I recently served as an expert witness in an injunction hearing. Specifically, relief from the COVID-19 ‘vaccine’ mandate was being sought by hospital workers facing the loss of their jobs for not taking a jab that is, at best, irrelevant in the context of the Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2 and, at worst, enhances the risk of infection and disease and possibly even death due to COVID-19 as per data emerging from Israel (i.e., the most COVID-19-vaxxed country in the world). The expert witness brought by the defendants was Dr. Peter Jüni. Dr. Jüni is the Head of Ontario’s ‘Science’ Table, which has been advising the government on all COVID-19 policies, including ‘vaccine’ mandates.
Despite hundreds of invitations, not a single scientist or physician anywhere in the world has been willing to engage me or my colleagues in a public discussion of the science underpinning COVID-19. However, one place where these discussions cannot be avoided is in court. As such, I thought it would be helpful for the Canadian public to see with their own eyes what the scientific discourse looks like in this setting. Below, is the affidavit presented to the court by Dr. Peter Jüni. Both he and I had very short time frames in which to write our reports, so please excuse the minor spelling, grammatical, and formatting errors. Note that Dr. Jüni had the opportunity to write his report in response to mine, which I have also appended below. Unfortunately, I was not afforded a right of reply to his report, despite writing one. For your interest, I have attached this rebuttal that I submitted to the court.
These legal documents are part of the public record so you can feel free to share them widely. I can also tell you that they are typical of the court cases that I have been involved with to date. Importantly, not a single case that I have been part of to date has been decided based on the weight of the evidence. You should ask why. In this case, I reviewed Dr. Peter Jüni’s curriculum vitae. He is unquestionably an expert in epidemiology. But, should he be involved in decisions related to the immunological sub-discipline of vaccinology and pushing mandates in this area? What is the quality and quantity of the scientific evidence underpinning the various points being made? I will let you be the judge.
Here is Dr. Jüni’s affidavit…
Here is my reply to the report submitted by Dr. Jüni, as well as that of a second ‘expert’ witness whose report was not allowed into court by virtue of it being deemed libelous (it relied on a libelous website that was created as part of a smear campaign, hearsay evidence, and so-called ‘fact checker’ websites)…
Here is my initial affidavit and report…
Excellent, well done Dr Bridle. 👍🏽👏❤️
Y'all took the words right out of my mouth and expressed them far better than I could!
Keep up your fabulous work Dr Bridle!