58 Comments
founding
Jan 12, 2023Liked by Dr. Byram W. Bridle

Such detailed work. You work so hard to give judges the best advice based on the most current science and it's almost as if they can't be bothered. That must be so frustrating for you. I was a nurse with the Canadian Red Cross during the HIV blood products tragedy and having learned nothing, they repeated it with Hepatitis C. The medical director at the time told us at a meeting that blood does not transmit HIV. This was in 1981 or 1982. I remember thinking as a 24 year-old-nurse that this was going to harm a lot of people and the rest is history. A Canadian made tragedy. When SARS 1 was in Toronto in 2003, the modeling was predicting millions would die. It was hundreds. Dr. Fauci wrote a paper on how well Hydroxychloroquine was working for this coronavirus. There was talk of quickly finding a vaccine that worked, but the virus was pretty much gone before that happened. That first SARS virus was also leaked from a lab in China, however the reports stated it was an accident via a lab technician. When it came to SARS 2 aka Covid, I knew I wanted no part of the jabs and when I heard you on that radio program speaking about the bio distribution of the jab all over the body, I immediately tried to warn our adult kids hoping they would decide against it especially for their own children. I did not succeed. Thank you for standing up for truth.

Expand full comment
Jan 12, 2023Liked by Dr. Byram W. Bridle

The ruling against the parents was another sad and sorry day in NZ courts over this whole covid debacle. Thank you Byram for your amazing work and tireless pursuit of the truth through true science and for your honest, measured and heartfelt manner. Even though things have often gone against us here in our little country, it all counts and you have been instrumental in inspiring and helping us. The pressure against the authorities narrative is building and the house of cards is about to tumble I’m sure... the truth will eventually prevail! Arohanui from down under.

Expand full comment

This is a political case. NZ government has no business in this unless it wants to assume ownership over people’s bodies. It’s only posed to the court as if this was a scientific argument, but it is rather obvious ethical argument really. Is Nuremberg code still valid? Or not and we are once more owned by the führer whoever that might be? That is the real question here.

This is what I submitted to the state attorney office in Prague 1 and later on to Prague state attorney office. The letter wrote that Nuremberg code is not legally binding document.

That’s why they assume ownership over our even healthy bodies. Their endpoint is to best of my understanding full disposition of our bodies to have it readily available whenever they should need them.

Roman slavery with modern transplanting technology.

Now I don’t think this could work for anybody since similar models have worked for the oppressors for few years only before they collapsed to overall war that ultimately turned deadly even for the oppressors.

But that’s where they are heading. This is not a scientific dispute but rather ethical one.

Expand full comment
Jan 12, 2023·edited Jan 12, 2023Liked by Dr. Byram W. Bridle

Thank you so much for doing what you do.

It is tragic to see courts continue to disappoint case after case.

With every new case, it becomes much more difficult to excuse their decisions as mere ignorance, when having access to your expert testimony makes them better informed than most public health officials. (who simply refuse to properly inform themselves)

I feel like we are in a very dark time in history that people will be baffled at how it was able to get this bad.

One of my few comforts these days is that I know I can say for sure that it did not go unopposed.

Expand full comment
Jan 12, 2023Liked by Dr. Byram W. Bridle

Thanks for fighting the good fight!

Expand full comment

April 2021, my friend and med school classmate who practice in Germany as family physician tried to convince me to get this injection. My adult daughter who works in public health suggested to wait and see more data. A month later - your revolutionary and groundbreaking interview and testifying in Canadian parliament shocked but didn’t surprised us. I was amazed by your highest level of integrity, professional ethics, bravery and was affirmed in initial suspicion. My friend since then received the third dose, almost immediately there after developed thyroid cancer and while awaiting the surgery and going through the tests another problem appeared: broken capillaries and sure enough threatening thrombocytopenia. Eventually she was operated and thanks God in “spontaneous remission” at the moment. Her point of view changed 180 degrees. Unfortunately my friend had to live through this to get to realisation of this global scheme. There are not enough words in English language to express my appreciation and admiration to you, dear Doctor. You saved tons of lives.

Expand full comment
Jan 12, 2023Liked by Dr. Byram W. Bridle

Great article and good work on the affidavit’s. Did I miss something, why couldn’t the parents donate blood? Or other friends and family. I have no clue how much blood one needs for an operation, but that would be a simple solution one would think. You get the feeling that the hospital didn’t want to set a precedent. “If baby Will can have untainted blood, why can’t I?” Is the question the hospital is trying to avoid.

Expand full comment

Epistemic Trespassing; something that courts have not acknowledged.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11098-021-01657-6

Expand full comment

Thank you for sharing this information. 🙏

Expand full comment
Jan 13, 2023Liked by Dr. Byram W. Bridle

As per usual, so objectively well done. You have itemized each talking point and supported your view with peer-reviewed studies, leaving detractors with nothing to fall back on except hearsay and personal opinion. The topic of blood products is rather scary when one considers the implications of needing this type of intervention and not having the option to choose a direct donation.

Expand full comment

Thank You very much for the tremendous work that You are doing.

Expand full comment

Why would you need any independent scientific study that shows how the "vaccine" distributes in the body after a single IM dose, when you can simply show the court Table 4-2 "Mean concentration of radioactivity (sexes combined) in tissue and blood following a single IM dose of 50 μg mRNA/ rat" on page 45 of the Nonclinical Evaluation Report that Pfizer provided to the Australian Government? Cause you can read up on it since it was released under a Freedom of Information request foi-2389-06 (https://www.tga.gov.au/sites/default/files/foi-2389-06.pdf)

Expand full comment

What a sh1t show. And I’ll bet that none of those doctors feel culpability in the baby’s death bc it was the parent’s actions that delayed surgery that resulted in the child’s death. Typical gaslighting.

Expand full comment
Jan 12, 2023·edited Jan 12, 2023

They're not vaccines, they're Dept. of Defense counter-measures prototype.

https://youtu.be/ERvURcpg3JE

Expand full comment

The superiority and acuity of your affidavit is apparent. At this point in time, sadly, the truth doesn’t count for much. Those doctors and the high court of NZ will continue their “willful blindness” for as long as they can because it is the comfortable thing for them to do. As long as they can continue to hide behind the veil of “there is no evidence of harm”, even though they are not looking for proof of safety, they bloody will. It really angers me how uneven the playing field things are. Us, with an abundance of integrity and critical thinking skills yet no funding to purse the truth in the interest of health and humanity, them, with an abundance of funding and no desire to investigate inconvenient truths, only the will to keep up the charade for as long as they can, or until they, themselves are personally and deeply impacted (even still they may not wake up). So where does this leave us? We trek on, holding our heads high, knowing, we have forgone convenience and comfort because we truly care and love one another. While my sleep at night is disrupted for many reasons, it’s never because of my conscious. Highly doubt anyone in the other camp can say the same (unless they are truly ignorant and clueless, but still, they should know the fallacy of their ways at an unconscious level). I really don’t like this “us and them” talk but one can clearly see the motives behind this court ruling. They are choosing convenience over Baby Will’s health (I.e. not wanting to set a precedent for allowing directed blood, relying on studies funded by corrupted/captured institutions, etc.) I cannot accept or forgive this. It is said, you can spit up in the air, but eventually, it will come back down on you.

Expand full comment

Dr. Bridle, how can you bear it?

Expand full comment