Host ➝ 00:00:00
To the next person. That’s someone that many people that are listening in have been keen to hear
again, Byram Bridle, who was with us last time in our last presentation. And he’s a viral immunologist
from the University of Guelph in Canada. Byram, are you with us? Can you hear us?
Byram Bridle ➝ 00:00:22
Yes, I am. Thank you for having me
Host ➝ 00:00:25
Yeah, actually we can. Oh, and a very good backdrop. Right, Byram, thanks very much. We are going to be
fascinated to hear what you’re going to talk about today because your last presentation was so
illuminating about how how viruses work and how vaccines treat them. It was an education and a very valuable
one. So turn it over to you if you want. Fire away.
Byram Bridle ➝ 00:01:01
Okay. Thank you very much. All right. I just need to get my presentation up.
Host ➝ 00:01:06
I think the title of your presentation is ‘Answers to outstanding questions about COVID-19 vaccines
that are going to dictate the success or failure of the rollout’, which is top of mind as we’ve
been seeing in the past two presentations.
Byram Bridle ➝ 00:01:23
Exactly. So let me just see here. Okay. Perfect. Yes. So thank you again to the organizers for having me
here. It’s my pleasure to return and give an update about vaccines.
So indeed I presented back in October and that was dealing more with the with whether or not we thought we
would have vaccines ready by now, which obviously we do.
And so now I’d like to talk about, I’ve been asked all kinds of questions about these COVID-19
vaccines. And so what I thought I would do today is I’m going to try and get through this presentation
fairly quickly, because I’d rather have the people attending these talks, you know, have a good
opportunity to ask their questions and I’m happy to try and address any questions to the best of my
Byram Bridle ➝ 00:02:13
And these questions are very important. So what I’m going to do is I’m going to give this
presentation after the first few slides is going to be given as a question and answer type of presentation.
What I’ve done is I’ve taken a handful of the questions
that have probably been asked most often, and I’m going to try and address them as part of this
So that will hopefully address a lot of the questions that that attendees will have. But it certainly
won’t cover them all. So certainly feel free to ask whatever questions you have at the end. So, first of
all, just a disclosure statement because I think it’s very important when people are presenting that you
understand if there’s any potential conflicts of interest. So, first of all, I want to point out that I
am a researcher.
I do a lot of work. I spent my career developing vaccines. I
have never received any research funding from any industry sources. I have received funding from the government
agencies that I have listed here. So we have two federal funding agencies, the Canadian Institutes of Health
Research, and another one, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.
These are actually dedicated towards some basic fundamental research on viral immunology and they, and
developing vaccines for cancers. Now, what I want to point out is that… Oh, and then I had some funding
from the Canada Foundation for Innovation for equipment that I purchased. And then the last two that you see
listed here are actually dedicated towards COVID-19 research.
So I do have a COVID-19 vaccine development program going on. And
the vaccines that we’re developing realistically wouldn’t be able to go into human clinical trials
for at least another year and a half, maybe two years.
Byram Bridle ➝ 00:04:00
So we’re actually designing these as platforms, technological platforms to treat, or try and deal with
future pandemics, which it’s not a question of what, sorry, when I say pandemics, hopefully not
pandemics, but for future outbreaks of novel coronaviruses. And it’s not a question of, will that
happened, but rather when that will happen. So I just wanted to disclose that.
And then as well, I just wanted to point out to you. So I I’m
a viral immunologist. That means I have expertise in the fields of virology and immunology.
And I work at the interface of the two and I’ve spent a lot of time developing vaccination strategies
to prevent infectious diseases and also to treat cancers.
And I really want to point out something here. So I do a lot of teaching and I teach all of my students the
value of high quality in order to have these »inaudible«.
Byram Bridle ➝ 00:04:54
So high quality and well validated vaccines and I very passionately promote their use. Okay. And this is
because vaccines are, in my opinion, by far the most efficient type of medicine that we have. All right. They
cost-effectively save millions of lives around the globe and they save people from both sickness and death.
And as a consequence for the sake of global health, we absolutely
need people to maintain faith in vaccines in general. We don’t want to see a resurgence of
diseases such as tuberculosis, right? That are otherwise relatively well-controlled in most parts of the
And so with that said, I just want to differentiate two terms we’ve been hearing a lot about during
- One is anti-vaxxers. And usually when that term is used,
it’s often referring to people who tend to hold an extremely negative view of all vaccines, regardless
of what the scientific data has to say about them.
- But I want to highlight that vaccine hesitancy is very,
very different. And a lot of people who have the vaccine hesitancy are being made to feel very bad these
days, right? It’s as though if they were simply educated enough about vaccines, then they would have no
problem with these COVID-19 vaccines. But that’s not the case. That’s not the definition,
certainly that I use. These are individuals instead who are unsure of their commitment to taking a vaccine.
And it’s usually because of outstanding questions. So in other words, the onus is not on the
individual. It’s not that the individual simply needs to be educated. We have, there’s lots of
people who are very deep thinkers about this, doing their own research about the COVID-19 vaccines and coming
up with very legitimate questions.
We’re in a unique situation with these vaccines.
There’s questions that are unanswered now that were never unanswered at this point for previous
Byram Bridle ➝ 00:06:49
And so rather than the onus being on the individuals, I would argue
the onus is on the manufacturers and the health regulatory agencies and our governments to provide answers to
these legitimate questions that many people have.
And in fact, that’s what I want to focus on today are some of these what I consider to be very
legitimate questions that people have. Okay. And I also want to point out that as a public servant, I work at a
university. I’m an associate professor. And so I’m within the academic center or a sector.
I’m paid out of tax dollars. And I have a lot of expertise in developing vaccines.
So as a consequence, I view it as my personal responsibility to
highlight what these outstanding questions are for people and to do my best to provide fact-based assessments
of their potential implications.
Byram Bridle ➝ 00:07:37
All right. So that’s the background leading into this talk.
And then I just want to, in one slide, just very briefly go over at a very high level, how vaccines work,
So we’re talking about COVID-19 vaccines. So again, COVID-19 is the disease. The disease is caused in
some people and certainly not all. The disease is caused by a virus known as SARS-coronavirus-two. So what
these COVID-19 vaccines, what we’re vaccinating against is the virus, the SARS-coronavirus-two, and any
vaccine has to provide two things to an individual.
So when given a vaccine, the two things that are required for the immune system to respond to that is first,
the vaccine must contain either the virus or a piece or multiple pieces of the virus in this case,
SARS-coronavirus-two. So in the context of the vaccines that we’ve heard probably most about, which is
Pfizer and Moderna, these are, we call messenger RNA vaccines.
They have a little piece of genetic material that when it gets inside a cell, it uses the machinery in our
cells to produce a protein. So what these are targeting is a single piece of the virus.
And that piece of the virus is known as the spike protein, or the S
protein. The spike protein is called that because when you see the virus under a high-powered
microscope, it has all kinds of spike-like structures that stick out from its surface.
And the virus uses these spikes to bind to our cells and enter our cells. So in fact, all of the front runner vaccines are targeting the single piece of the virus, this
spike protein. And then the second thing that a vaccine has to provide is what we call a danger signal.
So many of you may have heard, for example, the the term adjuvent.
So often vaccines will contain an adjuvant, and that provides a danger signal. Our immune system will not
simply, it doesn’t just automatically respond to a target because for example, we don’t want to
have autoimmune diseases, right?
So we don’t want to respond to self. So as a consequence, we require the second signal, our immune
system will only respond to a piece of the virus if it’s accompanied by a dangerous signal. So it tells
her immune system that that target is dangerous and therefore worth responding to, and any good vaccine, a
well-designed vaccine should simulate the natural infection with that virus.
And if it does a proper job of simulating the natural infection, it will induce an appropriate immune
response. That’s important because there’s two very
different types of immune responses that we can generate.
One is very good at getting rid of pathogens that live outside of our cells, such as bacteria.
And then there’s the responses that we want against SARS-coronavirus-two. That uses effector
mechanisms that are very good against the pathogens that get inside our cells.
And the mechanisms that are used to target those two very different types of pathogens are very
So that’s why I say we want the vaccines to induce an appropriate response. An inappropriate response could either be non protective or even dangerous. It
could actually promote things like vaccine enhanced disease.
So the next thing and the reason, so the reason why a vaccine works when they’re well-designed is when
the person actually becomes infected with the virus itself for the first time, that person’s immune
system thinks it’s seeing the virus for the second time.
And this is because all vaccines are designed to induce what we call immunological memory. So our immune
systems remember what they’ve seen in the past.
Byram Bridle ➝ 00:11:25
So if you use a vaccine to induce a response against the virus at the end of that vaccination regimen, if
it’s worked properly, you’ll be left with immunological memory. Your immune system will remember
what that piece of the virus looked like.
And for all the current vaccines, again, that’s a spike protein. So to remember what that spike
protein looked like, then when you first get exposed to SARS-coronavirus-two, your body should respond to it
based on this immunological memory.
Once you have immunological memory, this second exposure to the target, which again, would be the first time
you’re actually seeing the virus is what we call a secondary response.
And secondary responses are much faster, and they’re also much more robust. They’re so fast and
have such high magnitude that usually you can clear the virus before it can cause any damage to the body.
Byram Bridle ➝ 00:12:16
And therefore, and that’s why a vaccinated individual ideally will not experience disease. So
that’s if the vaccines work properly. And importantly, you know, you’ve already been hearing a lot
about this in the, in the talk today, herd immunity, and so indeed, vaccination is considered a safe way to accelerate progress towards herd
And what that means in a nutshell is shown by this figure over here. So you’ll see all these yellow
colored people in this population. So in this diagram, the people in yellow are those who have been vaccinated.
All right. So they’ve received the vaccine.
The people in blue here are people who have not received the vaccine, all right, and are therefore
susceptible to infection. And then the people in red, these ones have the coronavirus, right? So they’re
actively infected. So this is what we’re all aiming for. Every country in the world.
Byram Bridle ➝ 00:13:12
Right now, we want to have enough people in yellow. So people who are immune to the SARS-coronavirus-two.
Such that the few people who might get infected within the population, chances are these people, although
they’re infected, chances are they are going to physically encounter people who are immune.
And that literally serves as a physical barrier preventing the virus from being able to get to those who are
non-immune and susceptible to infection, right? So this is the concept, and this is why we can get rid of this
virus by having most people immune to it.
But we do not need to get everybody immune to it. And it’s because of this phenomenon right here.
Okay. So that’s the goal. Now, this actually is a follow on to the first talk that I gave at the first
international COVID-19 symposium. And at that time I, you know, I’ve been questioned about this quite a
bit, which is interesting.
Byram Bridle ➝ 00:14:12
So, because my take was that there’s no way. There was no way
that we would reasonably have good, well-vetted COVID-19 vaccines available now and available within a year
from the beginning of the pandemic.
And that’s because traditionally vaccines took about 10 years to traverse the clinical trial pipeline.
And in fact, the previous record was, and I have it in quotes now, because now you might argue, it’s not
as astounding, but it was an astounding four years. And that was by the company Merck. And that was for an
And so, but what I do want to point out is for those of us who were asked to comment on what the typical
timeline is yes, we were way off in terms of how quickly these vaccines have now been rolled out.
But this is because these COVID-19 vaccines have reached the public
rollout phase by, and I’ll say it in quotes, “cutting corners.” And by cutting
corners, I’m not implying that people were skipping key steps, although honestly, there could be some
potential questions around that.
Byram Bridle ➝ 00:15:18
But what I mean by this is when we were asked to comment previously on how long it takes these vaccines to
be developed, that was based on the understanding that the roll out would follow the typical timeline, which is
that companies would complete phase three clinical trials, and then they would conduct the analysis.
They put together the reports, they publish the data, and these reports would go to the regulatory agencies.
And then the regulatory approval itself could take quite some time. That certainly has been dramatically
shortened. And then they would be approved.
So in this case, none of us were expecting, I don’t think,
that the vaccines would be rolled out very early on in the phase three clinical trials. So the phase three
trials are not done. So in essence, what this means is the public rollout right now is an extension of the
phase three clinical trial.
Byram Bridle ➝ 00:16:04
So those being vaccinated now are, whether they realize it or not,
part of the phase three experiment, the part of a vaccination experiment and the companies have
openly acknowledged this in their reports to the regulatory agencies, because, for example, there’s a
minimum period of time for which they have to track things like the safety of the vaccine.
And indeed they’ve even indicated that. So most people, you know, we’re used to as scientists, usually being able to see published
scientifically peer-reviewed data before the vaccines are rolled out. And this won’t happen for probably
for about two more years.
And the reason for this is because it’s going to take that long to complete the phase three clinical
trials, because a phase three clinical trial, it can not be declared
complete until they have monitored the safety of the vaccine for multiple years.
Byram Bridle ➝ 00:17:02
Okay. So this is important to keep in mind. So as a consequence, these have been approved in a remarkable time, but that alone has raised some
legitimate questions that are unique to these coronavirus vaccines.
And also I want to highlight that the nature of the virus itself – and I’ll get into this in a
little bit – and as well, some very perplexing decisions about
the rollout are raising additional questions that I would consider quite legitimate.
So I guess my prelude to this now is COVID-19 vaccines have indeed raised hopes that the pandemic is nearing
an end. And I like all others, you know, are hopeful that this is the case, because we’d all like to get
out of these severe lockdowns or just the general isolation that we’re in.
And so we all hope that this is gonna be true, but there, I want to highlight some potential sticking
Byram Bridle ➝ 00:17:58
Okay. Because again, as an academic scientist and a public servant, I hope that the end is near, but I
don’t want anybody if the vaccine rollout does not go as planned, I don’t want anybody left asking
the question, you know, why didn’t anybody tell me that there was a possibility of failure of the
So I just want to highlight now through a series of questions and answers, what these potential sticking
points might be.
And I also just want to point out that… The first one is, and this has been alluded to, in some of the
previous presentations, right?
What is the long-term safety of COVID-19 vaccines? So,
again, as I just mentioned, these COVID-19 vaccines are being distributed with uniquely short safety profiles,
Byram Bridle ➝ 00:18:55
So again, these vaccines didn’t exist you know, 10 months ago and as a consequence, and that, of
course, and then they had to go through a series of trials and the last trial is the phase three clinical
These are the large trials where these vaccines have to demonstrate that they’re safe. All of the
safety assessment begins in the phase one clinical trial. So they have to show confirmation of safety and they
have to show that they work.
So what this means is these vaccines have been rolled out with only
months worth of data. So in the ballpark of about three months for these vaccines, right? So we know
that they have that the short-term safety profiles look, look pretty good, right. And that’s why they
Byram Bridle ➝ 00:19:36
However, and this was mentioned as well. There’s some things that have been occurring and it tends to
be in a very small percentage of vaccine recipients, right? The previous speaker was talking about this.
Especially as individuals, you have to do your own risk assessment when it comes to vaccines.
Clearly I agree with the previous speaker, 100%. For example, with children, there’s no question.
Children, especially children under 10 are at greater risk of dying
from the annual flu than they are SARS-coronavirus-two. So I have very little concerns for
But if you’re, if you are very elderly, there’s no question that SARS-coronavirus-two can be
quite dangerous. So everybody has to make their own personal
assessments, personal risk versus benefit assessments.
But what I do want to highlight is even on the very first day of the roll out of the first approved
Byram Bridle ➝ 00:20:29
The first day that it was that the Pfizer vaccine was used in the
United Kingdom, there was demonstration of anaphylactic reactions, And this wasn’t found in the clinical
trials, the phase three clinical trial. And this is a life-threatening condition.
It’s basically an allergic response. And you can get closure of the airways and the lungs, and it can
be life-threatening. And it usually occurs within minutes, within minutes of receiving a, whatever it is that
would cause this reaction. So in this case, the vaccines.
So the people who’ve had these anaphylactic reactions develop them within, it’s usually within
one to two minutes or one to three minutes. It can be very quick. And so, as a consequence, a lot of these
vaccines now have to be rolled out at centers. Depends on the country, but many countries now want them to be
rolled out in centers where there’s the potential to resuscitate
individuals who might collapse with an anaphylactic reaction.
Byram Bridle ➝ 00:21:31
And obviously, whether or not, you know, this is a very small percentage, but this obviously has important
optics for those who do have vaccine hesitancy.
And then there’s some interesting data that’s been emerging. So in Norway, there’s investigations about some frail elderly individuals
that died shortly after receiving the Pfizer vaccine. Now it’s important to know that this is a
very, there’s a very specific definition for those that we call frail elderly. They usually have multiple
pre-existing conditions, and they tend to be very sensitive to side effects of therapies.
So it’s not all, it’s not just the general elderly population. Okay. And then more recently,
it’s interesting, there was an open letter that was published and you also may notice whenever
there’s these highlighted terms, the hosts of this event are welcome to share this presentation with anybody who wants it.
Byram Bridle ➝ 00:22:28
And so wherever you see these highlights, I have links to sources that provide data to back this up.
So the, in the UK, there’s an open letter from physicians where they’ve been concerned because
they’ve actually seen an increase in non COVID, so deaths that are not directly caused by the
SARS-coronavirus-two. So these non COVID deaths in long term care homes, compared to before the vaccines
were rolled out.
Now, one of the things I want to point out again, relatively small numbers, we know the population, you
know, again, is focused on the frail elderly. And one of the things I do want to highlight is it’s very
difficult to ascertain the reason for for deaths, post vaccination deaths, or any adverse effect that might not
be associated with death as well. And the reason for this of course is after vaccination life goes on.
Byram Bridle ➝ 00:23:19
And what I mean by that is after somebody has been vaccinated, there are hundreds, probably thousands of
other variables that occur in their day-to-day life that could have contributed to the problem. So it’s
very difficult. So the only way we can really determine if it’s related to the vaccine often is just is
with a large body of data that allows you to generate a very strong correlation. Okay.
But what I think what’s obvious here regardless is if these
vaccines over time were to accrue a track record of causing too many severe, overly severe unpredicted side
effects, this could potentially be cause for withdrawal of a vaccine.
So that’s the point here. Now I have been asked as well. So is there any historical precedent for
long-term consequences emerging. Or, because many people have the understanding that if the short term safety
profile is okay, probably there isn’t going to be any long term problem, but indeed there is.
Byram Bridle ➝ 00:24:22
So in fact, it was also from a pandemic, the swine flu pandemic that was declared in 2023. So this was kind
In Europe, and it was intended to be mainly specific to Europe. There was a specific version of this swine
flu vaccine, known as Pandemrix, that was distributed in Europe.
And what was noticed is after about two years there was an
accumulation of data suggesting that there was a 14 fold and seven fold increase in what’s called
narcolepsy in children and adolescents.
So they had the children, the younger ones had the 14 fold increase. Adults had a sevenfold increase, and
narcolepsy is a chronic sleep disorder where people experience overwhelming fatigue. And often they’ll
get this sudden loss of muscle tone as well.
And it’s thought to be probably caused by autoimmunity against neurons in the brain.
Byram Bridle ➝ 00:25:19
And one of the places actually, where this stood out the most was it was in Finland. Now, what I want to
point out is, again, as longer term it again, because because life goes on and it’s hard to make a direct
link between a vaccine and some kind of outcome. It took a large accumulation of data. So it took about two
years before there was sufficient data for this to start becoming reasonably obvious.
And then you can even see the paper here, reporting this, wasn’t published until 2012, and this is
dealing with a pandemic in 2023, right? So it took about three years before this problem to be identified.
So yes, there are examples potentially of longer-term consequences
emerging. Now here’s another one that’s very important. People have been asking me and I
mean, they really need to ask the vaccine manufacturers, right?
Byram Bridle ➝ 00:26:05
What is the duration of immunity of these COVID-19 vaccines?
So again, if we harken back to what I was talking about with the typical timeline for generating a vaccine,
which was historically in the ballpark of 10 years, that meant by definition that by the time we were rolling
out these vaccines, we knew that these vaccines would confer long-term immunity, right?
We’d be confident these vaccines could protect individuals for multiple years. And so what duration of
immunity is in its essence is how long a person’s protected after they’ve been vaccinated. So once
you’ve received the vaccine, a COVID-19 vaccine, how long will you be from SARS-coronavirus-two.
Now, because these vaccines have been rolled out so rapidly. Again,
we only have a few months worth of duration of immunity data. All right. And so far so good.
It’s three months out, these vaccines seem to be maintaining a good magnitude of immunity, but
here’s the potential problem.
Byram Bridle ➝ 00:27:11
If that immunity were to decline. And in other words, if individuals were to start to lose protection, the
protection conferred by that vaccine before herd immunity is achieved the previously vaccinated individuals
– so in other words, for individuals who are already vaccinated if it takes another, let’s say 10
months to get everybody else in your country vaccinated, but the duration of immunity happens to only be six
months – that means that that by the time the individuals are being vaccinated towards the latter part of
the rollout in your country, you who were vaccinated early on are now susceptible again. And the virus is just simply going to start circulating through that population that
was vaccinated early.
This is one of the reasons why everybody’s struggling to get these vaccines ruled out quickly.
Now, this is one that could potentially be controversial, but again, the conclusion I think is just common
sense at the end.
Byram Bridle ➝ 00:28:15
Are COVID-19 vaccines as effective as we have been told. And
I’ve been asked this quite a bit because people have been noticing different things coming up in the
news. So we know that the public declarations of effectiveness for Moderna and Pfizer were more than 90%.
In fact, with their two dose regimens, each of them had about 95% effectiveness. Now, one of the things that
I want to highlight, which has been unfortunate for the optics here, is Pfizer did not publicly disclose any
point, meaning they did not disclose this in any media release. They also published an interim, a paper on
interim results from their phase three study.
And it wasn’t indicated in that publication, right? So they
never disclosed that the numbers of suspected, but unconfirmed cases of COVID-19 were excluded from their
calculation of efficacy.
Byram Bridle ➝ 00:29:09
Now. So what I mean is their 95% effectiveness was calculated based on 170 people, volunteers in their
trial, naturally acquiring COVID-19. And it turned out that just a handful of those that got COVID-19 were in
the vaccinated group.
The majority were in the unvaccinated group, that’s where
they got this 95% effectiveness, right? So 95% of the time people would, that were vaccinated, 95% of
them would not get COVID-19.
However, so that was 170 people. However, they failed to disclose that there were thousands who were
excluded from this efficacy calculation. And that’s because for some reason we still don’t know why
they were unconfirmed. As you can see, there were suspected, but unconfirmed.
They didn’t have this PCR test that you might’ve heard about where you get the swab. And then
the test looks directly for whether or not the virus is present in your body.
Byram Bridle ➝ 00:30:09
So this was the confirmation wasn’t done. And this was only revealed in a summary
report that was issued later by the United States food and drug
administration, their health regulatory agency.
Now it’s interesting as a re-analysis with these new data taken into account was
actually performed by the associate editor of the British Medical Journal. Now just called the BMJ. Alright. I
do want to point out this is a non peer reviewed opinion letter. Okay.
But their new estimate taking into account that these
unconfirmed cases actually predicts that the effectiveness could be as low as 19 to 29%, which is a
But again, I want to highlight this can neither be confirmed or refuted until raw data are released to the
scientific community. However, I was intrigued by this because this, this letter was published in mid January
and the FDA held their meeting December 10th in 2020.
Byram Bridle ➝ 00:31:04
And I was asked leading up to that, I was provided with a copy of this document, this briefing document that the FDA used, and I’ve pulled out an excerpt here, which you might be
interested in. So this is from the FDA briefing document. This is a paragraph found in page 42. And I was asked
by members of the media, if I could go through this document and highlight if I had any concerns.
And I highlighted the areas where I concern. And interestingly, as you can see here, I highlighted exactly
what this associate editor of the British Medical Journal highlighted as well, which is indeed there were 3,410
total cases of suspected, but unconfirmed people with COVID-19, right, in the study.
And if you look here, this is why the editor and I, you know, prior to that were concerned.
The different, the number that occurred in each of the groups, the
vaccinated versus unvaccinated group is much closer than what they got with the 170 people that had confirmed
cases of COVID-19.
Byram Bridle ➝ 00:32:05
And that’s where that calculation came in from the associate editor that the efficacy might actually
be much lower.
I also want to point out this vaccine hasn’t been approved yet, but out of China, there’s a
company Sinovac Biotech. And again, what happened is there were clinical trials being run in Brazil and
early on, these researchers reported pretty impressive effectiveness
again, 78% effectiveness.
But what was remarkable is the same researchers much more recently
updated this data to indicate that the effectiveness was only 50.3%.
And it turned out that they were being, I guess, you know, encouraged because of legal documents that they
had signed confidentiality, you know, agreements and everything, they were unable to release data with the
earlier prediction of effectiveness. They did not include, again, a
number of people who actually had COVID-19 but the cases were deemed mild to moderate.
Byram Bridle ➝ 00:33:09
Okay. And then when they were included that this effectiveness dropped to this just over 50%. So I want to point out that the World Health Organization like most regulatory
agencies around the world agreed upfront that they would approve vaccines if they were 50%
So the whole point is here, I’m not saying who’s right, and who’s wrong. Right. I just
want to look at the facts. All I know is that if, if right, that’s the big thing here, if the efficacy of
any of these vaccines is less than advertised, then obviously they’re going to underperform relative to
our expectations. So that’s just fact.
Now, this is a very important one, and this is one that people actually get quite passionate about. I really
don’t understand what’s going on here. Why is it even an issue, but people have asked me, you know, what are the risks of using COVID-19 vaccine in
ways for which they were not approved?
Byram Bridle ➝ 00:34:08
So again, the way a vaccine works is researchers have to agree upfront with a protocol for using their
vaccine. This is agreed upon with the regulatory agencies.
And this makes sure there can be no biases in the study after the fact. So you, you design your strategy and
then you run the strategy and the clinical trial.
And if all goes well, that strategy that you’ve tested gets approved and traditionally no change in that strategy should occur. Unless you repeat a phase
three clinical study with those revisions made with the alterations made to that protocol.
If you run a phase three clinical trial with a different version of the protocol, and it proves to be safe
and effective, it will be approved. Then you’ll have more than one protocol that came to be approved.
Byram Bridle ➝ 00:35:04
However, we only have one protocol out there that’s been
approved for the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, and also some are now using the Oxford vaccine.
But yet people are looking at changing these from the approved two dose regimens to single dose regimens.
They’re also looking at combining the vaccines from different manufacturers.
They’re also looking at altering the intervals between these, and I understand this because it’s
proving to be very difficult to roll out these two dose vaccine regimens.
There’s a lot of logistical issues. So that’s why people are looking at this. All right.
However, I can’t emphasize this enough, and you don’t just have to believe me. If you go to the
well-respected United States Food and Drug Administration, they
absolutely are telling everybody with absolute certainty do not change the approved protocol. Okay.
Because the reported effectiveness of these vaccines only holds true, right.
Byram Bridle ➝ 00:36:02
Beginning one to two weeks after the second immunization, right? That effectiveness data that I was just
talking about, that’s based on once your immune response is peaked, which depending on which vaccine
you’re getting is one to two weeks after that dose. That’s when you can expect that
And that’s only going to hold true if you have used the recommended interval and dose, okay.
Performance and safety of these vaccines cannot obviously cannot be
guaranteed if administered in any way different from the way in which they obtain regulatory approval. I
can’t emphasize this enough.
If something goes wrong with these vaccines, if they don’t perform as well as expected, if
there’s some kind of a safety issue, think about it. The
manufacturer is not gonna take responsibility. The health regulatory agencies, aren’t gonna take
responsibility. They’ve told us how they should be used.
Byram Bridle ➝ 00:36:56
And if we don’t use them that way, we’re gonna be the ones responsible for the outcome. And I
just want to give you an example.
So in Israel, they decided to go with a single dose regimen, which was interesting because the reported
effectiveness for the Pfizer vaccine was publicized at 52%. So they thought, okay, this is, this is over what
we had agreed on more than 50% effectiveness. So we’ll just do a single dose. We get twice as many people
If you haven’t seen the headlines, they have been quite unimpressed with the effectiveness. They argue
that it is under performed relative to this to this percentage here. But again, this vaccine was not, it was
tested as a two dose regimen. There’s very limited data between those two intervals that that suggested
that it might be 52% effective.
Byram Bridle ➝ 00:37:47
Again, it wasn’t recommended to be used as a single dose regimen. So it’s not surprising.
And I can’t emphasize this enough, deviations in the
protocols for using these vaccines should not be tolerated. All right, unless backed up by phase three
But if you’re to receive a vaccine as an individual, I would insist on having it administered as it was approved.
Now, this is interesting. One of the, presumably one of the attendees today. So they were the people who
intended to attend this sent this information to me and asked if I could comment on it. And I found this was, I
was actually very surprised when they sent this.
So what this is, this is this taken from a report from the United kingdom’s regulatory agency, health
regulatory agency. And it’s just reporting potential side effects that have been associated with the
Byram Bridle ➝ 00:38:42
They’re not saying there’s a cause and effect relationship or anything. Just things that have
been associated with. They’re summarizing the data. But what I was very surprised to see as this
individual was who sent this data, is that there’s these
pregnant individuals that have been vaccinated. Now, it’s very well possible that it wasn’t
known that these people were pregnant at the time that they were vaccinated. Right.
But what I want to point out here, which I am personally concerned about is as a scientist, I know
it’s only four people. Okay. Only four out of a total of eight people that have been confirmed in the UK
to have been vaccinated and to have been pregnant. So it’s low numbers, right. But four of these
individuals experience spontaneous abortions. Okay. So again,
we’re not supposed to be using these vaccines in individuals who are pregnant.
Byram Bridle ➝ 00:39:36
It hasn’t been tested for use in that indication. And when I see these numbers, if I were a pregnant female, I wouldn’t like the perception of, you know,
half of these people who were, who received the vaccine, having a spontaneous abortion. Again, whether,
whether it was… Again, life went on after this vaccination, it could have been due to any other number of
events in their lives.
The point being, there are a growing number of headlines that I’m concerned about, which is
proposing vaccination of pregnant individuals and/or children. The
vaccines have not been approved for this. So this absolutely should not be done without a demonstration of
safety and efficacy in a phase three clinical trial.
Now, some potential things that could be sticking points for these vaccines. What I want to do now is
highlight some things very important here.
Byram Bridle ➝ 00:40:34
And actually what I’m gonna, because I actually want to do this in a different order.
One final thing. I am very concerned about the emergence of
SARS-coronavirus-two variants. Very concerned about this in the context of the vaccines.
Several of these have been identified. It started out actually with variants coming out of mink. Many of you
may have heard of that, right. Farm mink were getting infected by people with the SARS-coronavirus-two. And
then the mink were reinfecting people. And some of these mink, the version of the virus that was coming out of
the mink was different than the parental virus.
So a new variant, and you’ve probably heard, you know, now we’ve identified several others,
including the United Kingdom variant, the South African variant. Okay. And this is to be expected. This is not
unusual. We know the coronaviruses do this. Just so that you understand a little bit of the virology here,
coronaviruses are designed to copy their genetic material in a way
that inherently induces random mutations.
Byram Bridle ➝ 00:41:40
All right, they’re constantly having these random mutations occurring. This is a way for this virus to potentially adapt to new micro environments that
it finds itself in.
To improve its fitness. If it finds itself in an environment in which it has lost fitness. Now this, because
this is random, our ability to engage the risk of emergence of mutants that can evade vaccine induced immunity
cannot not be accurately quantified. But, and I’m actually gonna summarize all this that I have here in a
bit of a different way. Let me put it in this perspective for you.
I’m a researcher. I focused my career on developing ways to maximize the probability of an outcome
occurring. Usually I’m trying to maximize the potential for a vaccine to treat cancers or prevent
But if you were to ask me as a scientist, how would I design an
experiment that would maximize our chance of generating a highly immuno evasive variant of the
My answer would be essentially the exact way we’re rolling
out these vaccines, precisely the way they’re rolling out these vaccines.
And I just want to highlight this. So what do I mean by that, as a scientist, there’s kind of
three key things that I would want in my experimental design if I
wanted to maximize the chance of generating a variant that can evade all of our current COVID-19
First of all, I would want the vaccine to be rolled out very
slowly. Secondly, I would want that vaccine to be distributed
in a piecemeal fashion. So just vaccinating a few people over here and a few people over there, disperse
through the populations.
And again, making sure this is done very slowly. So we have a slow and gradual increase and the geographical
coverage of the ever-growing immunity against SARS-coronavirus-two.
Byram Bridle ➝ 00:43:47
All the while these people that have been vaccinated are surrounded by people who are not immune. And
therefore conserve is what we call a reservoir population. This means this is the population in which the virus
All the time, the virus is going to be randomly generating these mutations. And that virus then is these
people come into relatively close contact with the vaccinated individuals.
These random mutants can probe their potential to infect these
And if they haven’t randomly acquired a mutation, it allows them to, infect that individual, then
there’s going to be no infection, but they’re still going to circulate in that population of
non-immune people. And it’s probably just a matter of time before there is a random mutation that does
allow them to infect those individuals. And those viruses will be very
problematic because they will have evaded the vaccine induced immunity.
Byram Bridle ➝ 00:44:41
Now, the third thing that I would do to ensure that that this could be maximized, this opportunity for the
virus, a problematic variant to emerge, is I would make sure that the vaccine that I was using was conferring very narrowly focused immunity.
A previous speaker actually talked about this, right? When we naturally get infected, our immune system will
respond to multiple components of the virus. But honestly, and you know I’m involved with the
SARS-coronavirus-two vaccine development.
We have been short-sighted generally speaking as the scientific
community. We knew these viruses from the get-go could mutate, but we decided to focus primarily on the spike
protein, a single component.
Now, the reason why is, again, as I said, the spike protein is what allows the virus to get into our
So the idea is if you could generate antibodies against the spike protein, and then it can’t bind to
our cells and we can’t get infected.
But if we’re targeting, if you think about it, it’s
much easier for a virus to fundamentally alter one protein in its structure. It’s going to be far
more difficult for that virus to alter multiple components of its structure and maintain fitness.
And so that’s the other thing. So we’re talking narrowly focused immunity. So we are only asking this virus to change one protein in order to be able to
evade these vaccines.
So I’ve heard it said that maybe places like New Zealand, I don’t want to be the bearer of bad
news here. I just want people to be aware of the possibility and maybe I’m wrong and hopefully I’m
wrong. But knowing the virus, knowing these vaccines, knowing these
two areas of science, I am quite confident that it’s just a matter of time before we will have a
number of variants that can readily bypass this narrowly focused immunity that these vaccines
Byram Bridle ➝ 00:46:43
So if that’s true, then a country like New Zealand, which has
isolated itself and may not have substantial, naturally acquired immunity, which is gonna be very broad and is
relying on these vaccines, may be able to vaccinate their population.
But if the rest of the world has these variants circulating, all
those vaccinated individuals are gonna be susceptible to these variants that don’t care about that spike
protein specific immunity anymore.
And and you may, as a population, have wanted much more broad
immunity that’s conferred by natural natural acquisition of immunity, meaning you acquire the infection
and clear it. So I’m very concerned about this.
And you might say, you know, is this, you know, am I completely wrong? No, we have evidence of this already.
For those of you who don’t know, a very scary report came out of South Africa just this month, Monday of
this week. Tuesday, I guess, in New Zealand time.
Byram Bridle ➝ 00:47:43
But the point is a phase three clinical trial was conducted in South Africa using the Oxford vaccine, which
had been approved for use in the United Kingdom. And they did not
approve, you didn’t hear this, they did not approve the vaccine because it failed to provide proper
protection against the South African variant. So we already have an example of a variant that’s widely
circulating around the globe that can evade the Oxford vaccines conferred immunity.
And so, arguably, it’s just a matter of time before we will
have variants that can bypass this narrow immunity conferred by all of these vaccines. I hope I’m
wrong, but I really don’t think that I am.
Now, just before I get to your questions, this is very important because I don’t want this to be
potentially just all bad news.
So the other question then is can herd immunity still be achieved
if any of these problems do result in failure of the vaccine rollout?
Byram Bridle ➝ 00:48:38
And my answer to that is probably, and again, you’ve been hearing about this from the other speakers,
right? And this is because most people that have been infected with
SARS-CoV-2 have indeed acquired natural immunity. And we know now there’s lots of published reports that
this is protective.
It can protect them from reinfection, not always, but it can. One thing I want to point out, I noticed there
was a question people are wondering, can some of these new variants, infect, people who were vaccinated, a
logical run onto that would be, if you were infected with the parental virus, the originals variant of the
SARS-CoV-2, and cleared that infection, and are now immune to it, could you be reinfected with one of these
variants? Yes. It very well likely you could, but natural immunity is
So if a new variant infects, chances are that the immunity you have
is going to blunt that infection, where is if you have that narrowly focused immunity conferred by the vaccine,
and this variant has evaded that spike protein specific immunity, those people are going to be at much greater
risk of more severe disease than those who acquire the new variant, but have this broad acting natural
And there’s even evidence, interestingly, that those with
preexisting immunity against other coronaviruses, including the SARS coronavirus one from 17 years ago, and
even from some of the cold causing coronaviruses, can cross protect some people.
So this is the sweet evidence that natural immunity can be pretty
good. I actually kind of laugh when I see these publications coming out, because this is kind of immunology 101
that I teach all my students. This is what our immune systems are designed to do.
That’s why we have them. So the fact is this really isn’t new science. Okay. But this is the
problem, and this is what I would highlight for those in New Zealand.
We’re now more than a year into the pandemic. Most countries
at the beginning of pandemic decided they’re not going to go for rapid acquisition of natural immunity.
Instead we are going to slow it down or try and prevent it altogether and wait for the vaccines to accomplish
But for example, the country I’m in, in Canada, we’re in lockdown right now, but we had our
students go back to school for quite some time, actually, just now they’re there. They’ve just gone
back again after a second lockdown. We’ve had a lot of people go back to work.
Byram Bridle ➝ 00:51:01
The reality is we’ve probably acquired quite a lot of
natural herd immunity. We’re probably much closer to herd immunity than we even appreciate.
And certainly much closer than we were, which was zero.
We had zero natural immunity essentially at the beginning of the
pandemic. But if you have gone with an isolationist policy, strict isolationist policy, you might have low
levels of natural herd immunity. And indeed also we’ve done a very poor job of tracking that. So
we really don’t know how close or how far in most countries we are from natural herd immunity.
But you’ve also been hearing the other speakers talking about that. This probably, you know, we
probably should have adopted more of this earlier on, and then we’d be in a much better place should some
of these dangerous variants come out. Okay.
So again, I can’t emphasize this more either, acquisition of
natural immunity by an ever-growing number of people happily means that fewer people will require vaccination
to reach herd immunity.
Byram Bridle ➝ 00:51:59
It’s crazy in Canada, we’re not bothering to test
people for preexisting immunity before vaccinating them. We don’t have nearly enough doses.
It’s gonna take months and months to get everybody vaccinated.
And our leaders have told us that it’s too difficult. It’s too time consuming to test for
pre-existing immunity. That’s not true. Because if somebody, the point is, if somebody is already immune,
then the limited doses that we have to go around could be used to protect those who have no evidence of
Then we’re gonna achieve herd immunity faster. All right. And again, like I said this ties in natural
immunity equals broader immunity, and these people should be less susceptible to reinfection if any, immuno of
SARS-CoV-2 variants emerge.
So I’m going to stop there and will be happy to answer any questions.
Host ➝ 00:52:47
Thanks, Byram, wonderful presentation. To be honest, I’m slightly lost for words in terms of the
problems that we headed into and disappointed that these vaccines aren’t quite as they appeared to be. So
we’ve got some questions that have come up. There’s a lot, as you might imagine. I think you did
deal with a lot of them in your presentation. Thank you.
And I want to reiterate where you started from, which was we’re totally in support of vaccines in
principle and certainly wished and wished for a vaccine or vaccines that will work for SARS-CoV-2.
Do you think there will be more efficient vaccines or more effective vaccines down the line? I mean, other
people are working on them. Will more come? Single dose ones, you know, and just more effective.
Byram Bridle ➝ 00:53:43
Yes, absolutely. There’s no question that we are going to have. So again, like I said, so we now have
the evidence with what I just talked about with the Oxford vaccine, where we have already the South African
variant that can evade that.
I honestly believe it’s just a matter of time before a
variant will emerge, that can bypass the immunity conferred by the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines and others that
we may come up with because they’re too narrowly focused.
So if that happens, there’s two potential solutions. You
could simply go back and swap in the new spike protein from the new variant, but that’s not going to
solve the long-term problem. Because then another variant will emerge. That will probably evade that
So to me, a better solution is we should have done this from the
get-go, because again, we knew about this viral biology, right?
So arguably we should have been incorporating multiple targets into
the vaccines, because again, it’s very difficult for a virus to make substantial changes to multiple
proteins and still maintain its fitness.
So those are the vaccines that I think in the future are going to be most effective, but, you know,
we’ve come so far down the road. I mean, to do those now means going and putting those through all the
clinical trial phase again.
So I think that’s really, unfortunately, probably going to be more of a solution for well in the
future. I totally agree with the other speakers. We’re going to have to live. And I’ve been
preaching this for a long time, right. We should have a long time ago
have been learning how to live with this virus. There’s no question in my mind, and we’re
seeing these variants.
Byram Bridle ➝ 00:55:29
So what this is, this is very much like influenza viruses, where we see the exact same thing. That’s why we need to get a flu vaccine every year, because every year new
variants emerge. That’s another virus that readily mutates. So this coronavirus is almost certainly going
to become like the annual influenza virus.
We’re going to see variants continually emerge in the future, and we’re going to continually
have to tweak our vaccines to deal with them. That’s how I see it.
And then in the meantime, we want to try and develop vaccines that can prevent us from having to do this on
an annual basis, right. With a do target large components. We would refer to these, in the context and
influenza vaccines, we refer to them that the ultimate goal is to develop what we call a universal influenza
Byram Bridle ➝ 00:56:18
So we get one vaccine and we’re going to be protected from most of the variants that are going to
emerge in the future. So that’s one thing.
And then again, the other one that people really have been really hesitant to talk about, but now we have
the data, right, is again, we know that the vast majority of people
are not susceptible to severe, certainly lethal COVID-19. So the other approach is naturally acquired immunity.
I do think that most people could, and had we had to hop to this strategy, most countries could probably be
very close to herd immunity right now.
Having naturally acquired it without a whole lot of deaths and
severe illness, because most people are not susceptible.
So most of the people at working age could have been back at work.
Byram Bridle ➝ 00:57:05
Most of our kids could have been back in school in face-to-face learning. Acquiring this natural immunity,
there’s probably a fair bit of it in those who have gone back to school.
We know what the relatively few people are that need a lot of
protection. For example, in Canada, we’re spending a billion dollars a day, our federal government, on
COVID-19, their COVID-19 policies. If we had most people back, we wouldn’t be destroying our economy.
We’d have incredible resources that we could direct into protecting the people that need it. And arguably
we would be able to achieve natural herd immunity through all the relatively, you know, the people that have
low risk from SARS-CoV-2.
And if they achieve herd immunity, the highly susceptible people
will be protected.
Host ➝ 00:57:55
Hmm. I wonder if you could touch quicklyon effectiveness. And that is to say, I was surprised. I had seen
the BMJ analysis. But I’d been surprised that edit being so low across the board. Are all vaccines going
to be like that? Do we think later ones could be better, could be more effective? And second part of that
question, what does effectiveness to you mean – stopping you dying, or effective, just, you know,
you’ll be less ill?
Byram Bridle ➝ 00:58:26
You raised a great questions. So, in terms of effectiveness, I certainly don’t want to claim that
anybody’s misleading with any of the data.
All I’m trying to point out with that is that if you take into account that large data set that was
excluded, you end up with very different numbers than the very impressive numbers that we saw.
And again, we can’t rule it. We can’t prove that one is correct, and one is wrong until we see
the raw data. But again, there’s the perception that what the question that it raises is we’ve been
seeing vaccines that have been showing lower effectiveness, right?
And the issue is if those people, if those vaccines are actually properly reporting and properly
incorporating all of the appropriate data into their analysis, then they actually might be more effective than
the vaccines that have been shown, you know, claim to be more effective in the media releases.
Byram Bridle ➝ 00:59:21
This is the problem. This is the problem when we don’t have completed phase three trials and all of
that data going through the peer review, we just can’t comment.
But could we make vaccines? Yes. Any vaccine platform can be improved and be made more effective for sure.
Now your second question is a very, very important one again, because these vaccines came out so quickly, we
have not had the opportunity to properly evaluate how protective they are.
I would argue a good vaccine for an infectious disease is one that prevents infection. The ultimate goal is
what we call sterilizing immunity. Your immune response against the vaccine is so good that the pathogen can
not infect the individual, right? SARS-coronavirus-two cannot affect the individual. It can not replicate in
that person. And therefore that person cannot pass the virus on to others.
Byram Bridle ➝ 01:00:09
However chances are that these vaccines are not conferring
sterilizing immunity. And in fact, if you recall that 50% effectiveness, that was not 50% of people
having sterilizing immunity, that could be 50% of people where that vaccine prevented them from dying, right.
Or reduce the disease severity in those individuals.
So, yes, with these vaccines, it’s still very well possible that people will get sick. Maybe the
disease will be blunted. And in that case, they are being infected. The virus is replicating and they can
spread this virus on.
That’s why ironically, you know, as we roll out these vaccines, we can’t change our current
COVID-19 policies. So here in Canada even when vaccinated, once vaccinated, we still have to… It’s
like life before being vaccinated, we still have to wear the mask. We still have to do the two meter
distancing, et cetera, right?
Because there is no assurance that these vaccinated individuals
aren’t spreading the virus.
Host ➝ 01:01:13
So that seems like a big problem that perhaps we hadn’t quite expected. Certainly here in New Zealand,
I hadn’t expected with the vaccine that we’re waiting for. We thought you had the vaccine was all
But you know, it’s appearing that they’re not stopping transmission, there’s certainly not
stopping this Siri or they may be stopping death, but there’s still, there’s still, they’re
still not preventing symptoms so that all those other things are still necessary.
It feels as if we set ourselves up for a narrative in which a situation in which we can actually escape
either vaccines or herd immunity, how the heck is that kind of change?
Byram Bridle ➝ 01:01:52
Yeah. And unfortunately, I honestly, I was, I was hesitant to present some of this stuff, but again, I just
feel, I have to be open about, I can tell you if somebody who lives in Canada, maybe we have been so frustrated
by how long we have been dealing with, with the government imposed, you know, lockdowns, and various COVID-19
But what’s that said, I do have to say, you know, we’ve, we, we have many people did have the
opportunity to go back to work in between lockdowns. We’re heading back toward, we’ve been a second
lockdown. We’re heading back towards that.
We had our kids in school for quite some time. For four months. In fact, from September to December, we were
in this lockdown. Our kids went back again this week.
And so I guess the point being that it’s been long and protracted, but because we have had some
attempts to get back to something that resembles some sort of normalcy again, I have, I’m optimistic that
countries like ours and especially countries that have not had the strict lockdowns.
Byram Bridle ➝ 01:02:52
Like, again, you look at Sweden for example, right? I’m very optimistic that these countries are much
closer to naturally acquired herd immunity than we appreciate. That wasn’t our goal, right? Our goal was
to wait for the vaccines, but it’s been happening anyways because let’s not fool ourselves.
The other thing you have to remember that we talk about these masks, right? And so if you look at the kids
sitting in school, yeah. They’re wearing masks. They’re two meters apart.
The virus doesn’t respect these masks very well. Okay. Yes.
It can reduce transmission through large droplets. We have to understand this virus can transmit fairly
efficiently on what we call these microdroplets. And for them the pore sizes in these masks that we wear, like
this one that I wear all the time. I mean, it’s like a barn door for the nano droplets and the virus
And they can travel 30 meters. So that’s why, even
though we’ve been implementing these things, those countries still have had this virus spreading in those
When our kids are in school, the virus can spread through those, that population. That’s just fact,
If you really want to be protected, I recommend everybody go and do a quick Google search on what is the
personal protective equipment, PPE, for a containment level three, or in some countries, they call it
biological safety level three pathogen, which is what SARS-coronavirus-two is. You’ll be amazed. That is
what you need to be wearing if you really want to be protected from the virus.
It looks nothing like the way we look during our lockdown policies right now [laughter]. So let’s be
clear on that.
So, unfortunately, yes, I have serious concerns for places like New Zealand, because I fear that you do not
have much natural herd immunity.
Byram Bridle ➝ 01:04:31
So just as an example, we have a researcher in British Columbia here in Canada, where, which we feel was
probably ground zero in Canada for this outbreak and their data that they have now suggests that at
that province that we might have as high as 50% of people naturally
immune to the virus now among adults.
And again, it should be higher among children. That’s remarkable, right. If we’ve been told that
we might only need 60% of herd immunity, so we might already have a province in Canada, that’s very close
So I fear that New Zealand, you probably aren’t. And again, so obviously, you know, you’re going
to be very hopeful that vaccines work, but for example, I would
suggest that you don’t have your government started administering to everybody, the Oxford vaccine, for
example, because your country’s dreaming, if you think you’re going to be able to keep the South
African variant out long-term.
Unless you never want to open your borders again.
Byram Bridle ➝ 01:05:22
Right. And again, like I said, so that’s already an example and I just feel like fear the other ones,
you know? Yeah. They may be okay now, but I really feel knowing this virus that, and again, the way we’re
rolling this out, as I said, we are optimizing the chance for a variant to emerge that can bypass all of these
And so if it were me and remember some of these variants might actually, we’re worried about the rate
of which they spread. Now, there’s not too much concerned about them causing more severe disease, but
there is the opportunity a variant could emerge that is more dangerous.
So personally, if I don’t have it already, I would probably
because I’m in the low risk demographic, I would probably prefer to have natural immunity,
honestly. And not that narrowly focused immunity, just so that even if I do get infected with a novel
variant, that’s almost certainly going to be blunted because I don’t want to be at risk of having
an immuno evasive and more dangerous, like more potently disease causing version.
I don’t want to be exposed to that while I have no immunity whatsoever or the improperly narrowly
Host ➝ 01:06:28
Wow. Okay. So if if I get that right, so if New Zealand is focused
on is only distributing one vaccine we’re at risk. If you go overseas, if you travel overseas or the
moment we open up the border, we’ve got problems, exaggerated problems. We would have to either many
vaccines or alternatively, just, you know, some gradual gain of natural immunity.
Byram Bridle ➝ 01:06:53
Potentially, arguably with the Pfizer and Moderna vaccine. I mean, you’d be as protected as anybody
else who’s receiving those vaccines in the world, certainly with the Oxford vaccine. Yeah. You
don’t, you wouldn’t want to be exposed to the South African variant. Right. Essentially.
But yeah, so at this point in time, this moment, this is the thing, but we can’t be shortsighted at
this moment. Yes. The Moderna and Pfizer vaccines should, in theory, confer protective immunity against the
variants that are out there now. But again, I’m worried about that again that’s short-term
thinking, because it’s almost certainly just a matter of time
before a variant will emerge, that will bypass the immunity conferred by those vaccines as well.
Host ➝ 01:07:37
So a final final thing for you. You say that you wouldn’t
take any of these vaccines at the moment. You’d rather have a naturally gained. Is there anybody who
should be taking a vaccine?
Byram Bridle ➝ 01:07:51
I want to make it very clear that people have to do their own cost
benefit analysis. Right. And again, I can’t highlight enough that I’m in a low risk demographic. My
family’s in a lower risk demographic, certainly my children are, right.
And there’s certain reasons there’s reasons that I
couldn’t get into as well. So one of the, there’s a couple of concepts that are interesting. It
comes to, we know about this through the influenza vaccines, right. That we get each year. And one is called an
original antigenic sin. And so it’s, if you focus your immune response on, like, we are here on a single
protein that can actually influence our ability to respond to that protein from different variants in the
future in a way that’s suboptimal.
And the second thing that a vaccine can potentially do is
reprogram our, what we call our innate immune response.
Byram Bridle ➝ 01:08:47
So that’s not what we’re typically targeting with the
vaccine, but it’s the first part. Our innate immune system is the one that tells our acquired immune
system how to produce the antibodies and the other cells that are needed for the protection. And we can
actually imprint on that part of our immune system, a bias that can potentially be a suboptimal for the
So again, since I’m not a particularly high risk, if I
don’t have it already, I would probably prefer at this point to have the naturally acquired means. And it
just because I know it’s going to be broad, I know that my immune system will have naturally induced the,
you know, the appropriate bias.
It’ll be programmed properly to respond optimally to future
variants and future, you know, completely different versions of the coronavirus that might emerge in the future
Byram Bridle ➝ 01:09:35
So, yeah, I’m there, but people have to evaluate this, but again, you know, when you see some of these
other issues like perhaps with the elderly, you know, some questions coming up. Everybody has to evaluate the
cost benefit analysis, but again, I would argue that these people, you know, had we done this right?
We could have already had in many countries have achieved herd
immunity naturally, and therefore have saved many lives and the highly susceptible demographics, because again,
there’s, we know, again, you know, over 99% of us are not in particularly high risk of the severe disease
and death. That’s more than enough people that we need to achieve herd immunity.
And if we achieved a herd immunity and those people, and, or could
get enough of those people vaccinate, but even look how we’re rolling it out. We’re targeting,
we’re prioritizing the elderly, for example. They tend to, they have what we call immunosenescence. They
tend to not respond optimally to vaccines and so on.
Yeah. And again, again, like I said, we’re vaccinating people
who probably already have natural immunity, right. We shouldn’t be using these vaccines to target those
who are healthy, that are going to respond robustly and quickly get those of us who are relatively low risk up
to herd immunity and will protect all of these highly susceptible people.
Host ➝ 01:10:49
All right, Byram. Thank you very much. We’ve let that run because it’s fascinating and we
absolutely needed that input from you. Really, really appreciate you taking the time. You’ve thought
about this marvelously and really appreciate what you’ve taken us through. Thanks for joining us.
Byram Bridle ➝ 01:11:09
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Sorry for going over. I really appreciate you having me. I guess would just end with my
personal, just personal thoughts. Right. But my prediction in the future is that we’re all going to the
history books in the future. We’ll document this as the greatest
mismanaged crisis of our time. Unfortunately.
Host ➝ 01:11:28
Yes, totally agree. History books, unfortunately somewhat distant in the future from here. Thanks very much
Byram. I’d stick around if you do have time, I appreciate you being with us. Carry on answers and
questions. There’s plenty there. Thanks a lot. Okay, everyone. We’ve got about 20 minutes before
Simon Thornley joins us. So we might just shut down for that 20 minutes. We’ll be back with Simon.
Thanks very much for a second. Only with us.
# # #
As seen on https://dryburgh.com/byram-bridle-coronavirus-vaccine-concerns/
A interview with Canadian broadcaster Alex Pierson Dr. Bridle talks about his review of new cutting-edge
and peer-reviewed research and has made a horrifying discovery about the spike protein used in the experimental
jabs ... Here´s the (banned) video,
WE MADE A BIG MISTAKE - WE
DIDN´T REALISE IT UNTIL NOW
Dr. Mercola Explains Dr. Bridle´s
Bombshell Revelations Regarding Spike Proteins from Vaccines
Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola
Why Do Public Health
Agencies Reject Natural Immunity?
CDC Admits Natural Immunity Trumps Vaccine Immunity — 5 Months After Touting Vaccines as Superior
Experts Accuse CDC of ´Cherry-Picking´ Data on Vaccine Immunity to Support Political Narrative
Natural Immunity Lasts For At Least 18 Months: Study
★ ★ ★ ★ ★
F.Y.I., by Anna von Reitz
Commercial Mercenary Attack Against Humanity
International Notice to All International
- - -
If You Have Been Vaxed You Are Now Owned And Have No More Access To HUMAN RIGHTS Supreme Court 2013
Pathology vs Myriad Genetics The Vaxed Can Be Patented (Owned)
- - -
Supreme Court to Myriad Genetics:
Synthetic DNA is Patentable but Isolated Genes Are Not
- - -
Search - Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc.
- - -
The alleged vaccine shots/jabs that are (currently, September, 2023) available are overwhelmingly
Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) only, to which federal law requires the right of refusal, under
Title 21 U.S.C. §
360bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
- - -
News Flash -- No Such Thing as
- Today´s Burning Question
- Spread This Like Manure on a Field in Springtime
- The Questions to Ask
Microplastics From Masks Found Deep in Lungs of the Living
Robert W Malone M.D., M.S., Masking: More Harms than Good?
Laurie Garrett - Resurfaced video of pro-mask health expert from 2018 reveals the real reason for mask mandates
Curated links to uncensored and useful health information that you are not being told.
you´re just another person with an opinion"
--- W. Edward
Deming, engineer, data scientist.