Discover more from Exposing The Darkness
Dr. Byram Bridle: “We Are Going To Have Our Food Species Loaded Up With These Messenger RNA Vaccines”
Dr. Byram Bridle, a world-renowned Canadian vaccinologist and viral immunologist, joins Bright Light News to discuss a serious concern with regards to the future of mRNA vaccines
Exposing The Darkness is a reader-supported publication. To support my work, please consider becoming a paid subscriber.
One-time or recurring donations can be made through Ko-Fi:
Glen Jung: [00:00:00] Okay, Ladies and gentlemen, we are here down on College Street in front of the Royal Theatre for the premiere, the Toronto premiere of Uninformed Consent. And we are so happy to be here with Dr. Byram Bridle. Todd Harris, who is the filmmaker for Uninformed Consent, will feature Dr. Byram Bridle in the next documentary coming up. So, thank you so much again, Dr. Bridle, for joining us.
Dr. Byram Bridle: [00:00:19] It’s my pleasure to be here, Glen.
Glen Jung: [00:00:21] Excellent. Okay. So, we’re now living in this world where I think people are tired of COVID. You know, I think people have COVID fatigue. The data for people who have been awake is so overwhelming. We have Dr. Aseem Maholtra coming out and talking about, you know, his 9-month peer-reviewed study about the fact that the vaccines don’t work, that they’re actually more harmful.
Dr. Aseem Maholtra: [00:00:41] There is some data suggests there is certainly with recurrent boosters, probably an immunosuppressive effect, but you really couldn’t make up. So, a vaccine is causing an immune suppressive effect. I think what we’re dealing with now with hindsight is perhaps the greatest miscarriage of medical science we will witness in our lifetime.
Glen Jung: [00:00:59] You know, what is going on with this whole new push? Despite all of this evidence, it’s like the government is still doubling down hard on the mRNA vaccines, pushing new mRNA vaccines.
Dr. Byram Bridle: [00:01:09] Yeah, this is what I find absolutely remarkable. I agree. I mean, I’ve been following the science right from the beginning, and I can tell the public that that our public health officials and governments have not been following the science. And it seems like as each week passes, more and more people are seeing very clearly that we’re not following the science. Indeed. So, for example, one of the things that’s amazing is I’ll never forget what really changed my life largely for the negative was the year and a half ago when I was asked on a radio show if I thought there might be a potential link between the Moderna vaccine and heart inflammation that was being observed in young males in Israel. My answer was yes, and I began expressing my concerns about some of the potential mechanisms in it. And one of the big things, of course, at that time was I had just seen data that had provided by Pfizer to the to the Japanese government showing that our public health messaging was completely incorrect, that these vaccines, these new messenger RNA based vaccines were not behaving like traditional vaccines, but were actually getting distributed throughout the whole body. I was attacked. I have been attacked incessantly for a year-and-a-half-now. I still have colleagues at my own institution who still routinely harass me and attack me on social media. And yet recently it was interesting, the CEO of Moderna was interviewed by Yahoo Finance and just a matter-of-factly off the cuff during that interview you mentioned that, “Yes, Moderna has been learning a lot about myocarditis over the last year with their vaccine being in use and, and yeah, they now recognize some people get myocarditis and it seems to be because the spike protein gets to the heart.” Right after scientists like myself have been attacked so viciously when we said you know what, the spike protein, these lipid nanoparticles get into the cells and they don’t just get into the cells in the shoulder and express the spike protein there.
Dr. Byram Bridle: [00:02:58] Yet we have CEOs of these companies now offhandedly mentioning this, and yet these technologies are still being pushed despite every week there’s new studies that come out. Right. Another one very recently just came out showed very clearly, although at low concentrations, these mRNA vaccines can be detected in breast milk. Right. And this is being discovered in people after the public rollout. So, people used to get very upset when I used to say like this is really we’re still in the experimental phase, but we’re learning all of these things in the public rollout, not in clinical studies, in the context of clinical studies. And it’s very frustrating as a scientist to see all this happening. And this messenger RNA technology is being pushed so hard despite all the concerns. And I don’t really understand why that is. I honestly don’t. And I was actually just thinking recently for your listeners, you know, we’re thinking about these messenger RNA technologies being used in people. I was actually very concerned when I saw that the messenger RNA vaccines getting into breastmilk and then potentially being passed along to infants. And again, don’t let anybody say, well, it seems to be at very low concentrations because I would ask what is a safe concentration? We have no defined safe concentration.
Dr. Byram Bridle: [00:04:01] And remember, what we’re talking about was the blueprints. When these blueprints get into cells, especially babies that are suckling on and getting breast milk, I mean, these are their babies’ cells are incredibly metabolically active. And it’s like these things are like blueprints, genetic blueprints. And it’s not it’s like a house homebuilder. A homebuilder is not limited to building one house from a blueprint. Right. They can build as many homes as they want and same thing. So, when these things get into the cells of babies, they amplify the product, the spike protein from the SARS coronavirus 2. Now I have concerns if this is if this is actually getting into what we call shedding samples, of which breastmilk would be one of the fluids, you know, where these vaccines could be passed on from an individual to another individual. I start I’m starting to get worried about because it’s interesting. This technology technically is not new. It’s new, relatively new for being used in people. It’s been used for quite a few years in agricultural species. And I’m actually starting to get quite worried if these vaccines can get into things, like milk products. I start worrying about our food products. People have to realize these technologies are not only being pushed hard now in people, but they are being fast tracked. Many of them are being fast tracked. And we’re going to have our food species loaded up with these messenger RNA vaccines. And we need to understand whether or not these things are getting into our food products now, things like eggs and cows, milk, etc.
Glen Jung: [00:05:21] This is the actually astonishing thing, is we know that psychiatric drugs don’t break down in the body And, you know, it comes out through urine and we see it going into our lakes. We see these products showing up in the marine life. And so what do you fear it would be the worst?
Dr. Byram Bridle: [00:05:37] My biggest concern would be that we might be consuming messenger RNA vaccine products, you know, through our food unknowingly and again, even if it’s small amounts. Now, this is actually a concern. So, people might say, okay, again, we don’t know because we haven’t been looking for this. Nobody. So, we need to do the research. I keep saying as a scientist, all these things we’re talking about are very valid concerns and we need to do the research so that we can really get definitive answers and know whether they’re legitimate concerns or not. But here’s an example of a concern. Let’s say let’s say, for example, we start using a lot of messenger RNA vaccines on poultry. One area. So, for example, one area where people are looking at developing messenger RNA vaccines for use in poultry. So, we’re talking about things like chickens and turkeys are messenger RNA vaccines to target the influenza virus. That’s because… Guess what? A lot of the most severe influenza outbreaks that we experience as people actually come from animals or zoonotic disease, So, specifically the swine flu and avian flu. And so this is the interesting thing. So, the concept is if you vaccinate these animal species, they’re not going, in theory, so and this is a concern, too, because we haven’t seen so far that messenger RNA vaccines are capable of preventing infection. But the concept would be that we vaccinate these animals and if they can’t get infected with the influenza virus, then they can’t infect us with the influenza virus. So, my concern, though, is if you put in a messenger RNA vaccine, let’s take chickens, for example. If we vaccinate chickens with the messenger RNA vaccine against the influenza virus, and some of that ends up being packaged in the eggs and then we consume those eggs, people don’t realize there’s a concept called ‘oral tolerance.’
Dr. Byram Bridle: [00:07:16] Oral tolerance. It’s an immunological mechanism whereby your immune system learns to not respond to things that we consume. The purpose is we don’t want to be mounting immune responses against their food. So, this prevents things like food allergies, it prevents things like chronic intestinal inflammation, things like Crohn’s disease. So, we call it oral tolerance. So, things that you consume, generally speaking, our immune system will learn not to respond to it. So, now think about this. So, if we are unknowingly consuming vaccines directed against the influenza virus, especially if those vaccines cause in our and our gastrointestinal tract the antigens to be expressed. So, for example, against influenza virus, there’s a theoretical risk we could be tolerizing ourselves against the influenza virus. And one of the ways in order to make our oral tolerance work actually is to administer these antigens in particular, which often works well or low doses. Low doses. Can you imagine? So, this is this is a legitimate scientific concern. If we start loading up animal species with this and we start risking tolerizing ourself. Could you imagine if we start tolerizing people unwittingly against influenza virus, what that means is that our immune systems, if we were to be infected with the influenza virus, our immune system would not recognize it as a dangerous foreign pathogen, but actually recognize it as something that should not be responded to. That would actually make people highly susceptible to severe influenza.
Glen Jung: [00:08:40] This is the incredible thing, is you are bringing out this science and the government is not doing the work. Public health is not doing the work. There is an agenda. The last interview we had, we spoke off-camera and I asked you, you know, was this corruption that we’re seeing now that’s so clear to anybody who is being objective. Was this corruption that we’re seeing at all levels of government, public health, you know, known to you. And you said, you know, back then you said, you know what, I was I was naïve to the level of corruption. How does this play into what we’re looking at here?
Dr. Byram Bridle: [00:09:11] Yeah. So, it’s interesting. Yeah. So, I have to admit, at the beginning of the declared Covid-19 pandemic, I was relatively naive, you know, as a scientist plying my trade, just looking at the science, all of the COVID science fell right in my area of expertise because I have expertise in virology and immunology. So, I saw very early on that we were that our public health policies were diverging very quickly from the science. We weren’t following the science and for the longest time I, you know, if a lot of people speaking out on what they thought the reasons might be, you know, I tend to write a lot of that off as conspiracy theory stuff. You know, I started looking into a lot of these things and have been shocked by some of the things that I found. So, let me give you one example, Glen. So, a key example, I’ve been looking into Health Canada, and I’ll admit. So, so, for example, I have had one of my vaccine technologies ultimately go into four human clinical trials. I naively assumed that Health Canada was there to serve Canadian taxpayers, and in theory, that’s what they’re supposed to be doing. Their mandate is supposed to be looking at first and foremost for the well-being of of the health of Canadians. And they should be vigorously reviewing all the science being provided by Big Pharma companies, and they should be liberally requesting lots of additional data so that they can gain confidence in the safety and effectiveness of these products.
Dr. Byram Bridle: [00:10:37] So, I looked into that and I was very shocked by what I found. A lot of people, a lot of people do realize, but a lot of people don’t realize that Health Canada, the majority of their income now, the funding for their operating budget comes from Big Pharma. And so these documents are publicly available. So, one of the things I learned right now, the fee that that a company like Pfizer or Moderna would pay for to have their package reviewed by Health Canada, see if they can get approval for new medical product. The fees just under half a million dollars. In 2023, it’ll go up to just a little more than half a million dollars. So, it’s about half a million dollars. And this is the interesting thing. The first time a company submits a package for review to Health Canada, they don’t have to pay anything. It’s a freebie that comes across to me very much like a business trying to promote their product and, you know, get a customer hooked to a product. And then upon the second submission they start getting charge this fee, half a million dollars. What’s interesting is if Health Canada is not provide them with the with a decision on their application package within six months, they have to return 25% of that fee.
Dr. Byram Bridle: [00:11:46] So, I’m looking at this, and if you’re a regulator, if you’re managing a bunch of regulatory scientists within Health Canada, there’s going to you’re going to apply a lot of pressure on those regulatory scientists to make sure that they process these applications quickly. You know, so if a regulatory scientist say, “I’ve got some concerns here.” These are these are large, complex data packages, and if they were, say, “I’ve got concerns, I need an extra few weeks.” Somebody in the management role in Health Canada is not going to want to lose $125,000. That’s basically an entire salary for one of the regulatory scientists. And then also you don’t bite the hand that feeds you if if you are not accepting company’s products, especially if you’re not accepting their products on a fairly regular basis, you risk losing that customer. And if you lose a customer like Pfizer or Moderna, you’re probably losing, you know, a lifetime of non-stop submissions, which means a continual half-million dollar fee, you know, being paid. That’s a huge amount of money. If you lose one of those fees from a company, you’re losing the salary for four of your regulatory scientists. So, I have serious concerns about what’s going on. And so again, what I can say definitively. So, after doing my research, Health Canada, clearly the model that they’re following is very much a business model and it’s not in the best interest of Canadians.
Dr. Byram Bridle: [00:13:05] It’s Big Pharma is essentially paying Health Canada to review their own applications. And the all the benefits that Health Canada would get from this process is if they keep those Big Pharma companies happy. And to me, the number the number one thing that needs to happen is we need health regulatory agencies across the world. We need to we need them to start following different models. I’ll tell you, me personally, I’d be okay with having my taxes raised a little bit and have Health Canada wean completely off of income from Big Pharma and paid for by tax dollars. And then the second thing that I think would be really important is there’s this interesting type of position in academia where somebody like myself can be a tenured we call a “tenured faculty member.” That means your job is quite secure. You have to do something fairly egregious in order to lose your job. And we need regulatory scientists of integrity who have that kind of protection, the equivalent of something like tenure, where they can feel free to speak up if they ever have genuine concerns about what they’re seeing from Big Phar ma companies and their application packages. You know, they need to feel free to speak up and let Canadians know that they have those concerns without their job being put at risk.
Glen Jung: [00:14:18] It’s incredible. And thank you so much because you’re shining a light on the fact that we basically see Health Canada, our academic research institutions being shills for pharma through these conflicts of interest.
Dr. Byram Bridle: [00:14:29] They’re serving Big Pharma is what they’re serving and Canadian taxpayers and our health is secondary.
Glen Jung: [00:14:34] Yeah. And so I want to ask you so we know your stance as a scientist to how demoralizing this must be from that standpoint. But how about as a father, You are the father of a special needs child. How do you feel when you know that Health Canada’s not working in the best interests of not only us, but our children?
Dr. Byram Bridle: [00:14:52] Yeah. Yeah, absolutely. Yeah. I’ve got two sons and like you mentioned, one has Down syndrome, and I love them, like any parent does so much. Yeah. This. This is really why I’ve been speaking out now, Glen, for, you know, as I’ve seen as we’ve seen our public health policies in Canada moving so far away from where the science should be leading us. That’s why I’m speaking out honestly. My main concern has always been for the children. You know, for the past two-and-a-half years, there’s been so many these disagreements about Covid-19 science, so many. And I, as I viewed it, is it’s really an adult battle. And it should have been left as a battle being waged among adults. But we started holding up our children as shields in this battle. Right? And this came through this total misconception, which is based on incredibly fundamentally flawed science. Right? That this this concept of asymptomatic transmission, where everybody recognizes now children are an incredibly low risk, statistically zero risk of dying from Covid-19, and yet we have been using them shields in this battle, forcing them to be vaccinated, forcing them to be masked because we keep telling them and everybody else that if we don’t do that, they’re going to you know, they have even though they’re healthy and well, somehow they have all kinds of this pathogen spewing out of their body and they’re going to kill other people.
Dr. Byram Bridle: [00:16:11] Right. So, I’ve been trying to argue leave our children out of this right from the beginning. So, that’s why I spoke up. And absolutely, we moving forward, we have to defend our children as long as we don’t have the best interests of public taxpayers at heart when we’re dealing with public health policies and Health Canada’s review of applications from Big Pharma, it’s our children that are ultimately going to pay the biggest price by far. And remember, we have to keep in mind children are the ones, especially children are the ones that still have all kinds of physiological development to do. So, literally when it comes to potential risks associated with whatever new medical product it is, whether it’s a vaccine or a drug, they’re the ones that the greatest risk of harm.
Glen Jung: [00:16:52] So, final word going forward then. How do we when the COVID data has fallen upon deaf ears for so many government, the public, how do we move forward to shift people’s conception of the way that the actual health industry actually works?
Dr. Byram Bridle: [00:17:08] I guess that’s the big question right there, Glen, and honestly, I’m at a bit of a loss when it comes to the solution moving forward. What I do know is we need to a lot of our organizations, health organizations in my opinion, need to be gutted, need to be gutted and replace with people who have demonstrated the ability to work with great integrity over these past two and a half years. That’s the only long term solution I see. One of the things that I’m very concerned about is as the mandates, you know, masking mandates and vaccine mandates are being dropped, a lot of people are. It’s interesting. So, like, you know, you often hear this term forgive and forget. In our society, forgiveness is not is not much of an acceptable activity anymore. Virtually nobody does it. There’s going to be no forgiveness for harms that have been done, in my opinion. And when it comes to the world of science, there’s too many large egos involved, I believe. But I am concerned that people are going to attempt to forget or get people to forget, but we can’t as these policies are removed.
Dr. Byram Bridle: [00:18:09] A lot of people, I get the feeling, just want to say, okay, let’s just move on and try and forget, let stuff disappear into the past. But the whole infrastructure remains in place, the entire infrastructure that led to the segregation of Canadians and all of these harms inflicted on our children all remain in place and they can all be triggered at a moment’s notice. So, that’s why we have to remain diligent and we have to change these organizations. It starts with, let’s face it, education is often the starting point. I’m going to call a school here. Not everybody here was a problem. But I’m telling you, places like the Dalla Lana School of Public Health at the University of Toronto, in my opinion, that curriculum needs to be looked at very carefully and probably torn down and rebuilt. And we need places like Health Canada. We need regulatory scientists of integrity who are working there and with the freedom to express their concerns. And one of the things we definitely need is.
Glen Jung: [00:19:01] The.
Dr. Byram Bridle: [00:19:02] Colleges that have that that govern our physicians, our surgeons, you know, naturopaths, all our health professionals, they need to be rebuilt from the ground up, Right? These are all key problems. And then we especially need we need our government officials. They’re experts in politics. They are not experts in medicine. They’re not experts in public health. And we need to stop having them pretend like they are. What they’re doing is all they’re capable of doing is parroting what these other organizations tell them. So, we have to take these kind of health policies out of the hands of these politicians who really don’t have the expertise to deal with this. And we need and we need. And the other thing I guess I would say is we saw these committees formed, committees formed in order to provide advice to our governments. During this time, we need to really consider how these committees are put together. And again, and the number one thing, number one thing in terms of the solution moving forward as. We have to end all of the censorship. We have to allow. We have to get back to allowing free discussions about the science. That’s iron sharpens iron. That’s how science has always worked in science. Scientists, we are trained to be open to and to accept criticism from others and deal with it constructively. Right. If we see reasons why somebody’s criticism doesn’t seem valid, we’re welcome to try and change their mind through reasoned scientific arguments. And they’re welcome to the same to us. And as scientists, we have to be obligated to follow the overall weight of the science. So, we have to restore this freedom to practice science and medicine the way it’s supposed to be, which is open dialogue and through open dialogue and the public being able to witness this open dialogue, they are ultimately going to be able to make the most informed decisions, you know, possible to ensure that their health is maximized 100%.
Glen Jung: [00:20:59] You know, we’ve seen the co-opting of all of our regulatory bodies so that there is this need exactly for what you’re talking about. And I think me, as a former public schoolteacher, teaching young children, I can definitely say one thing that we noticed that I noticed as a teacher was we don’t teach children how to think. We teach them what to think. Yes, we don’t teach children to assess something, to deconstruct something and say, does this work for the benefit of everybody? We just say, this is how it works and this is how we’ll move forward. So, I think your solutions number one, look at our academic institutions, our scientific dialogue, and are we having an actual discussion and then breaking down our institutions and then rebuilding? Those are the way forward. Thank you so much for everything you’re doing and for your voice and all your sacrifice that you’re doing. Dr. Bridle Because it’s well appreciated by so many and not enough people.
Dr. Byram Bridle: [00:21:47] You’re welcome. Thank you.