Thank you for being so brave and strong. Your children have a great father and role model. I’m so glad you’re on Steve’s debate team! What a blessing to all involved. Your enormous efforts are greatly appreciated. I hate that you have to face so much opposition but my prayer is that someday very soon you and your like-minded colleagues will be vindicated and recognized as the true heroes that you are.
Thanks for all you do.. the same issues happen with so called “climate science”... eminent scientists are ignored, rubbished... while other clamber after the millions of $ to fix an imaginary problem.. I have watched it for 25 years...
the reality is those who can control the media know it’s power.. they know they can keep 50 to 60% of people “believing” by the medias constant repetition, fear mongering, manipulation and gaslighting...
I teach my kids to recognise the tactics..
They have been doing it successfully with many issues so are quite expert at it..
That said at least 40% smell the rat they just don’t have the courage or expertise to object effectively..
They deliberately divide and conquer with terms like anti Vacer. Or climate deniers... and get us fighting
Like Ralf and Piggy in Lord if the Flies it’s those with the courage to investigate the problem who are attacked...
That book showed me at an early age how thin the veneer of civilisation is..
Solzhenitsyn remarks that even after millions were arrested and sent to the camps or killed for no crime the, people around them said nothing for fear of being next..
So those who speak up do help the few others who try to resist...and those who aren’t experts gain a lot from people like you..
Christians were martyred for hundreds of years...but by 300 BC they became the official religion of Rome.. it takes time..
Thank you dr bridle for all you have done and continue to do. A hope one day, soon, truth can prevail. The censorship of people such as yourself was one of the primary reasons I kept myself and my teenage son from this jab. What’s to hide? This campaigns sounds great - I hope it at least arouses curiousity for people to consider why the censorship? ❤️🙏
My perspective from being the lone holdout in a household of boosted cultists:
A main reason for why can't we talk about it is fear. I still am not allowed to talk about it, but I have overheard a few comments. They are scared of what they have done to themselves. The dam is starting to break though. The sudden deaths and huge amount of RSV/flu is being noticed. In my mind maybe the jabbed have to go through something like the stages of grief before we are finally allowed to discuss? Cheers.
Thank you Dr. Bridle for joining Steve Kirsch’s “Why Can’t We..” conversation!
I am incensed almost every day by the wilfully blind CBC that typifies the old saying “If it bleeds, it leads” And for the CBC, “If it doesn’t bleed profusely, stab it till it does “.
I think we should take a cue from Kirsch’s clever initiative and erect billboards outside every CBC broadcast station and ask them
Dec 6, 2022·edited Dec 6, 2022Liked by Dr. Byram W. Bridle
"They can prove I was wrong...." No they can't because the scientific literature and medical evidence is overwhelming that you were right. I am sure these nasty cowards will be calling you any day to apologize for their ignorance and destroying your reputation.
I'm sure that many of your adversaries that are accusing you of misinformation, are actually intimidated by the amount of valid and provable information that you present so eloquently without having to read off of teleprompters or notes.
I’d like to suggest to those who don’t follow her to take a look at the reasonable, dispassionate writing of Dr. Julie Ponesse on The Democracy Fund. If it truly is the case that we’ll catch more bees with honey than vinegar, Dr. Ponesse will capture the hive while many others go away stung
BRIAN ROSE: Robert, let me ask you a question because with the evening news we can see the direct correlation with the pharmaceutical industry and say what Anderson says, and we know that's where a lot of the American public and the world get their information. The government obviously has its own ties to the business through these health officials. What about Big Tech? Because I got strike after strike on my YouTube channel back in 2020. I was forced to create this digital freedom platform because we could not stream episodes with you, with all sorts of other people that were saying the same things you were saying. You have been banned, shadow-banned and blocked by FaceBook, by Instagram, I watched over the years. How does Big Tech fit into this whole piece of the pie? Because obviously it's very hard to see a direct correlation. So yeah. How does that work?
ROBERT F. KENNEDY, JR: There are three, there are three reasons why Big Tech is censoring us, that, you know, that I can see.
One is the technology companies have deep, deep relationships with the pharmaceutical industry. So Google owns three vaccine companies. Google's parent company which is called Alphabet is a vaccine maker. They own three companies that are making vaccines including universal flu vaccines and covid vaccines. And all of these companies make a substantial part of their revenue by, with the side-deals with pharmaceutical companies by, you know, one thing they do is that they're monitoring your health. They're watching you with, you know, Siri, and with what you order, and those algorithms are telling them if you're sick, if you're likely to buy a drug, and then they do targeted advertising. And that's a partnership. But in some cases they're actually letting the pharmaceutical companies, like Glaxo-Smith Cline has a deal with Google where they, and I think it's a 76 million dollar deal, where they are actually running part of that program to mine the users for medical vulnerabilities that they can exploit. That's one issue.
The other issue is that they're under tremendous pressure from the government to censor any information that is, ah, that challenges government orthodoxies. And I know this because I'm suing FaceBook right now and we're in discovery and we're very attuned to what they've done. But you know, they're, Alex Berenson who used to work for the New York Times is in discovery and got a document for the same kind of case that I have, and he got a document [inaudible] a couple of months ago or couple of weeks ago that shows that there's been direct communications, in fact a regular meeting between the Big Tech groups and the White House about censoring people like me. Specifically, anybody who's part of the disinformation dozen where, which is a group of people that they say, you know, broadcast misinformation.
But, and I want to say the word misinformation as they use it has nothing to do with factual accuracy. They admit this. It is any statement, this is how they define it, that challenges government orthodoxies on vaccines or medical intervention. So anything that diminishes vaccine uptake or that tends to cast the CDC or the WHO in a bad light, or challenges their public assertions, those are regarded as misinformation no matter what. The factual accuracy is irrelevant.
And let me just say this about myself. We have a huge fact-checking department. You know, you mentioned my book [The Real Anthony Fauci]. My book is essentially a 900 page book that has 250,000 words, it has it has 2200 footnotes, and a lot of it, it's been censored. There's also a lot of people we have to presume from the industry that are looking at the book and looking for vulnerabilities, looking for places where I made a misstatement. We have a huge fact-checking operation at CHD [Children's Health Defense], we have 320 PhD scientists and MD physicians, I have an advisory board, uou know, Luc Montaigner was one of those, who was a Nobel Prize winner. We have former head of the national toxicity program. So these are real scientists and they look at what I put out and criticize and if they don't think it's sustainable. So everything, every statement I make in that book is cited or sourced to peer-reviewed publication, government data bases. And we did a good job because nobody's found— there's going to be inaccuracies. You can't write a book that long and that dense without doing something. But if here's an inaccuracy and people point it out, I invite people to point it out at the beginning of the book. What is our reaction? Our reaction is not going to be to dig in, it's going to be to change it, and apologize and move on. And with The Defender, you know, our newsletter, we probably have the most extensive fact-checking operation of any, of any, like, daily paper now in the country because nobody else does fact-checking now. And, and you know, if I was making a lot of mistakes, like really factual errors, none of those people would stay with me. We're very, very careful about it.
But what they use that term vaccine misinformation not to denote something that is factually inaccurate, but rather something that challenges government orthodoxy. And you know that is a very, very odd, as you point out, posture for the press. The press is supposed to be in a constant posture of skepticism towards government, towards powerful conglomerations of wealth and power. Fierce criticism, fierce skepticism. But that is gone now and the role has been reversed where they're supposed to be speaking truth to power, they are defending power to people who challenge it. It's really extraordinary. It's not a good thing in democracy. And it's not, a democracy is not sustainable when you have this level of global media malpractice.
Democracies only function where there is a free flow of information where the best governing policies rise to the top in the marketplace of ideas. And if you stop people from talking about their ideas, it's, you know, what happens? You've got a tyranny and totalitarianism, and you know, the, you know, a uniformity of ideas which is like you know, a religion. It's not democracy and it's not science, it's religion. It's faith and blind faith in undeserving authorities, rather than people doing critical thinking, which you need to do in a democracy.
So those are two of the issues, is the government putting pressure. And the government has tremendous leverage over these companies because the government itself is threatening to remove their section 230 immunity which is an existential threat to those companies. That's the immunity that says you can't sue them for libeling you. So they can print lies and libel and slander about people on their site and nobody can sue them because they say, well we're just a common carrier. We're carrying all this information and we can't fact check everything, so people have to understand, people are going to be putting things on our site that aren't true, misinformation or libelous, you can't sue Mark Zuckerberg for it if somebody puts something libelous about me on his site, I can't sue him. Section 230. And so the government is threatening to take that from them if they don't censor people like me.
BRIAN ROSE: Right.
ROBERT F. KENNEDY, JR: And that's an existential—[inaudible]. And then the third thing I, you know, I think this is the toughest thing for people to swallow, but you really need to read my book and particularly last chapter of the book, but there's a deep involvement of the intelligence agencies in this project.
You have been a bright light in the darkness “ sir. It is individuals like you that helps one have faith in that all ....is never all lost. The last three years have been an eye opener of how quickly those things we hold dear can be taken away in a blink.
We are reminded again to never take personal liberties for granted and it shows how quickly things can change for the worse when government, public health and intellectual public or non public institutions become flagrantly responsive to fear and biases and/or have policies that profess a narrative that gains from malicious funding.
Thank you for being so brave and strong. Your children have a great father and role model. I’m so glad you’re on Steve’s debate team! What a blessing to all involved. Your enormous efforts are greatly appreciated. I hate that you have to face so much opposition but my prayer is that someday very soon you and your like-minded colleagues will be vindicated and recognized as the true heroes that you are.
I'm paying this forward, STAT Dr. Bridle. 💎
I'm so sick and tired of linking article after article and video after video to family and friends, and receiving ZERO feedback.
I'm supposed to be ok with talking about the weather, the roads, and when am I putting the Christmas tree up, when these people see me in person?
I'm NOT ok with that!! I'll never be ok with that. "To keep the peace..."
Why CAN'T we talk about the frickin ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM?
What are they AFRAID of? The truth? That they may have made a HUGE MISTAKE? (Ssshhh!)
Thank you for posting this. 💖
Go get ’em, Byram! 🥊🏅
Here are some apropos Einstein quotes I shared in “Letter to a Scientifically-Minded Friend” (https://margaretannaalice.substack.com/p/letter-to-a-scientifically-minded) last year:
“Science can flourish only in an atmosphere of free speech.”
“The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existence.”
“Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.”
“A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be.”
Thanks for all you do.. the same issues happen with so called “climate science”... eminent scientists are ignored, rubbished... while other clamber after the millions of $ to fix an imaginary problem.. I have watched it for 25 years...
the reality is those who can control the media know it’s power.. they know they can keep 50 to 60% of people “believing” by the medias constant repetition, fear mongering, manipulation and gaslighting...
I teach my kids to recognise the tactics..
They have been doing it successfully with many issues so are quite expert at it..
That said at least 40% smell the rat they just don’t have the courage or expertise to object effectively..
They deliberately divide and conquer with terms like anti Vacer. Or climate deniers... and get us fighting
Like Ralf and Piggy in Lord if the Flies it’s those with the courage to investigate the problem who are attacked...
That book showed me at an early age how thin the veneer of civilisation is..
Solzhenitsyn remarks that even after millions were arrested and sent to the camps or killed for no crime the, people around them said nothing for fear of being next..
So those who speak up do help the few others who try to resist...and those who aren’t experts gain a lot from people like you..
Christians were martyred for hundreds of years...but by 300 BC they became the official religion of Rome.. it takes time..
All the best
Thank you dr bridle for all you have done and continue to do. A hope one day, soon, truth can prevail. The censorship of people such as yourself was one of the primary reasons I kept myself and my teenage son from this jab. What’s to hide? This campaigns sounds great - I hope it at least arouses curiousity for people to consider why the censorship? ❤️🙏
Holy crap, sir. This freaking nails it. A campaign. "Why can't we talk about it?" boom.
My perspective from being the lone holdout in a household of boosted cultists:
A main reason for why can't we talk about it is fear. I still am not allowed to talk about it, but I have overheard a few comments. They are scared of what they have done to themselves. The dam is starting to break though. The sudden deaths and huge amount of RSV/flu is being noticed. In my mind maybe the jabbed have to go through something like the stages of grief before we are finally allowed to discuss? Cheers.
Maybe it is time to let your colleagues hear from us: you know, the public THEY APPARENTLY SERVE.
Put them on a platter and let us eat them for dinner. Been following you for many years and zero lies have come from you.
Thank you Dr. Bridle for joining Steve Kirsch’s “Why Can’t We..” conversation!
I am incensed almost every day by the wilfully blind CBC that typifies the old saying “If it bleeds, it leads” And for the CBC, “If it doesn’t bleed profusely, stab it till it does “.
I think we should take a cue from Kirsch’s clever initiative and erect billboards outside every CBC broadcast station and ask them
to turn the dial and listen to ALL the science.
My credit card is fired up and ready.
"They can prove I was wrong...." No they can't because the scientific literature and medical evidence is overwhelming that you were right. I am sure these nasty cowards will be calling you any day to apologize for their ignorance and destroying your reputation.
https://youtu.be/uvbavW31adA
You are a hero in my book
I'm sure that many of your adversaries that are accusing you of misinformation, are actually intimidated by the amount of valid and provable information that you present so eloquently without having to read off of teleprompters or notes.
I’d like to suggest to those who don’t follow her to take a look at the reasonable, dispassionate writing of Dr. Julie Ponesse on The Democracy Fund. If it truly is the case that we’ll catch more bees with honey than vinegar, Dr. Ponesse will capture the hive while many others go away stung
https://www.thedemocracyfund.ca/if_we_only_knew
SteveKirsch has decided to take the gloves off for this very reason.
Dear Dr. Bridle, Thank you so much for all the good work that you have been doing.
Speaking of censorship:
Censorship, Fauci + the Truth About Big Pharma With Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. + Brian Rose
https://rumble.com/v1mseig-censorship-fauci-the-truth-about-big-pharma-with-robert-f.-kennedy-jr.-bria.html
October 5, 2022
TRANSCRIPT - EXCERPT
30:00
BRIAN ROSE: Robert, let me ask you a question because with the evening news we can see the direct correlation with the pharmaceutical industry and say what Anderson says, and we know that's where a lot of the American public and the world get their information. The government obviously has its own ties to the business through these health officials. What about Big Tech? Because I got strike after strike on my YouTube channel back in 2020. I was forced to create this digital freedom platform because we could not stream episodes with you, with all sorts of other people that were saying the same things you were saying. You have been banned, shadow-banned and blocked by FaceBook, by Instagram, I watched over the years. How does Big Tech fit into this whole piece of the pie? Because obviously it's very hard to see a direct correlation. So yeah. How does that work?
ROBERT F. KENNEDY, JR: There are three, there are three reasons why Big Tech is censoring us, that, you know, that I can see.
One is the technology companies have deep, deep relationships with the pharmaceutical industry. So Google owns three vaccine companies. Google's parent company which is called Alphabet is a vaccine maker. They own three companies that are making vaccines including universal flu vaccines and covid vaccines. And all of these companies make a substantial part of their revenue by, with the side-deals with pharmaceutical companies by, you know, one thing they do is that they're monitoring your health. They're watching you with, you know, Siri, and with what you order, and those algorithms are telling them if you're sick, if you're likely to buy a drug, and then they do targeted advertising. And that's a partnership. But in some cases they're actually letting the pharmaceutical companies, like Glaxo-Smith Cline has a deal with Google where they, and I think it's a 76 million dollar deal, where they are actually running part of that program to mine the users for medical vulnerabilities that they can exploit. That's one issue.
The other issue is that they're under tremendous pressure from the government to censor any information that is, ah, that challenges government orthodoxies. And I know this because I'm suing FaceBook right now and we're in discovery and we're very attuned to what they've done. But you know, they're, Alex Berenson who used to work for the New York Times is in discovery and got a document for the same kind of case that I have, and he got a document [inaudible] a couple of months ago or couple of weeks ago that shows that there's been direct communications, in fact a regular meeting between the Big Tech groups and the White House about censoring people like me. Specifically, anybody who's part of the disinformation dozen where, which is a group of people that they say, you know, broadcast misinformation.
But, and I want to say the word misinformation as they use it has nothing to do with factual accuracy. They admit this. It is any statement, this is how they define it, that challenges government orthodoxies on vaccines or medical intervention. So anything that diminishes vaccine uptake or that tends to cast the CDC or the WHO in a bad light, or challenges their public assertions, those are regarded as misinformation no matter what. The factual accuracy is irrelevant.
And let me just say this about myself. We have a huge fact-checking department. You know, you mentioned my book [The Real Anthony Fauci]. My book is essentially a 900 page book that has 250,000 words, it has it has 2200 footnotes, and a lot of it, it's been censored. There's also a lot of people we have to presume from the industry that are looking at the book and looking for vulnerabilities, looking for places where I made a misstatement. We have a huge fact-checking operation at CHD [Children's Health Defense], we have 320 PhD scientists and MD physicians, I have an advisory board, uou know, Luc Montaigner was one of those, who was a Nobel Prize winner. We have former head of the national toxicity program. So these are real scientists and they look at what I put out and criticize and if they don't think it's sustainable. So everything, every statement I make in that book is cited or sourced to peer-reviewed publication, government data bases. And we did a good job because nobody's found— there's going to be inaccuracies. You can't write a book that long and that dense without doing something. But if here's an inaccuracy and people point it out, I invite people to point it out at the beginning of the book. What is our reaction? Our reaction is not going to be to dig in, it's going to be to change it, and apologize and move on. And with The Defender, you know, our newsletter, we probably have the most extensive fact-checking operation of any, of any, like, daily paper now in the country because nobody else does fact-checking now. And, and you know, if I was making a lot of mistakes, like really factual errors, none of those people would stay with me. We're very, very careful about it.
But what they use that term vaccine misinformation not to denote something that is factually inaccurate, but rather something that challenges government orthodoxy. And you know that is a very, very odd, as you point out, posture for the press. The press is supposed to be in a constant posture of skepticism towards government, towards powerful conglomerations of wealth and power. Fierce criticism, fierce skepticism. But that is gone now and the role has been reversed where they're supposed to be speaking truth to power, they are defending power to people who challenge it. It's really extraordinary. It's not a good thing in democracy. And it's not, a democracy is not sustainable when you have this level of global media malpractice.
Democracies only function where there is a free flow of information where the best governing policies rise to the top in the marketplace of ideas. And if you stop people from talking about their ideas, it's, you know, what happens? You've got a tyranny and totalitarianism, and you know, the, you know, a uniformity of ideas which is like you know, a religion. It's not democracy and it's not science, it's religion. It's faith and blind faith in undeserving authorities, rather than people doing critical thinking, which you need to do in a democracy.
So those are two of the issues, is the government putting pressure. And the government has tremendous leverage over these companies because the government itself is threatening to remove their section 230 immunity which is an existential threat to those companies. That's the immunity that says you can't sue them for libeling you. So they can print lies and libel and slander about people on their site and nobody can sue them because they say, well we're just a common carrier. We're carrying all this information and we can't fact check everything, so people have to understand, people are going to be putting things on our site that aren't true, misinformation or libelous, you can't sue Mark Zuckerberg for it if somebody puts something libelous about me on his site, I can't sue him. Section 230. And so the government is threatening to take that from them if they don't censor people like me.
BRIAN ROSE: Right.
ROBERT F. KENNEDY, JR: And that's an existential—[inaudible]. And then the third thing I, you know, I think this is the toughest thing for people to swallow, but you really need to read my book and particularly last chapter of the book, but there's a deep involvement of the intelligence agencies in this project.
38:57
[END OF EXCERPT]
You have been a bright light in the darkness “ sir. It is individuals like you that helps one have faith in that all ....is never all lost. The last three years have been an eye opener of how quickly those things we hold dear can be taken away in a blink.
We are reminded again to never take personal liberties for granted and it shows how quickly things can change for the worse when government, public health and intellectual public or non public institutions become flagrantly responsive to fear and biases and/or have policies that profess a narrative that gains from malicious funding.