it by Fauci again. And I don't know if you saw, they just released the testimony, the transcript from his, from his testimony back in January in preparation for this. It is egregious. You should see the quotations in there where he openly acknowledges that he was unaware of science that would justify. masking children. He was unaware of science that justified this six-foot distancing. He admitted that it is just, you know, a number picked out of the hat. And in fact, he admits that he doesn't even know how you would design a study to accurately determine that. Right. So when people see this from the

people who are pushing the narrative, they don't even have to understand the science because they understand lies. And they lose trust in these people. And so when somebody like these misinformation gurus say we're not going to provide legitimacy. Guess what? You say that the public shouldn't listen to us, but a growing number of members of the public are listening to us. So if you actually care, if you really do genuinely feel that it's misinformation and you really genuinely feel that it's doing harm to the public for them to learn, why don't you stem the tide, right? Because the people are gathering to listen to us who demonstrably spoke truths. And so if you want to stem that, you've got step up at some point and you got to show the public before all of the public has listened to us

that we don't know what we're talking about and so you and i know the reason why they're not showing up is because they can't do that but then but then they'll they'll have they'll do this thing about uh so i saw timothy callfield for example when he was invited and he's not coming by the way is my understanding i think that's unfortunate i personally would extend an invitation to him right uh to chat uh i've got no problem with the guy's a person i got a problem with a lot of things he's he has said and done and he has spread demonstrably a lot of misinformation and i have proven that many times over by showing the science showing statements that he's made that are incorrect but i've got no problem with the guy right all people people who disagree is there full respect just like everybody

else but this is the thing they will then claim oh but these people have defamed me these people have said you know bad things about me um i never even knew who timothy callfield was until i sort of was forced to look into who this guy was because many members of the public started coming to me saying, you know, this guy's tearing you to shreds in social media, you know, and I'm thinking, so, Timothy, it doesn't work that way. When you attack other people and you're defamed other people and I see how he works in social media with name calling and not presenting science and blocking people in social media, because like I said, I'm not in social media, but the public shares this stuff with me all the time.

Come on, because people start defending themselves. Now you're going to say you don't feel comfortable being around them. because they're starting to defend themselves from your accusations. Come on. Come and defend yourself, you know. If he's listening, why don't we have you both on? I would love nothing more than to sit and allow you to go back and forth. I would love nothing more.

And I've been asking for that from the get-go. Let's have a mediated, professional, respectful discussion. And you know what? There's a third thing, a third argument. that I've seen that came out, this come out very further recently because they're desperate. They're desperate to try and maintain their audience, but also see, this is the difficulty.

When you have, you know, there's this arena. I always like to view it as kind of like a gladiator arena, right? Because there's conflict. There's differences of opinion with the science. So there's this gladiator arena, right? And there's scientists and physicians who disagree on certain aspects of COVID-19 science. And these people are desperate because there are certain,

let's call them warriors, who hold a certain opinion. And these people, I will stand with them, shoulder to shoulder with them, and all the people who are coming to speak at this event that I'm aware of, who have accepted the invitation, I will attest to their expertise and I will attest to how right, how often they have been right over the past three years about the science and the medicine. And so they're standing in the arena, right?

And all these other people are outside saying, these people are wrong, these people, you know, don't know what they're talking about. they'll never step into the arena, right? And so as time goes on, people do see this and say, well, this seems quite cowardly. You keep saying this, but then you refuse to engage them in any kind of discussion. And this is the interesting thing. So one of the other arguments, because I'm trying to hear, what I'm doing is I'm showing the public here, they have nothing to stand on.

There is no reason for them to not show up and have a respectful discussion. The other thing they say, well, some people are very good, you know, with their presentation skills. And the problem is some scientists and physicians aren't particularly good at expressing themselves in a public forum. Maybe they're better at writing things down. You know, and they show up at a public forum. So maybe it will appear that they lose the debate or they don't have as much. They're not bringing as much strength to the scientific discussion as the others, simply because not because of the science, but because they don't have the great,

performance skills. This is the other thing, to which I will say for somebody, so I will use, again, Timothy Caulfield as an example. I have Tourette syndrome. It's always made, like, so everything about the last three years has put me way outside my comfort zone. I like being a quiet, sort of behind the scenes person. I don't like being the public eye. You know, I've got these, these nervous ticks like sniffing and snorting, all that kind of stuff. The reality is, and I will tell you straight up. So when I see that argument, I laugh because I see somebody like Timothy Culfield. He's on the news all the time. He's very comfortable and happy to speak at conferences and in big forums and in front of big audiences. And between him and I, I will defer to him.

And if you want to talk about somebody who's hip and suave and has, you know, the presentation skills, it's a no contest between him and I. I will give that. I will give that. him hands down and I think most people in the public would say so as well so he in fact comes in an advantage in that scenario that's why I want to make this out because it's the other thing but yeah but over the last three years barren nobody gives a shit part in the french right you can look as hip as swab as you want I want to know and so the thing that the that the that you were talking about the acumen of somebody getting on stage and looking the part and sounding the part and that's great until you get down to the bones of the

argument. Exactly. And everybody. And that's why I'm not afraid to take the stage with him. So it does the whole thing. When he, when it went. So if you, it's funny, he's got this friend David Gorski, he goes after he focuses mainly on the truth tellers in the United States. But he went at me when I invited Timothy Caulfield to a discussion. And he brought up this performance thing, which again, it is ridiculous between Timothy Caulfield and I. So Timothy Caulfield can beat me when it comes to the performance. But that's why I'm personally. perfectly happy to stand up on stage because I'm perfectly happy to come in knowing that I'm at a disadvantage from that perspective because I know I'm coming with truth and a full, fulsome

understanding of the full breadth and depth of the science. And here's the thing that I don't think, I certainly know from this audience. I can speak for my audience and I think a lot of, a lot of different audiences across Canada. And that is, they're really smart. Like, I don't know if that's always been the case or if COVID just really extrapolated that real fast. But in my opinion from sitting here doing this show now for five plus years, they're really smart. They're clued in. They can discern a lot of different things when it comes to people on stage and the messages

they're telling. And the thing that helps all. And like going back to what you've been through has been time. You mentioned it. You just said the word time. And to me, I'm like, time. you know, we do a show on Fridays. We have a little segment called Covindication.

Because it seems like every week now, there's a new thing that comes out that three years ago, they're like, no, no, disinformation. That's not true. That's not, oh, wait, that is true. And it just came out again and again and again and again. And more people are starting to be like, maybe, CBC doesn't know what the hell is talking about.

Because they're not talking to anyone anymore with any that's worth their weight. you know like they're literally just regurgitating the same things when you come all the way to this june 17th the thing the thing that's interesting to me in alberta specifically Alberta the m r a shot for children specifically because that's what it's specifically targeting i've heard daniel smith premier say well it's it's not mandated it's it's a choice right we want to give a choice. When you hear that, Byron, what's your thoughts? Because obviously, you know the harms that have come from this specific shot. And I go, it's great that we're giving everybody a choice,

but if you're not, if you don't know anything about it, you just might just go along to get along. We've seen all the different things that have happened here and across the world, I might add in. When you hear a choice, what would you say directly to the premier? Yeah, so first of all, when I hear that, I have no idea what the politics are behind the scenes. One of the things that I want to point out, when it comes to these having been placed on that childhood schedule, ultimately who I see as being responsible is Alberta Health Services. At Alberta Health Services is one of these organizations across the country that I see, honestly, if we're going to avoid the disaster that was the past three years,

of COVID policies. They're one of the organizations that needs to be gutted, gutted, and reconstructed from the ground up, replaced with people of integrity who do know what they're doing, who will speak the truth to people. So that's personally sort of what my focus is coming out there, and that's why I was hoping people from Alberta Health Services would come. But what I would say is my message is this to whether it's Daniel Smith or anybody, And now having looked at all the science, there's, there's many reasons for this, scientific reasons, but these shots, I've been been declaring that these, there should be a worldwide moratorium placed on these modified RNA shots, worldwide moratorium, period, for all people, let alone children. And we go back to what I talked about, that interview that I gave, it was focused on children, right? I was, this never made sense for children from the get go.

But the point is, it doesn't make sense for anybody, especially at this point in time. So of course, it doesn't make sense for the children. It should not be a choice. It should not be an option that is given to parents because parents have been given, have been given enormous amounts of misinformation. They have not been equipped properly to make fully informed choices for their children. So this should not be an option. These vaccines, we need to get rid of them, period, for children in Alberta and the rest of the country and adults across the country.

And let me give you just two real quick examples of why that is. When I go there, I'm going to teach people why these lipid nanoparticle encapsulated modified RNAs. were repurposed for use of vaccines. And when people learn why they were repurposed for use of vaccines, it becomes blatantly obvious that they failed miserably in that purpose for their designated purpose. And this is a teaser, what I'll leave your audience with on that front, Sean, is this. I encourage, before I go there, I encourage people to look up on Health Canada's website.

Look up Canada, the Canadian Immunization Guide. It's called the Canadian Immunization. guide in there. It's been there for long, long prior to the declaration of the COVID pandemic. And it's still there. It's still our active guide. And look up Canada's official definition of an ideal vaccine. That's what I'm going to talk about. And I think if people just look up the Canada's definition of an ideal vaccine, they'll be shocked because they will, they will see, they'll be surprised, first of all, they'll ask, why did Health Canada not disclose to us? Why did the public, Health Agency of Canada. It's a public health agency of Canada that put out this Canada

Canadian immunization guide. Why did they not disclose to us what our standard is that we have a standard, a formal definition of an ideal vaccine? And it's very important because what that does is allows us then to put into context, that context of that definition allows us to place into that context any other vaccine. And then we can identify, is it a good vaccine or is it a bad vaccine relative to that definition. I think people were shocked when they see that definition how far from ideal these modified RNA shots were. So far from ideal, in fact, that it's hard to place them under the umbrella term of a vaccine.

But worse, I will be talking, I'll be using that definition to show that it was based on that definition that this technology was deployed as a vaccine. And why on that basis, it completely failed. And why, demonstrably, all of the experts, such as the CEO of Moderna, the big pharma companies, the co-recipient, recent co-recipient of the Nobel Prize for making the synthetic RNA for these shots, why they all uniformly, pre-COVID, sent the message that the way we're using these shots now is known to be toxic. That's what I'll be sharing. Okay. And then there's a second issue, my good colleague, Dr. David Speaker, he'll speak to this. But that alone is a reason for getting rid of these shots. Health Canada has outright lied about the DNA contamination, which is never supposed to be there. And when we're out there, we'll explain why it's there, that it was a mistake. It was a mistake that was only discovered as a result of the rushed public rollout. It's a classic example.

of why one never should rush the development of these vaccine technologies. There was an assumption made that they could switch from one method, which was used for the clinical trials, to a different method for the public rollout, and it has proven to be a disaster. And we can show how Health Canada has lied to people about the innate contamination being under the acceptable cutoffs. First of all, outright, just outright, they're above those cutoffs. Secondly, those cutoffs that were established are based on historical standards for naked, DNA, which is very, very, very difficult for cells to take up.

Byram, if we're talking now about, sorry, I just want to say really quickly, this DNA we're talking about is in the context of lipid nanoparticles, which dramatically enhances the uptake of this. Can you, when it comes to this, this genetic modification, this contaminated DNA, the, I forget is a trillion different particles, I don't know the terms. I'm like, what does that even mean in the human body? Like all of a sudden, we're going to start growing a second arm, or is it something way different than that? It's hard to predict, but there are several potential no one mechanisms, well, yeah, several potential no one mechanisms of harm of this, all the way from being able to promote cancers to other issues.

This DNA contamination, remarkably, raises a novel and very real possibility. all this time later. Remember, we go back to what I started at where when people were arguing this is like traditional vaccine technology, remember it was to allay everybody's fear of them becoming genetically modified by these shots. One of the most important aspects of this is this contaminating DNA substantially increases the chance that people have actually had their cells genetically modified. They might have had portions of this contaminating DNA incorporated into their own chromosomes, which would go against everything the people were promised right from the very beginning. So essentially what this is, let me explain very quickly for your audience, Sean. The DNA is not supposed to be there. When they first made, when they made the shots for the clinical trial, they used a method called PCR.

It's a very clean method. It's not a very efficient method for making large quantities of these vaccines, but it was efficient enough to make all of the doses needed for the clinical trials. But we have to understand it's a very clean method. You don't get this contaminating DNA. Then when they switched, so they switched and these shots were received authorization by end-term order by Health Canada based on that data and based on how those vaccines were manufactured. Then for the public rollout, they switched to a completely different method.

And they assumed it would be the same. They assumed the quality of the vaccine would be the same. You know what it is about assumptions? You never assume. In science, we should never assume. And what they did is they switched. Because the method they were using was not efficient, what they did is they switched to a method where they used bacteria to do the hard work for us.

They use the bacteria to amplify the modified RNA molecules that were to be packaged in the fat bubbles. Now, when these are natural messenger RNAs, MRNAs, what one does is after you use this manufacturing method, you sprinkle in a protein. It's an enzyme that easily digestes all of that contaminating bacterial DNA. Right. So that bacterial DNA was used to amplify the RNA. And once you have your RNA, you want to get rid of all that DNA because it's no one. It could be dangerous.

So you sprinkle in this protein. What they didn't anticipate was that the synthetic RNA, one of, one of, one of, you know, One of the mechanisms here that causes an issue is that it can bind to that DNA. And now when you sprinkle in this enzyme to get rid of the DNA, it's looking for a natural, double-stranded, or sorry, it's looking for a natural DNA molecule, the bacterial DNA, and instead what it's finding is a completely unnatural molecule, which now has this RNA bound to it. And that doesn't exist in nature. So that's why this bacterial DNA didn't get, digested properly and they weren't able to get rid of it properly. So now it's contaminating

large quantities. Now there's debate about how much but this is what's universal. Now there's enough published data we now know that because what Health Canada is, there's several things about this. Health Canada in this bacterial the contaminating bacterial DNA. There's a sequence there. It's a portion of what we call the SV 40 virus simian virus 40. It's a little piece that doesn't need to be there. I'm convinced it's there. It's accidental. They forgot to remove it, right? I'm pretty sure somebody, because they have another little sequence that does the exact same job. But what this sequence does is it allows this DNA to be expressed in mammalian cells, like our cells. Now, that was probably there for research purposes because they wanted to

easily be able to manufacture these vaccines for research purposes. So it made sense for research purposes. But when they went to the people, what they should have done was remove this sequence, and they didn't. And they knew that was a faux pa. That was a mistake. And I think somebody at some point, when they had to submit the data showing, here's the sequence for the DNA that we used, Pfizer was required to disclose all of the bioactive sequences, but they left that label off for that one. And I'm pretty sure it's because they knew that would be a huge red flag. And I can tell you, because I use the same software as others have who have analyzed this. The software used to analyze the sequence of this bacterial DNA

automatically puts that label on there, Sean. You have to go into the software and manually uncheck the box that auto-populates that label. So somebody deliberately removed that label. And then Health Canada, this was accidentally discovered by Kevin McCurn in the United States, accidentally discovered the sequence. Only after he discovered and published it,

did Health Canada go back and look at the sequence data. All they looked at were the labels on the map that was shown to them. So they went back to the original sequence data and lo and behold saw, yes, it is there. And they admitted it was there. That's a concern. So then the concern is, you know, because again, you have to label everything is bioactive. So what did they claim? They claimed, oh, Health Canada said, oh, but it's not bioactive.

So it's okay. but in separate emails, they openly admitted that it's a bioactive, and it is a bioactive sequence. So they're lying to the public there, right? So there's that component of it. And then they tell the public, oh, okay, yes, this should not be here, this contamination, but we do have standards for DNA contamination. And it seems to be below that standard. First of all, there are batches that have been tested where any which way, whatever method you use to look at it,

They are above that cutoff, straight up above that cutoff. But they keep ignoring that. They keep trying to say, well, most of the batches seem to be below based on a method that underestimates the amount of contaminating DNA, mind you. But this is the thing they have not told everybody. And this is huge shot. They keep trying to say, well, most of the batches. First of all, you have to be concerned.

What, most batches? Come on Health Canada. If any of the batches have excessive contamination, they've got to be taken off the market. But they try and focus on, well, most seem to be below. but this is what they're not disclosing. A, the method underestimates the amount of contaminating DNA. Two, what they're not disclosing to everybody is this standard that they keep telling everybody? Oh, we've got a standard, a safety standard.

Like I said, Sean, that is based on naked DNA. It's back from when there were attempts originally to use things like these bacterial DNAs to vaccinate people as vaccines. The problem, Sean, was when those were injected into people, our cells would not take them up. Our cells do not want to take up naked DNA. And so the amount that gets into cells is extremely tiny. That was the standard on which those safety cutoffs were built.

It was based on naked DNA where cells do not, it's very hard for them to take that up. But this is the thing. How do you enhance the uptake of DNA into cells? The same way we enhance the uptake of RNA into cells. We associate it with lipid nanoparticles. So these decontamining DNAs are associated with the very lipid nanoparticles that are in the vaccine vials.

And that massively enhances the uptake by cells. So in other words, where Health Canada is not disclosed to Canadians is we need to go back to the drawing board and establish new cutoffs, new safety cutoffs for the amount of contaminating DNA, and establish those cutoffs with lipid nanoparticles. associated DNA. I can guarantee you, Sean, that when that is done, what will be found is that the safe cutoff will be orders of magnitude lower than the one that they are publicly declaring to the Canadians right now. In other words, as a scientist, any which way you look at it,

some of the batches, no matter what arguments you use, they're excessively contaminated. And then for the rest of them, we have underestimated the true amount of DNA that's contaminating them and we have dramatically overestimated that safety threshold such that I can tell you as a scientist all of the batches we've been using in Canada are massively and excessively contaminated. So there's yet another scientific reason why we need a moratorium on this. We don't even know how to manufacture this technology properly. Can you, I don't know why I hear contaminated DNA and I'm just trying to wrestle with that terminology. And maybe this has been explained and my brain just can't.

pick it up. But Byron, what is it contaminated DNA and why the heck is it even in there if it's contaminated? I just feel like those two words shouldn't go together in something we're putting in human beings. Yeah, because people weren't being told they were being injected with bacterial DNA, right? That's not in the ingredients. So that's why it's contaminating. It's not supposed to be there, right? So if you're injecting something into people that was not disclosed to people and that in fact you were telling people was not supposed to be there that makes it that's by definition makes the contaminant right it's something that's in in the formulation that should not be there and like i said the reason why it's there is because it bacteria were being used as

workhorses to manufacture the RNA right and so the goal was to purify that RNA and encapsulated in the little fat bubbles right and that became the vaccine vaccine. So bacteria, but you're using them as workhorses to do that hard work, the companies were able to make way more of the RNAs than they could using the method for the clinical trials, right? So the clinical, that was the reason. The clinical trials, the method used there, was a very clean, very clean method. So those vaccines were not contaminated. They were not contaminated. And that's very important for people to remember because all the safety data, the only active safety monitoring data that we have,

et cetera, data in terms of effectiveness from those clinical trials was all based on those, uncontaminated shots. So that was a very clean method, but it was not efficient enough to make enough of these shots to vaccinate the global population. So they put the days that we use,

so they use bacteria as workhorses to do this. But then they did not properly get rid of those bacterial byproducts. And like I said, an interesting thing is if it was natural, MRNA, like naturally occurs in our body, and people have worked on those as vaccines. The problem is when you use natural messenger RNA, it doesn't last very long. It's got, and sometimes it's gone within seconds of getting into a cell. And so then our cells wouldn't manufacture the spike protein, which was the whole goal. But if it was natural MRI, these would not be contaminated, right?

Because we know how to deal with that. But again, so this is why it's a technology that was rushed. When people accuse people of me, like, I mean, when I, when I was to express my concerns of, this is not the speed of science, right? This is literally warp speed, which is not the speed of science. The speed of science is slow and plotting and methodical, and you check things at every step, right? We did go too fast. This was a corner that was cut. Again, the assumption was, oh, these weird, fandangled, modified synthetic RNAs, surely they're going to be just the same as natural MRNAs.

Right? They weren't. They weren't. So is that... This is a scary thing. After we have vaccinated most of the world's population with these things, now we discover that science, right? Now we discover that everybody received badly contaminated shots.

Is that maybe... I mean, there's a lot of scary things that have come out of COVID, but the speed of science, because they proclaim, you know, now we're going to have vaccines at warp speed all the time, is sitting in your seat going like... like literally this is how we make mistakes uh this is why we don't do things at warp speed uh i heard on uh i think as laura lens interviewed you you uh referenced uh ludicrous speed um i i i travel the yes yes yeah um is that maybe one of the biggest dangers that have come you know as we

progress move forward in in uh the years to come the the fact that they're going to lean on covid as it was a giant success. We saved millions. We did all these great things. We should be pushing through vaccines as fast as humanly possible. No, like I said, when one is now understands this science? And again, my colleague, Dr. David Speaker, is going to be, he's going to be focusing on this when he comes to Calgary. And he's been on the front lines. He's tested. He's done the largest scale study to date looking at all kinds of Canadian batches. So the data he's going to be presenting Calgary, it's all relevant to Canadians. But the point is this, what we have learned from this, and it's not just him, it's multiple labs around the world now have all confirmed this.

What we have actually learned is that it was a manufacturing disaster, and we don't know how to manufacture these things at large scale properly, right? We have to go and we have to, there are many aspects that are concerning. But just that one from the manufacturing perspective, what it tells us is that, in fact, by moving at this speed, in addition to other problems, it just, an even fundamental problem, with the design of the vaccine itself, it's created massive manufacturing issues. So what that tells us is we need to do the opposite. And again, what I contend is we need to put a moratorium on this technology. Until such time as we can figure out how to manufacture the technology properly. We can figure out how to make it like and so there's many, I'm not, I'm not advocating for

its use. I'm saying I might I might like okay in the future if people can show they get the manufacturing issues under control, that they can actually make these things effective, and they can actually make them truly safe. You know, I might come on board with helping to support that technology, but we're on all counts, we are off by a country mile, right? They're nowhere near effective enough. As again, when we look at, okay, this is the key. What is there an ideal vaccine as per official definition in Canada?

This is what it is, Sean. You give a single dose to a person, and they are protected. from the disease, not that it dampens the severity of the disease. They are protected from the disease for the remainder of their life after a single dose. Think about that in the context of these shots, where we have Canadians who are over 10 doses with no end in sight because these things cannot confer protective immune responses even for a couple months. So they are not effective.

We know the safety issues have been underestimated. You've highlighted that issue yourself. So on all counts, we are far off. And what scares me is not only are, is the goal moving forward to maintain the warp speed program. That's why I reference the ludicrous speed, because there's actually talk about going even faster. So an organization, a Norwegian organization, CEPI, which works on pandemic preparedness, they looked at it and they saw that the two modified. RNA shots were from the time the sequence was publicly available for the spike protein to when they received emergency use authorization in the United States. They were just under one year.

And they've actually deemed that was too long. And their goal is to actually shorten it by more than threefold, shorten the timeline down to 100 days. So when we now have the experience we had with these COVID-19 shots and we see the disaster that resulted in the manufacturing and the design of these vaccines and how poorly they perform, there is no way we can be going as fast, let alone faster. Like I said, we need to put all breaks on this. We need to stop, right, so we can figure out what's going on. And on the safety side, I want to highlight because when you were giving me, you know, telling me about the person you were talking to, who talked about, you know, just offhandedly, oh, and I got a blood clot, right, after, after I got the shot. because I'm somebody who demonstrated an openness to not just blindly accepting the safe and effective mantra,

I've had hundreds, thousands of people now, whether it's in person, whether it's by email, whether it's over the phone, come to me with their stories, Sean. And this is one of the biggest tragedies I find. You're right. Most of us, if we ask among our network of people who receive these shots, we'll usually find lots of those people, did experience harm. none of that has been documented properly, right? This is something that has not been spoken about openly. We have what we call passive monitoring system in Canada.

KFIS is what the letters stand for. It's the Canadian adverse events following immunization system. And this is a system where people don't seem to realize this. By law, people weren't told this when they got the shots. What people should have been told is if you experience any unusual medical event, for it should have been a substantial period of time following receipt of these novel experimental shots. You're to report that to your physician. And then physicians were told, or at least they were supposed to have been told,

that when they received this feedback from their patients, they're not supposed to make a determination of whether they think it's related to the shot or not. They're simply to create and submit an adverse event report. And then that's supposed to go to local medical officer of health. a key issue in this system is for some reason they did garner this decision-making capability or confer this upon the local medical officers of health, where they could then make a determination of whether they thought it was or was not, which is a mistake. How can somebody know whether brand-new vaccine technology, you know, a novel medical technology

is being implemented, is or is not related to a medical event that's occurred? Just because it doesn't make sense in their mind, they're not deep enough subject matter experts, But nevertheless, that's what they were told. They can make that determination. And then it would go to the public health agency of Canada and then go into this database. Now, this is the thing. So every time, Sean, we hear public health Canada or health Canada make the declarations of what the incidents of an adverse event was, such as for the AstraZeneca vaccine,

which has been pulled from the global market. That was something that I was part of. I wrote an open letter with colleagues about calling pointing attention to safety concerns. And guess what it's not been pulled from the, I was told. I was told, again, that was misinformation, pulled from the global market after court hearing, with an open admission that it causes fatal blood clots, just like my and my colleagues pointed out. But this is an interesting thing. We took it off the Canadian market when it reached a point of 1 in 55,000, right?

So one, for every 50 to 55,000 shots given, it was causing, one of those was causing a potentially fatal blood clot. And as I can point out to people, with this passive monitoring system that we have where people volunteer information, it dramatically underestimates the harm. Yet when Health Canada puts out those numbers, when those people who say, we're spreading misinformation about the harm, and they were very safe, look how many shots were given, and look at the harms. The harms were only 150, $1.55,000.

They're not recognizing that's a dramatic, dramatic underestimation because of how our system works. You just highlighted. If it's $1.55, Byron. Yeah, exactly. I've got to be like the, I don't even. even know the mathematical odds

that I would know as many people as I do sitting around me who have had blood clots, cancers, myocarditis, those three in a row in the last three years has been insane.

Yes, I think, this is what I think would be scary. I would love to be able to get, because what happens is people like myself and you, when we say these things, we're starved. This is the thing, we're starved.

of hard objective data. I would love to know how many people did experience medical events and never reported them. You just gave an example. Right? So there's one that never made. And blood clot, that is very severe. That's a serious, serious thing to occur after receipt of a vaccination. And so we know there's many of those people.

How many people had something happened and did not report it to their physician? And then there's this. I've talked to many, many, many physicians, many physicians who are too scared to report things. Some physicians were too busy to report things, right? And some physicians did report things and got in trouble for reporting them. And so I will guarantee that there was a dramatic underrepresentation. So even of the limited number of people who reported harms, out of those that were reported, only a subset actually got written up as adverse events and got submitted to the local medical officers of health. And then this is the thing I would love to know with those.

local medical officers of health then that received this tiny subset, how many of those did they reject? And how many of those were rejected for reasons that could not be, that were not solid reasons? And I will tell you, because I've had people come to me who have shared with me their records of their physician, they were able to convince their physician to submit an adverse event report. It was submitted local medical officer of health, and the local medical officer of health turned it back and asked the physician to make a different diagnosis, one that could not be linked to the COVID-19 shots. And I'm telling you, if we have this data, I agree with you.

Then people will see how much we have underestimated the true harms. I know another guy. You know, like, I just, as you're talking, I'm thinking of all the stories I know personally of people that are like, this isn't, this isn't me interviewing somebody over in Toronto, although I've done that too. This is like personal stories around me by him. One, I know got his first shot and got Bell's palsy, right? Bad enough.

And then they told him he's still neat, you know, and then, And this became a theme in the middle of COVID, but you need to come in and get your second shot. But since you had a rash, the first one, we'll do it in the hospital. So in case, you know, you have another battery. And you're like, what? I literally just got Bell's palsy. You want me to take another one? I'm like, the insanity, the stupidity, all of it was right in front of our eyes.

And I know a bunch of these people. And none of it was reported because you guarantee it wasn't. So the number, I don't know what the number would be. I agree with you. I just don't even know how we can quantify. it because like all this is like this is just me having my eyes opening listen to people and be like holy crap this is pretty crazy happening in front of my eyes but that hasn't been quantified um you know and when people try and quantify it you know using the the national systems like bears in the

states they go well i mean it's it's got to be low because you just everything we're talking about people just glaze over don't even correlate it to what is actually going on and then you list off all the things with the doctors it's like even the best ones that would take the time to do it

then they got harassed for that it's like there's no way to possibly know how bad it was because the entire world conspired to not allow us to know how bad it was exactly and that's what that's what I say as a scientist I always got a stand up objective fact So this is how I always put it, right?

We have substantially underestimated the harms, but I always have to say to what degree I can't say definitively. But it's been substantial. People, the so-called misinformation experts who accuse us to spread misinformation, of course, they try and come up with this idea and have no data, no data whatsoever, because there's, there are, it's, the reality is it's hard to get a falsified report through these systems because they are checked. There are multiple checkpoints and quality control checkpoints. And you can typically tell if somebody is trying to abuse the system. But they try and convince the public that it's actually the opposite, right?

That so-called anti-vaxxers somehow flooded the system. Yes. We make reports. So in fact, we've overestimated the actual harm. The harm is super, super tiny. And that's actually been overestimated. But they come with no data whatsoever. And yet we have all of these clear examples of the opposite.

happening, right? And so that's what has to be understood. Yes, this is no one. And the number of times I've been in court and I have highlighted this, but I also have to highlight, yeah, there is no objective data for me to say definitively how much worse it is. You know, people, experts who like to push the narrative will stand and say, oh, but, you know, remember, these people were compelled by law to do this. But again, I ask, so, and so they argue, well, if nothing else, it is a very, because people were supposed to do this, therefore it does actually represent a very accurate record. We're quite confident that pretty much almost 100% of all the injuries that did happen were reported. No, for the reasons we just said, it's absolutely false.

Like I said, you asked the average person, I have asked so many people who went and got the vaccine, and I said, when you were getting that vaccine, those drive-through clinics that we saw, clinics where they're giving out, you know, whatever, candy, ice cream and all this type stuff. You know, when you ask people coming out of there and I ask people, were you told that if you have any medical event, you're not supposed to make a determination yourself either. If there's anything unusual that happens to you medically after that, that you're reported, did they tell you that? No. No. And, you know, so right up front, right there, how does the information get to the physician?

You know, and then we saw all the politicization and, I mean, people who did start speaking up about that, they started getting attacked. Right. They in good faith took these shots. They ended up, many of them felt like they were in no man's land and in World War I there between the trenches, right? They were taking shots from both sides, right? Shots from one side because they took the shots and they were taking fire from the other side because they were highlighting issues with the shots after they took them, right? It's ludicrous. And so people were silenced.

Yeah. So one of the reasons also why I'm coming to Calgary. is for this reason, because we're talking about safety. And for the many reasons we've already talked about and many more, these have never made sense. Like from the get-go, especially now, but I mean, right from the get-go, these shots never made sense for children, Sean, and that's just the fact. And I'm speaking up because children are going to get harmed.

And that's why we have to speak up, and that's why we have to stop these shots and the children, especially. We are causing net harm, period. net harm. And some of these people, serious harm. Like I said, I spoke up about the potential for blood clots with the AstraZeneca vaccine and was accused of spreading so-called misinformation at that time. Now, if we look at that,

this, when I saw this pulled from the global market, it woke a lot of people at what? I got that shot. I got that shot. Now it's being pulled from the global market. And they say, oh, because it's not needed as much. The market's been flooded by these other vaccine companies. The reason why people have lost interest in that shot was because they were getting fatal blood clots.

And that was admitted. And if you recall, this is the thing. I and my colleagues told HealthCat, do not do this. Do not roll these things out into the public. They're too dangerous and they're certainly not effective enough. Especially at that time, people don't realize there was an African variant of concern that had emerged for which these that show on only 10% effectiveness. And that's using what we call relative risk reduction, which by. biases people's thinking. It's a way to over inflate what it appears. But nevertheless,

they were using wealth of risk reduction. 10%. We were told no vaccine would be authorized unless it was at least 50% effective. And so we highlighted this. And then if you go back, this is the most amazing story that this history has to be canonized and it needs to be shared with future generations. Canada, we looked like fools on the global stage with the AstraZeneca vaccine because you know what we did, Sean, with that? When that came out. It was recognized that, again, my open letter was ignored, but it was recognized that it was not as effective as the other shots. So you know what we told the frail elderly in Canada? We set them the most awful message through the AstraZeneca vaccine fiasco. Because we first went to them and said,

okay, we've got this AstraZeneca vaccine. And we spent millions of taxpayer dollars and we got a huge number of doses, largely because other countries didn't want it because they already recognized it was too dangerous and not effective enough. I mean, there were countries in Africa who were trying to give away all of their supply for free to countries like Canada who are showing the foolishness to use them. So we went to the frail elderly and we said, okay, we're going to roll out the disaster Xenica vaccine, but we do want to admit to you it is not as effective as the other ones, especially with these new emerging variants of concern. And you're the highest risk demographic, by far away you're the highest risk demographic you know and and do i agree with that yes you never apply

your poorest working vaccine um you don't give your poorest performing vaccine to the highest risk demographic you give your best performing vaccines to the highest risk demographic so it made sense so everything seemed to be okay at that point and so what did we do of course we're rolling down in the age groups pushing the shot and the astersetica vaccine don't know if you remember that came out during the infamous one-shot summer, which had never been approved. You know, one dose was not at all effective. But nevertheless, so what we did is we then went to the middle-aged population and said, okay, we've told the older people this is not effective enough for them.

For you're a lower risk demographic, you know, we do have to admit that now. There is stratification. We've treated everybody like one-size-fits-all. Everybody needs to be locked down. Everybody's at risk. But now when it comes to AstraZeneca vaccine, we're going to tell you, you are a lower risk demographic. So therefore, it's okay for you to have a poorer performing vaccine, right?

But then what happened? Middle-aged Canadians started getting fatal blood clots or were being hospitalized because of blood clots. So then what was the message? It's incredible when you go back through this history. We then said to the middle-aged people, oh, okay, stop taking the AstraZeneca shots. These are too dangerous for you, you know. Our data shows that about one, and this is what's interesting, about one in 50 to 55, thousand of you are getting a potentially fatal blood clots. It's too dangerous for you.

So we set a standard for what was too dangerous. But that's the message to them. It's too dangerous for you. So we're taking these shots away from you. And then you know what we did? Sean, we are not we. Our government then went to the elderly Canadians and said, remember when we told you this shot wasn't effective enough for you, the high risk demographic? Please forget that we told you that. And now please ignore the messaging to the middle of people, which is that this is too dangerous for them. We want you to take this shot now. Now we're recommending, now we are recommending it for you. Our poorest performing, most dangerous vaccine, we're recommending for you, right? Because you're going to die soon anyways. So, so we did the

risk benefit analysis and it makes sense now to use, you know, a higher risk poor performing vaccine in your demographic. Talk about showing that we don't value our elderly in Canada, right? And now you look all this time later. And the thing has been. shut down. And you know what happened, Sean? Just very quietly with no fanfare, no announcement whatsoever. And I can't, if I go through the Wayback machine, I know it happened before January of this year, but then there's some interesting. It's about a five-month gap in the coverage of the way back machine. So somewhere in those five months prior to January of this year, Health Canada just quietly removed the AstraZeneca vaccine from their page that lists the approved vaccines.

Just quietly removed it, gone. But you know what bugs me about this is when this announcement came out about the worldwide withdrawal of that vaccine, I saw videos, right? Journalists start showing videos of Canadians who to this very day are severely injured from that vaccine, severely injured, walking around with tremors. They can't walk at all. They've got paralysis, all kinds of problems. from this, right? And again, as a subject matter expert, I honestly, some of these videos brought me to tears. You know, I went to my wife and I said, I tried. I tried. You know, two years ago, I said, we should not use these shots. If people like myself and my colleagues were listened to,

these people would not have suffered these life-altering injuries, plus the number, you know, the Canadians that died outright from the blood clots. I shed tears over this, Sean. And that's why coming to Calgary because these shots never made sense from the get-go for children and yet they're still being they're actively being encouraged as an option for children no they didn't make sense from day one they make so much less sense now I'm coming to Calgary because I can't get this message across the people strong enough children do not need these shots they do not need them this virus my goodness this virus has always been, we now know, retrospect, retroactively, and we knew quite some time ago, many of us knew a long time ago, SARS coronavirus too has always been less dangerous for children,

always less dangerous for children than the flu. And now, especially, there's no question, this is for children, this is like the common cold at most. Most will get infected with new variants. They already have immune responses. Most of these kids that we put, that we, and just, with this, Sean, already had naturally acquired immunity. They did not need them in any way, shape, or form. And that's one of the biggest crimes in all of this as well. We should have been testing people for naturally acquired immunity. We know that is superior in every way, shape, and form to the immune responses that

could be induced by these shots. And in children, especially, if somebody had naturally acquired immunity, they did not need these shots. In fact, if anything, the shots are probably just harming things, right? That's with the emerging data now, Sean, is it making. any sense to roll out a vaccine where the emerging public health data suggests that those who have got more shots actually are more susceptible to COVID-19. Of course not. You see, it doesn't matter which path we go down. There are so many reasons where any of those reasons on their own

kill the rationale for giving these shots to anybody, let alone children. And when you put the sum total of them together, I remain dumbfounded that all this time later, we're still promoting these in children. You know, if there is a person listening to this, though, that has listened this long and has got two, three, doesn't matter how many shots, is vaccine injured, et cetera, I do want to make mention of leading edge clinic in the United States. That's Dr. Pierre Corey and Scott Marzland, who's been on here. They've both been on here before.

And I know now, and this is a bring up Seth Blumelman. lot because him and his daughter came on and she was a goalie in Saskatchewan, Dr. Bridal, who took the shots to continue to play hockey. They got vaccine injured. And I'm not saying she's made a complete full recovery and I'll let Seth text me and remind me where she's at. But she was tremors, couldn't play hockey anymore, started working with Leading Edge Clinic. And they started doing things to her and getting her taking supplements and different things. And I'm, you know, people always searching.

reason I bring it up is if you're sitting there and you're paralyzed and you're going, what can I do? You know, I've been vaccine injured. The government ain't helping me on and on and on. There are people out there that can answer your questions. We'll speak to you like a human being and we'll go, this is the shot. And these are the things you need to start doing immediately. And I got a lot of time for Scott Marsland and Dr. Pierre Corey because, you know, a friend

of mine took his daughter through that program and continues to and they've seen lots of benefits. So if you're sitting there and you've listened this far in, you're going, like, what can I do? Shoot me a text because I'll put you, I'll put you at least on the right path or a path that has worked for others. Because here in Canada, it's strange, you know, like,

it's this elephant. And maybe it's all over the world. It's still the elephant in the room. But I appreciate you. I guess I'll finish up there because you've given me plenty of time today, Dr. Bridal. I'm very looking forward to seeing you again. I mentioned before we started.

To the listener, I got to finally meet yourself in Ottawa when we were both there. And to have you finally on the show has been a true honor. I've followed your work, and I know a lot of people who listen to us have as well. And I look forward to shaking your hand and getting to meet you in person. And either way, we're looking forward to having you out here in Alberta. Thank you, sir, for hopping on and giving me some time this morning. It's my pleasure. And as I step off, I just want to say, I'm very much looking forward to coming to Calgary.

one of the things that I forgot to mention is I noticed that Legacy Media, who's been attacking this event, one of the things I noticed that was in their messaging is that there don't seem to be people attending the event to speak as speakers who sort of have differences of opinion from people like myself. And again, I just want to point out, the public has to be made aware that is absolutely laughable. I'm coming because I was told invitations at first got out to these other individuals, the people from Alberta Health Services and so on, right? So if those people aren't there, it's by choice. They're choosing not to come and engage the public in these discussions. And what I would say is especially in that kind of scenario where you have had people

who are holding all kinds of different opinions invited to a public event and a whole bunch do not want to attend, but rather want to sit behind screens. and accuse the people who are showing up of spreading misinformation, those are the people you want to listen to you. I think you should come out and listen to what's being said that the legacy media is attempting to hide from you. It's very important. And tickets are sold out, Byron, but they can go on and I'll have it in the show notes.

You can go on the website and buy the live stream. That way you can have viewing parties. I see them starting to pop up in different spots in Alberta and would encourage people from all over the place if they want to hear the different group of doctors talking that they can do that. Because I think it'll be, you know, anytime a group comes together like this,

it seems like it's in a far off land. And I'm being a little tongue-and-cheek. I just mean Europe. And I mean, yourself, you've been all over the place. I look forward to having it in Alberta, in Canada, to have, and I know it's not been the only one,

there's been several, but to finally have it in where I live in Alberta now, is exciting. And I think people, if they're interested and they wanted to go, or maybe they're just hearing about it now, look down on the show notes, an injection of truth. There's a website there. You can go. You can buy the live stream and see what all these wonderful individuals are going to be talked about. If you're skeptical, you really should sit down and just, I encourage you to take the couple hours and listen to what they say, because you might be shocked at some of the things that are talked about. Yeah, I agree. And right as we speak, Sean, right up to the moment I get up on stage, if there's somebody who would accuse me of spreading misinformation or who would accuse me of getting up on that stage to spread misinformation, I invite them to come.

They can have half of my speaking time, and they can speak alongside me to the public, should they wish to. Well, there's the challenge to anyone who wants to come, because that is an awful, that's an offer rate there, folks. That's where we're going to cut it off or end it, I guess. Thanks, Byron, for hopping on and doing this. And wonderful to see you again, and it'll be look forward to sitting across

and getting to shake your hand here in a couple weeks. I'm looking forward to it as well. Thanks so much, Sean. Take care.