91 Comments

Great write up. I would share this with friends and family but they would explode because their intelligence would be questioned, and "this is just written from a guy I never heard of"

We are living is very sad times. Thank you again for sharing this. It is good information for ME to share with friends that understand and like discussion

Expand full comment

Statistics. Ask a statistician what does the data say and it will reply,

"What do you want the data to say?".

Motivate that person with a great salary and tenure + basic immunity to criticism. What do you have then???

Expand full comment

Dr. Byram W. Bridle logically pointed out the fakes in the paper. thank you.

When I looked at the paper, the author of this paper said that there was no conflict of interest, but this is still an untrustworthy statement. The author states that he receives support from AbbVie.

What is AbbVie?

AbbVie is a large pharmaceutical company with sales of $58 billion and approximately 50,000 employees.

For someone like me, an amateur who can't fully understand the fake logic of a paper, when I look at the source of the funds, I know that 80-90% of the paper is questionable if it comes from a pharmaceutical company.

If AbbVie intends to enter the vaccine market, it will help authors write papers that give vaccines even a slight advantage.

Apparently there are professionals who write fake papers at the request of pharmaceutical companies.

Especially when the field of expertise is different from that of the doctor, the average doctor, due to his/her busy schedule, will likely only read the conclusion of the paper and will not read the content logically, nor will he or she look at conflicts of interest.

They probably won't even look into the details of the company where the funds are coming from.

Expand full comment

Dr. Bridle, you are a pearl above measure. THank you for taking the time to explain in detail the flaws in this paper (and open people's eyes to how scientific paper fraud is committed). I am keeping this. I hope one day to show my sister, who think all studies are good.

Expand full comment

Outstanding! Well done sir. Thank you thank you thank you for teaching me like I was your first year student. This gives me so much ammo which to share with people. Everyone needs to post this across all of your social media platforms NOW!

Expand full comment

Thank you for this superb and very illuminating analysis (plus take down)!

Expand full comment

Byron, your investor analogy is so wonderfully rich and meaningful. It seriously needs to be elaborated. I have metaphors coming to mind like "taking the jab is to shoot at a moving target", "the jab forces you to invest in a single stock", "you can get some quick returns, but miss out on long term dividends". We need people like you to validate the metaphor.

Expand full comment

Love it. There is a video of Kary Mullis, find the interview it is a must see, in it he says, paraphrasing, "the public cannot tell the difference between a good scientist and a bad scientist, and this is the problem". He goes on to say that Fauci is an idiot, a very bad scientist.

Expand full comment

Thanks for this critique of the paper. I have seen similar analyses of other papers all leading to the increasingly clear conclusion that all of the Covid-19 shots were and are unsafe, and ineffective at both prevention and disease reduction for all but the most severely at-risk demographic.

So one question that comes to mind is, what is the best public health strategy against new "variants"? It seems to me that people not jabbed by the Covid-19 products dont have to do anything special but eat healthy and get sunlight. What about the jabbed sheeple, the majority in our country and many others? Studies are showing they are more easily infected after more jabs, perhaps because antibody counts go down more quickly. Are they therefore forever locked into getting more frequent jabs?

Expand full comment

Thank you for the deep dive into interpreting a scientific paper. Interpreting the scientific literature is a job best left to the true experts!

Expand full comment

9/13/23 - Univ of South Carolina Professor Dr. Phillip Buckhaults testifies before South Carolina Senate Medical Affairs Ad-Hoc Committee re: DNA contamination in Pfizer’s C-19 jabs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEWHhrHiiTY

Professor Dr. Phillip Buckhaults, USC College of Pharmacy:

https://sc.edu/study/colleges_schools/pharmacy/faculty-staff/buckhaults_phillip.php

Expand full comment

.

I Think That It Is Great

That The Vaccinated Care So Much.

They Care So Much About Other People.

- Not For Those That Are Dying From The Shots.

No.

They Care So Much

As To Be Willing To Die

To Prove The UnVaccinated Were Right.

.

Expand full comment

Excellent learning material on how to read what we are reading. I am only curious what happened to peer-reviewers? Are they not aware of all this? By definition, they should be guarding the integrity of the field, journal and authors. If this happens, what’s the point of using the peer-review process?

PS. What about product placement (or rather “employer” placement) right at the top of the text? Clearly, their perseverance may be stronger than two years two months and counting. Some sort of Stockholm syndrome? Warning the world against them, named clearly in the way enabling identification? Does it help?

Expand full comment

mRNA vaccines are all extremely dangerous and completely worthless. Where’s my $500k

Expand full comment

Dear Byram, I think you are a terrific person but really, you must spend some energy and reassess all the science you were presented with re: viruses, replication, contagion ect. The entire field of virology is a house of cards built on quick sand. It does not follow the scientific method. It depends entirely on circumstantial evidence.

This is a good place to start: https://drsambailey.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/A-FAREWELL-TO-VIROLOGY-Expert-Edition-English.pdf

Expand full comment

The premise on which this study is founded ie. that anti-bodies are the only significant indicator of immunity is false. Cellular response along with humoral response (the two arms of the immune system) constitute a robust immune reaction to infection. Cellular response cannot be achieved with injection as it bypasses the mucosal membranes wherein cellular response is initiated.

When will the act of injection rather than the contents of a vial be questioned?

Expand full comment