Viral immunologist dr. Byram Bridle: C19 vaccines don't prevent transmission, increase cancer risk

Other points that dr. Bridle makes (in chronologic order):
* There is severe underreporting in the vaccine adverse event databases all over the world.
* D-dimer is a good test for blood clots in both the COVID disease as to determine clots after administration of the clot shots
* Ivermectin, which is on the WHO list of essential medicines for humans, is an excellent repurposed, safe, cheap drug for COVID. The JAMA study on this drug was done in a country where this drug is used a lot, so the control group was probably also using it. Therefore both groups were treatment groups. (That the participants were mostly from the low risk group, also makes it more difficult to get a statistically significant result.)
* Early treatment with drugs such as ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine is key. Countries such as Egypt and India that focused on early treatment are doing significantly better than most western countries that focused on universal vaccination and suppressed early treatment. Comparing Egypt to Israel makes this abundantly clear.
* Watchful waiting, also known as therapeutic nihilism or "do nothing until your lips turn blue" is killing people.
* Remdesivir is toxic and doesn't work, but it's highly profitable, therefore it's used. Repurposed medicines are unprofitable, therefore they're suppressed in most higher income countries, because they compete with highly profitable medicines. The health authorities should do what's best for public health, but they've been captured by Big Pharma.
* Bridle gets criticism for his statements that increase vaccine hesitancy from physicians who point out people who are extremely sick from COVID. Bridle doesn't have a lot of patience for these people, because he personally deals with lots of vaccine injured people and it is known that the efficacy of the vaccine is low and waning and it increases resistance. Also these people who got bad outcomes from COVID never received effective early treatment, which should be mentioned as one of the causes of death.
* The average citizen puts a lot of faith in their physician. This is totally misplaced, because these physicians don't know a lot about immunology and know even less about vaccinology. Their knowledge is vastly insufficient to make a good personal judgment on whether these vaccins should be encouraged or discouraged for specific patients.
* Many experts who subscribe to the narrative (such as that the vaccines are safe and effective, that there is no early treatment available, etc.) are criticizing other experts (such as dr. Bridle) for spreading misinformation. However, when the former experts are invited to a public scientific debate, they always decline. Even Bridle's colleagues from his university who have criticized him in public refuse to debate him publically or even privately, in spite of a standing invitation from Bridle. It turns out that the colleagues who criticized Bridle hadn't even studied his work and his statement.
* It was thought that it was impossible that humans lacked a specific protein required for the messenger RNA to alter our DNA. However, it turns out that we do have this protein, therefore DNA alteration is theoretically possible, therefore we should do good scientific research on this subject. According to his current knowledge, Bridle does not think that it is likely that our DNA is altered.
* A person present says that people such as Bridle are trying their best to answer questions according to their best scientific knowledge. The other side is really only using talking points dictated from above, such as that the vaccines are safe and effective, that they don't alter DNA, etc. etc.
* Health Canada proclaim that one does of the Pfizer dose is already 95% effective, which is the same as two doses. So why are people who only received one dose lumped in with the unvaccinated? (Any why are we continuing with two doses when the second dose doesn't seem to bring any advantage, but the adverse effects after the second dose are significantly increased?) Basic questions such as this on the basis of facts that the health authorities themselves say is enough to see how illogical this all is. It's not even necessary to understand all the science.
* The same person mentioned previously talks about a 17 year old ice hockey player dying after receiving the COVID vaccine. The authorities were quick to pronounce that this death was not due to vaccine whilst also saying that they were researching what did kill this person. So the authorities haven't done any research, and yet they do know that the vaccination didn't have any causal link?
* Contrary to facts, many people still claim that breakthrough infections are almost non-existent. If this is the case, why do these same people require others to wear masks (which don't work in the first place)?
* The vaccines lead to antibodies in the blood and the lower airways, but not in the upper airways. This means that the vaccines don't significantly reduce infection or transmission, and reaching herd immunity through these vaccines is absolutely impossible.
* Some necessary knowledge on the vaccine is quick, cheap and easy to do, but still the pharmaceutical companies refuse to do it. That they won't do it is a strong red flag. Why do refuse? Because it likely will lead to inconvenient truths.
* The problems due to COVID have been grossly overestimed due to the hyper oversensitive PCR test and the problems due to the vaccines have been grossly underestimated.
* A huge number of people have naturally acquired immunity, but never had any symptoms.
* For a large portion of the population, COVID is less dangerous than the seasonal flu. For the population as a whole, COVID is not significantly more deadly than the seasonal flu.
* For many (respiratory) infections, we usually see a peak in fatality in the very old and the very young. When we get old, our immune systems grow weaker (immunosenesence). The immune systems of young people don't fully mature until they're about 16 years old. SARS-CoV-2 is different than other respiratory infections in the sense that young people have negligible risk.
* While children have negligible risk for natural infection, they have the same risk as adults due to the vaccines. Also, vaccination hinders the build up of natural immunity.Show more

Source: https://www.bitchute.com/video/7XXmStI8VINb/
Publication date original: November 10th, 2021