Dr. Byram Bridle is an associate professor at the Ontario Veterinary College at the University of Guelph, in Guelph, Ontario, Canada. Dr. Bridle is not a medical doctor, nor is he a veterinarian. Dr. Bridle is a bench scientist, who conducts research on animals.
Dr. Bridle obtained a PhD in immunology under the supervision of Dr. Bonnie Mallard. They were early and prominent members of the Canadian COVID Care Alliance.
According to court filings, Dr. Bridle has never treated a (human) infectious disease, he has never performed a (human) childhood vaccination, nor has he ever treated a (human) adverse reaction to a vaccine.
Bridle is most well known for his claims about the biodistribution and 'toxicity' of the spike protein.
Bridle is also known for:
Bridle's claims were quickly rebutted by peers, fellow scientists, media watchdogs, and in the legal system. Despite claiming to be an advocate for free speech and debate, Bridle characterized these responses as censorship, defamation, and harassment.
Therefore, we wish to state publicly that as scientists, faculty, and/or staff of the University of Guelph we stand firmly against the continued spread of factually incorrect and misleading information that is being disseminated by Dr. Bridle. We have confidence that the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines approved for use in Canada are safe and effective, and we wish to reassure the public that as members of the University of Guelph community we fully support evidence-based public health, which includes vaccination against COVID-19.
 The court accepts that Dr. Bridle is an immunologist and vaccinologist by training and that he has expert knowledge in these fields, in particular regarding the theory and science behind vaccines. However, for the reasons below, the court does not accept that Dr. Bridle is qualified to give opinion evidence with respect to the safety and efficacy of the Covid-19 vaccine for children. ...  Dr. Bridle acknowledged that he is not a medical doctor. He has never vaccinated a child, he has never treated a child or an adult suffering from a reaction to a vaccine, nor has he ever treated a child or an adult who is suffering from an infectious disease. ... He did not seem to appreciate or accept the serious risks associated with contracting the Covid infection, including death, nor did he seem to appreciate the risks and effects of contracting Covid multiple times, including the risk of developing long Covid syndrome, of which he appeared to be oblivious. ...  When asked by the court if he accepted that the Covid vaccine prevents serious illness and death, regardless of the shorter duration of immunity, Dr. Bridle would not acknowledge that receiving the vaccine prevented severe or serious illness and death. ...  Respectfully, this is so far removed from the mainstream and widely accepted views of the Canadian and international medical and scientific community that the court cannot accept Dr. Bridle's evidence on the Covid vaccine as reliable. ...  Dr. Bridle also testified that he is working on his own Covid vaccine, for which he has received government funding and is currently in the pre-clinical stage. The court was concerned that it is possible in Dr. Bridle's interest, consciously or not, to advance views that discredit the existing mRNA technology used in Covid vaccines because he is working on a competing technology.
 Dr. Bridle is neither a physician nor a veterinarian, and accordingly has had no experience in treating patients of any kind, including in relation to Covid-19. Dr. Leis describes Dr. Bridle as a 'bench scientist' with expertise in 'immunology focused mainly on the pre-clinical development of therapies that can stimulate the immune response to fight cancer,' ... In discussing Dr. Bridle's report in this case, Dr. Leis says, for example, that: >> 'In reviewing Dr. Bridle's report, there are numerous scientific inaccuracies throughout the document and it would simply not be possible to address all of them in a succinct report. However, before addressing the 16-points in the conclusion, a few major corrections should be noted that go against accepted medical science.'  This is a remarkable and singular kind of criticism to find in an expert report. While experts often vehemently disagree with one another's conclusions, it is rare to find an expert condemning the opposite expert's basic scientific premises in such emphatic language. In the discussion below, accordingly, I approach Dr. Bridle's views with caution, and carefully consider them against the backdrop of what Drs. Leis and Vaisman characterize as well-founded and generally accepted scientific concepts. ...  More concerning, Seneca's experts note that there is no evidence that the vaccines potentially cause long term neurological damage, as Dr. Bridle alleges, and they observe that he overstates other risks of the vaccines and omits or ignores important studies in the area.  Given the circumscribed nature and extent of Dr. Bridle's expertise, the fact that expresses opinions well outside the parameters of his expertise and apparently at odds with the prevailing state of medical and scientific knowledge, I prefer the opinions of Drs. Leis and Vaisman, and cannot accept Dr. Bridle's opinions underpinning the applicants' arguments described above.
Hi there 👋
I'm a Concerned Scientist. I created this website in response to the alarmist and misleading claims being made by Dr. Bridle about COVID-19 and the COVID-19 vaccines. Let's set the record straight:
I do not share my name because of the vitriol of the anti-vaccine community, and their use of Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs) to silence critics and chill free speech. That really harshes my mellow, because I ❤ free speech!
© This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. © Design by HTML5 UP (CC BY 3.0).