Scientific Discourse About COVID-19

Productive Public Discussions of Differing Opinions Can Happen

It has been two years, two months, and twenty-six days (818 total days) since the administration of my employer, the University of Guelph, banned me from accessing my office and laboratory.

- B. Bridle -

I recently accepted an invitation to participate in a public discussion with a physician and former medical officer of health, Dr. Matt Strauss. The evening was a resounding success. To nobody’s surprise, two professionals who prioritize integrity and evidence-based decision-making were able to engage in a mutually respectful discussion for the benefit of the audience. Kudos to Dr. Strauss. I have the utmost of respect for him.

Public feedback was extremely positive, with many people being thankful for how the discussion promoted fully informed consent. People appreciated being exposed to a fuller spectrum of opinions and the evidence used to formulate them.

You can find a link to a video of the event here.

Here is a description...

Dr. Byram Bridle, Associate Professor of Viral Immunology in the Department of Pathobiology at the University of Guelph, who opposes COVID-19 vaccines, mandates, and lockdowns and supports the use of Ivermectin engages in a scientific discourse with Dr. Matt Strauss, an Ontario Critical Care Specialist who supports COVID-19 vaccines, opposes the use of Ivermectin, but shares deep concerns about mandates and lockdowns.

Dr. Strauss selected the following topics for discussion…

1. COVID-19 ‘vaccines’

2. Myocarditis

3. Public health messaging

4. Medical ethics

5. Lockdowns

6. ‘Vaccine’ mandates

7. Masking

Everything that I do is monitored ridiculously closely by my number one fans, which are the so-called ‘misinformation gurus’. You know the types; they post a quote or a link on X (formerly known as Twitter) with something to the effect of ‘spewing misinformation’, in the complete absence of any primary scientific data, let alone showing that they have the overall weight of the legitimate science to back them up. Some of these ‘experts’ routinely read my Substack articles, so they will see this…

Take a look at the video. You will see two professionals who shared a lot of opinions regarding the egregiousness of mandates in the COVID-19 era, but also differed substantially on issues like COVID-19 shots and the use of repurposed drugs as early intervention treatment strategies. I let Dr. Strauss pick the topics to be discussed. We were each given an opportunity to present an overview of our evidence to back up our positions. We then answered questions that had been posed by people attending the meeting in-person and online. It was respectful and of great benefit to those who watched.

Remember, the scientific literature underpinning the ‘misinformation gurus’ makes it clear that those who accuse others but then refuse to show up to public discussions trigger this outcome…

“not turning up to the discussion at all seems to result in the worst effect [in terms of countering misinformation]”

So, to the ‘misinformation experts’, show up or shut up. If you have an irresistible urge to accuse me of spreading ‘misinformation’, please contact me via my University of Guelph email address (it is advertised on my webpage) and let’s arrange a similar public discussion. Please put “Public Discussion” in the subject line so I can find it among my overwhelming number of emails. We do not have to talk to each other. Instead, we can have equal engagement with the public and let them take from the conversation what they want. For this recent event I read 279 scientific articles to prepare, and provided the citations for all of them. I like to let the evidence speak for itself. I view my job as simply to make the overly complex science accessible to the public.

For those who follow ‘misinformation experts’ and cheer on their cowardly actions, it is time to take notice. Ask yourself why one set of gladiators keep standing in the arena while yours refuse to step into it. They have been given the benefit of spreading their information via mainstream channels in the absence of censorship. They have been given prestigious awards and seats on committees wielding substantial power. They have received hefty funding to promote their views of COVID-19. In short, your ‘champions’ are like heavily armoured and heavily armed gladiators. People like me are standing in the arena near-naked and unarmed. But, it seems to me like your ‘champions’ have no idea how scientific conflicts are to be settled; through real-time evidence-based discussions. They think their swords are chopsticks to eat at the trough of social media, and have no idea how to wield them in the arena. So, start calling them out for what they are, and what their scientific literature labels them as…

Anyone who accuses another of spreading misinformation without giving the accused a chance to explain themselves in a public evidence-based conversation with the accuser is a COWARD.

- B. Bridle -

Surely you would not honour a claim to the championship by a team that repeatedly fails to show up for the championship game. Indeed, this is why the team that does show up is granted the win by default.

I am always ready and willing to chat with anyone who disagrees with my scientific points of view. If that is you, please consider chatting with me instead of resorting to immature and counter-productive name-calling and labeling. If you are a fan of someone who disagrees with my scientific points of view, ask them to engage me in a public discussion. If they refuse, please leave a comment indicating how that makes you feel and whether it strengthens or weakens their point of view.

---