Dr. Bridle Calls Out David Gorski Over Vaccine Nucleic Acid Contaminants

Outsmarting and outclassing Gorski have never been difficult. But Dr. Bridle has done both, very well, much to Gorski's embarrassment. Facts are facts.

David Gorski’s misinformed meanderings and incessant denialism of Science and evidence - all in the name of being a defender of science and evidence-based medicine to promot vaccines at all costs is deeply cynical. He’s been around a long, long time, and his lack of professionalism and dearth of intellect is obvious to anyone who reads just about anything he reads. Lately, however, he seems to have become especially unhinged.

Dr. Byram Bridle is a world-renown virologist and immunologist who clearly does not brook Gorki’s childish ways. I was bcc’d the message below from Dr. Bridle to Gorski with the request to be sent it out to ensure that the cover of darkness does not hide Gorski’s unwillingness to, among other things, defend his own claims and statements,

Dear Dr. David Gorski,

It was with interest that I read your blog about the DNA contamination in Pfizer's COVID-19 shots (https://www.respectfulinsolence.com/2023/10/21/vaers-and-plasmid-dna-contamination-of-covid-19-vaccines-the-nonsense-continues/#comments).

A reader pointed me to it in a comment on one of my Substack articles.

I noted that you responded to that person, who asked me if I would be willing to discuss your point of view, with...

"Bridle won’t do it. He can’t monetize commenting on someone else’s blog."

I submitted three comments to your blog (two addressed to the person who pointed me to your blog and an invitation to you). I noted that you have a policy of screening posts from first-time commenters. I trust that all three of mine will be posted in their entirety on your blog. But, to be certain they are seen, I am pasting them into this email. I have blind carbon copied many of the physicians and scientists that you regularly call names, label, judge, and accuse of spreading misinformation, as well as some media outlets.

Please review my invitation to you and then respond to this email address with “Public Discussion” in the subject line.

I sincerely look forward to your positive reply by noon next Friday, and our upcoming discussion. I am sure that many members of the public will find it incredibly helpful as they try to assess the complex science underpinning COVID-19 modRNA shots.

To those who are blind carbon copied: please feel free to widely advertise my invitation to Dr. Gorski. You will find it below.

Sincerely,

Byram

_____________________________________

Byram W. Bridle, PhD

Associate Professor of Viral Immunology

_____________________________________

Hi Dr. David Gorski,

I do not take well to so-called professionals who incessantly name-call, label, and judge fellow professionals. Your writings seem to be chock-full of such immaturities. And I'm not convinced that you have first-hand knowledge of most of the people that you accuse. You certainly have not met me, yet you seem to feel empowered to accuse me of only engaging in scientific discourse if it can be monetized. Being an academic faculty member at a taxpayer-supported institution, I consider myself a public servant.

I ask that you carefully review the following peer-reviewed scientific paper:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-019-0632-4

The science underpinning the ‘misinformation gurus’ and 'fact checkers' makes it clear that those who accuse others but then refuse to show up to public discussions trigger this outcome…

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

So, Dr. Gorski, I respectfully request that you and I hold a respectful, moderated discussion about the safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 shots. I recently engaged in a public discussion, although the individual had never accused me of spreading misinformation. As you can see, it was very professional and respectful:

Scientific Discourse About COVID-19

There was no name-calling, no yelling, no labeling, and no judgment. It was entirely evidence-based. Both of us had equal opportunities to share our points of view. The public loved it and have asked for many more of these kinds of talks, especially between those with very disparate views.

Please email me at bbridle@uoguelph.ca and let’s arrange a similar public discussion. Please put “Public Discussion” in the subject line so I can find it among my overwhelming number of emails. To reiterate, we do not have to talk to each other. Instead, we can have equal engagement with the public and let them take from the conversation what they want. I am happy to have the discussion in real-time online, or in-person. Perhaps we could speak at a venue ~halfway between us. I would even be willing to meet you at a venue near your border in Windsor, Ontario, if that helps.

I don't have a lot of time to screen my emails for responses that may never come. So, let's set a time limit for accepting this offer. I have recorded noon EST next Friday, November 3rd, as the time that I will search my email for a response from you under the heading of “Public Discussion”.

I have also set aside a couple of hours after that to write a Substack article about the outcome of this invitation.

First comment to reader of my Substack article...

Hi Jon,

First, thank you for being open to respectful scientific discourse. To specify, what I am seeking are real-time public discussions with anyone who would accuse me of spreading misinformation. As per the scientific literature (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-019-0632-4) real-time discussions are, by far, the best way for the public to assess expertise and to debunk genuine mis/disinformation. Writing back and forth is inefficient and can be a cover for knowledge gaps. Almost anyone can find at least one piece of scientific literature that seems to back up what they are saying. What the public needs to see is where the overall weight of the evidence lies. A person with lesser expert cannot hide that fact in real time.

I don't know anything about Dr. Gorski, but a quick internet search yielded many concerning articles, a few of which include...

https://shiftfrequency.com/gorski-victims-get-usd8-million/

https://www.ratemds.com/doctor-ratings/329899/Dr-David-Gorski-Detroit-MI.html/

https://disinformationchronicle.substack.com/p/gorskis-law-a-skeptic-ends-discussion

I cannot judge the legitimacy of the concerns expressed by others. I can attest to having been defamed prolifically online. But, a key difference is that I read examples of people trying to engage with Dr. Gorski, but he declined. That is a sure sign of someone whose messaging cannot be considered legitimate. In my case, I have invited every single person who would accuse me of spreading misinformation to publicly discuss their concerns with me. To date, only one agreed, and that was somebody who actually shared a lot of my views. We shared a mutual interest in having a professional, respectful discourse, in the absence of name-calling, labeling, or judgement. This discussion can be viewed here:

https://viralimmunologist.substack.com/p/scientific-discourse-about-covid

It was non-confrontational. Both parties simply had equal opportunities to engage the public. The public feedback was exceptionally positive, with many calling for more of these kinds of events.

No other accuser has ever been willing to discuss the scientific foundations of my messaging.

I noted in his response to you that Dr. Gorski has accused me of only discussing science if it is monetized. He clearly does not know me, but was willing to judge me anyways.

I will respond directly to Dr. Gorski below and invite him to have a public discussion about the COVID-19 shots. Please encourage him to participate. If he does not accept the offer, all I ask is that you make that public. People need to see who is willing walk the walk after talking the talk. ...and who isn't.

Follow-up comment to reader of my Substack article...

Hi Jon,

One thing that I forgot to mention in my reply to you was an example of how Dr. Gorski is misleading people with this blog post. As I mentioned, I don't have the time, nor is it the most effective, to rebut everything in writing in a comments section that very few people will ever read. However, I do think it is important to demonstrate that there are major flaws with Dr. Gorski's reasoning. So, here are a few examples.

Example 1: "It’s a conspiracy theory that goes right back to the old conspiracy theory that contamination with SV40 virus found in polio vaccines in the early 1960s was responsible for a wave of cancer decades later. (Hint: It wasn’t. Also, SV40 promoter sequences are not the same thing as the intact SV40 virus, the latter of which is oncogenic.)" Note the contradiction. Dr. Gorski conclusively stated that SV40, which was known to have contaminated polio vaccines, could not possibly have caused cancers. He then proceeded to correctly identify SV40 as being oncogenic (i.e., cancer-causing). So, how can he definitively prove that a cancer-causing virus injected into people didn't cause any cancers?

Example 2: Dr. Gorski spent a lot of time arguing that cells are very inefficient at taking up DNA vaccines (i.e., naked DNA plasmids). Generally speaking, he is correct. Except, phagocytic cells of the immune system are designed to acquire particulates, so they can do this more efficiently than other cells (albeit still inefficiently). However, what he failed to consider, but did confirm later in his text, is that the DNA fragments contaminating the modRNA shots are in and/or adsorbed on the surface of the lipid nanoparticles (the DNA has a negative charge, the cationic lipids in the nanoparticles are positively charged). As such, they are not naked pieces of DNA. The lipid nanoparticles would ensure very efficient uptake by all cell types.

Example 3: Dr. Gorski could not understand why two different methods would be used to quantify the DNA. The authors were showing that the methods yielded very different results. Why is this important? Because the European Medicines Agency uses the ratio of DNA to RNA as their quality control cut-off. He did not disclose that they allowed the use of the PCR assay, which underestimates the amount of DNA, to quantify the DNA in the vials. But they allowed the RNA to be quantified using a different assay that vastly overestimates the amount of RNA. This seems like a strategy to bias the results in favour of showing a acceptable ratio of DNA to RNA. Further, Dr. Gorski did not disclose that regulatory agencies allowed the Pharma companies to do their own quality control testing and simply report the results; nobody double-checked the accuracy.

Example 4: When talking about the size of the DNA fragments, Dr. Gorski seemed to ignore that the average size was 214 base pairs in length. He correctly identified that 200 base pairs is the size cut-off that was assessed. Contrary to his conclusion, the graph he showed demonstrates that a majority of the fragments were smaller than 214 base pairs.

Example 5: Although all this science is very interesting, Dr. Gorski seems to have missed a key point in this debate. Health Canada has confirmed that the DNA contains a SV40 promoter sequence, that it is bioactive in mammalian cells, that it was not disclosed to them (Pfizer seemed to have removed it from the map they indicated; which was supposed to disclose every bioactive sequence), and they confirmed that this broke their rules. So, Pfizer's COVID-19 shots are, by definition, adulterated products. I find it frightening that a physician who treats patients would promote the use of an adulterated product, regardless of what the fine details of the science are. Rules are rules, and when regulatory rules are broken by a pharmaceutical company, the historical norm is that they get pulled from the market for obvious reasons. To set any other precedent is not in the best interests of public health.

I could go on, but just wanted to provide some assurance that Dr. Gorski's take is not the be all and end all on this subject.

Should Dr. Gorski rebut these comments in his blog, I will not reply again. Instead, I stand by my offer for a public discussion with him on the topic.