The Spike Protein

On May 27th, 2021, Dr. Byram Bridle made several false or misleading claims about the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and COVID-19 mRNA vaccines while appearing as a guest on Alex Pierson's radio show and podcast. Bridle ended the interview with the explosive claim:

The audience (including Pierson) was alarmed. The public relies on experts to interpret new scientific data, and a tenured professor with a PhD in immunology had just told them directly (three times over the course of the seven-minute interview) that his message should scare them.

This presented the perfect opportunity for anti-vaccine advocates, who use scientific credentials and fear (rather than actual scientific evidence) to trick their audience. Steve Kirsch (who had heard Bridle’s message the day before at a private webinar) quickly recruited Bret Weinstein and Robert Malone to amplify Bridle’s claims:

In the following weeks and months, millions of people heard Bridle’s message. He appeared on public-access television in Canada, and twice on Fox News’ The Ingraham Angle. Bridle gave numerous interviews on right-wing podcasts and radio shows, spoke at the ‘Freedom Convoy’ in Ottawa, and served as an ‘expert witness’ in several court cases and administrative hearings in opposition to public health measures.

Despite his newfound fame and the reach of his message, Bridle claimed he was censored and maligned by the scientific community, who have roundly rejected his interpretation of the scientific evidence.

More than 80 of his colleagues at the University of Guelph signed an open letter denouncing his statements as misinformation. His (and similar) claims spawned a dozen fact-checking articles, which concluded his arguments were meritless. Scientists from around the world produced works rebutting his claims. His opinions were tested and rejected multiple times in the Canadian court system. And billions of doses of the mRNA vaccines have been safely administered worldwide.

• Summary
• The Interview
• The Response
  • Scientific Critique
  • Rhetorical Critique
• More Responses
  • Responses from Colleagues
  • Responses from Scientists
  • Responses from the Media (Fact-Checks)
• The Biodistribution Study

More about Byram Bridle

On May 27th, 2021, conservative pundit Alex Pierson featured Dr. Byram Bridle as a guest on her eponymously-titled radio show and podcast, ON Point with Alex Pierson (here).

Bridle – a repeat guest – was asked to address the recently established link between the mRNA vaccines and the occurrence of myocarditis in young males:

Bridle began his response by priming the audience and setting the tone of the interview:

Bridle stated that he and his collaborators had recently gained access to new scientific information, from which they had determined the mechanism of vaccine-induced myocarditis (and other supposed adverse effects):

Bridle assured the audience that despite being new, alarming, and contrarian, his theories were supported by high-quality scientific evidence:

Bridle explained that he believed the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein was toxic, but he hadn’t been previously concerned about the mRNA vaccines (which encode for the spike protein) because he believed they stayed at the injection site. He further explained that a recently obtained study changed his mind:

Bridle recounted his interpretation of the study's findings, suggesting an additional recently-published study supported his claims:

Throughout the interview, Bridle detailed the wide-ranging implications of his hypotheses, emphasizing they were not simply theoretical – he had found examples of such harms in VAERS, the American Vaccine Adverse Effect Reporting System:

As the interview ended, he summarized his findings and concerns:

Scientific Critique

• Bridle misrepresented the biodistribution study (more).
  • The study did not show that the spike protein accumulated in tissues.
  • The study did not even measure the spike protein (it’s not even mentioned in the report).
  • The study measured the biodistribution of lipid nanoparticles (in rats).
  • The results of the study were presented without important context (e.g., scale).
• Bridle misrepresented the study of 13 healthcare workers (Ogata et al., 2022).
  • The study did not show that the spike protein accumulated in tissues.
  • The study measured spike protein in plasma (the blood).
  • The study demonstrated low levels of spike protein in the blood immediately following vaccination, which then dissipated – the expected outcome of mRNA vaccination.
  • Contrary to Bridle’s initial claims, the study did not show that the spike protein persisted in the blood for 29 days. Rather, the spike protein was detected on day 29 of the experiment, following a second dose of the vaccine on day 28. The spike protein dissipated within two days of the second dose – the expected outcome of mRNA vaccination.
• Bridle misrepresented the toxicity of the vaccine-derived spike protein.
  • Bridle initially claimed “we’ve known for a long time that the spike protein is a pathogenic protein. It is a toxin”, but moments later, contradicted himself claiming “we never knew the spike protein itself was a toxin and was a pathogenic protein”.
  • Bridle alluded to a study (Lei et al., 2021) that showed the viral spike protein was toxic, but failed to mention it was tested at concentrations 100,000x higher than measured in human blood.
  • Bridle also failed to differentiate between the viral spike protein and the vaccine-derived spike protein, which are not the same.
  • An author of this study disagrees with Bridle’s (and similar) interpretations of their work.

Rhetorical Critique

In early 2021, the rare risk of myocarditis and/or pericarditis following vaccination with the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines had just recently been established, and Pierson’s question was a good one:

But Bridle didn’t answer that question. Instead, he monopolized on the time to air his theories related to the pathogenesis of the spike protein. Bridle’s commentary was alarming and fear-inducing – he told the audience his own message was ‘scary’ three separate times in just seven minutes. His choice to focus on infants and fertility (despite a lack of sound scientific evidence) amplified the anxieties of parents and pregnant women (who are at an increased risk from COVID-19, and therefore significantly benefit from vaccination).

Moreover, Bridle stated with certainty that his claims were true, even though they weren't supported by the evidence he presented:

Bridle also misrepresented the novelty and availability of the biodistribution study, implying it was a secret that he was revealing:

This was not the first time scientists had access to these biodistribution data:

• The European Medicines Agency had summarized the study in their February 2021 report, three months prior to the interview (and approved the vaccines).
• The Japanese PMRA had posted the study publicly online, at least one month prior to the interview (and approved the vaccines).
• Earlier biodistribution studies had been conducted and published in 2015, and in 2017.

Ultimately, the strong response to Bridle’s interview from the scientific community was due to both his rhetoric (claims of certainty, invocation of fear and secrecy) combined with his misrepresentations of the scientific evidence. The impact of his rhetorical approach is clearly demonstrated through the contrast between Pierson’s initial question and her closing remarks. Before:

After:

From His Colleagues

More than 80 of Dr. Bridle's colleagues at the University of Guelph signed a letter denouncing Bridle's claims as misinformation.

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.

— Faculty and staff at the University of Guelph support SARS-CoV-2 vaccine safety

From Other Scientists

Some responses are to Bridle directly. Others are to responses to similar claims.

• Immunologist @laughterinlight created a series of TikTok videos debunking Bridle's claims:
  • [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]
• Dr. David Gorski wrote an article debunking Bridle's claims about the spike protein.
• Dr. Uri Manor, a co-author of Lei et al. (2021), wrote an article debunking anti-vaccine claims based upon flawed interpretations of their paper (like Bridle's).
• COVID-19 Resources Canada also addressed anti-vaccine claims based upon flawed interpretations of Lei et al. (2021).
• Dr. Derek Lowe described the difference between the viral and vaccine spike proteins.
• Edward Nirenberg demonstrated the concentration of spike protein detected in the blood was 100,000x lower than tested by Lei et al. (2021).
• Dr. David Gorski wrote another article debunking claims about the spike protein.
• Sabina Vohra-Miller created an infographic about the spike protein.
• @scientistabe explored the other studies included in the biodistribution report, and addressed claims related to the blood-brain barrier.
• Dr. Viki Male has assembled a detailed summary of what's known about fertility, pregnancy, vaccines, and COVID-19.
• Dr. David Gorski has written prolifically on the misuse of VAERS. More here.
• John Oliver's video on vaccine misinformation explores the practice of appealing to VAERS, and the tactic of repeatedly "raising concerns" or "just asking questions" from a position of authority.
• Dr. Paul Offit and the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia explain in a 3 minute video why COVID-19 vaccines are not expected to cause long-term side effects (written article here).

Fact Checks

15 articles were written refuting his (and similar) claims.

• Byram Bridle’s claim that COVID-19 vaccines are toxic fails to account for key differences between the spike protein produced during infection and vaccination, misrepresents studies. -- Health Feedback
• This professor spreads false information about the consequences of corona vaccinations (Dieser Professor verbreitet falsche Informationen über die Folgen von Corona-Impfungen). -- AFP
• FALSE: Conspiracy theory that COVID-19 vaccines’ spike proteins are ‘cytotoxic’ debunked by experts. -- Fox2now
• Laura Ingraham guest pushes debunked claims that the COVID-19 vaccines are a “toxin”. -- Media Matters
• Immunologist's misinterpretation of data fuels misleading Covid-19 vaccine claims. -- AFP
• Fact Check: Veterinary Professor Does NOT Prove Vaccine Causes Buildup Of Toxins. -- Lead Stories
• 'Toxic' spike protein claims misinterpret vaccine study. -- AAP
• No sign spike proteins from COVID-19 vaccines, including Novavax, are dangerous. -- PolitiFact
• Fact Check - No evidence spike proteins from COVID-19 vaccines are toxic. -- Reuters
• Claims that Covid vaccine spike proteins are harmful are unevidenced. -- Full Fact
• No sign that the COVID-19 vaccines’ spike protein is toxic or ‘cytotoxic’. -- PolitiFact
• Posts misrepresent US study on dangers of coronavirus spike protein. -- AFP
• Fact check: COVID-19 vaccines don't produce dangerous toxins. -- USA Today
• Fact Check - COVID-19 vaccines are not ‘cytotoxic’. -- Reuters
• Spike protein produced by vaccine not toxic. -- AP

The biodistribution study (conducted by Pfizer) is a common technical document provided to regulators prior to vaccine authorization.

You can access the original document (Japanese) or a machine translation (English).

After the Bridle interview, snippets of the document began to circulate on social media. Proponents of Bridle’s arguments shared this image under the mistaken impression that it demonstrated the distribution of spike protein in the human body, when it in fact showed the distribution of a massive dose of tagged mRNA-LNPs (Lipid Nanoparticles) in rats.

You’ll notice the ovaries are highlighted to invoke concerns related to fertility, despite the fact the concentration was highest in the spleen and liver (not shown). You may also notice the highlight doesn’t extend to the right-side of the table, where the concentration is contextualized as a percentage of the initial dose. The accumulation in the ovaries represents 0.095%, or less than 1/1000th of the administered dose.

This plot – also shared on social media – is particularly deceptive because it omits the injection site data series. Viki Male, a reproductive immunologist, replotted the concentration data (and the percentage-dose) in the lower two plots.

With this context, you can see (or rather can’t see, because the values are so low) the true impact of the tagged mRNA-LNPs on the ovaries.

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 am the sole author and creator of this website.
• I do not receive — nor have I ever received — any income or compensation related to this website.
• I have no conflicts of interest to declare with respect to the contents of this website.
• Byram Bridle does not own — nor has ever owned — byrambridle.com.
• No person or persons mentioned herein are affiliated with byrambridle.com.

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!

Though I do feel better knowing their abusive attempts cost them $1,000,000, and $315,000.

Get in Touch

If you disagree with the opinions expressed herein, I encourage you to exercise your freedom of speech and create your own website.

I also encourage you to register your own name as a domain name.

Thank you to those who take the time to submit constructive feedback.