actual expert

If the courts don't recognize that why should we folks?

Dr. Bridle is working on his own vaccine - see below

Anyway, he got minimal respect when he tried to present himself as an expert witness: https://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc/2022/2022oncj500/2022oncj500.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAVR3VlbHBoICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgAAAAAAE&resultIndex=2&utm_source=guelphtoday.com&utm_campaign=guelphtoday.com%3A%20outbound&utm_medium=referral

"[238] The court accepts that Dr. Bridle is an immunologist and vaccinologist by training and that he has expert knowledge in these fields, in particular regarding the theory and science behind vaccines. However, for the reasons below, the court does not accept that Dr. Bridle is qualified to give opinion evidence with respect to the safety and efficacy of the Covid-19 vaccine for children.

[239] Dr. Bridle is a researcher only. He is a faculty member at the Veterinary College at the University of Guelph’s Department of Pathobiology, where he conducts research on animals.

[240] Dr. Bridle acknowledged that he is not a medical doctor. He has never vaccinated a child, he has never treated a child or an adult suffering from a reaction to a vaccine, nor has he ever treated a child or an adult who is suffering from an infectious disease.

[241] Dr. Bridle agreed that he did not have any experience or involvement in the clinical trials of a Covid vaccine. He agreed that this is when the medical doctors become involved.

[242] Dr. Bridle’s acknowledged that his knowledge of the Covid vaccine is limited to his understanding of the science regarding how the vaccine works and how it should work, and his interpretation of the government data of the human experience of the vaccine.

[243] Dr. Bridle acknowledged that there were limitations on the data that he has seen and studied at the time of trial, including how the data had been presented. He acknowledged that there is no evidence of long-term risks, which are currently largely unknown. However, he points out that this is because there has not been sufficient clinical testing.

[244] Dr. Bridle has no real-world experience on how human beings are actually experiencing Covid-19, and reacting to the Covid vaccine, in contrast to Dr. Sharkawy.

[245] Dr. Bridle is not qualified to give opinion evidence on the risk and treatment of vaccine-induced myocarditis. He does not have the medical knowledge to do so. Dr. Sharkawy also testified on this issue and strongly refuted Dr. Bridle’s claims. The court prefers Dr. Sharkawy’s evidence, which is based on his direct experience in treating patients on the Covid ward at his hospital throughout the pandemic.

[246] It is Dr. Bridle’s opinion that the best immunity is natural immunity by contracting the disease, which he described the “gold standard”. He did not seem to appreciate or accept the serious risks associated with contracting the Covid infection, including death, nor did he seem to appreciate the risks and effects of contracting Covid multiple times, including the risk of developing long Covid syndrome, of which he appeared to be oblivious.

[247] In fairness to Dr. Bridle, he is an immunologist and a researcher not a medical doctor, so he has no direct experience or knowledge of how people experience the disease, in direct contrast to the evidence of Dr. Sharkawy. The court prefers the evidence of Dr. Sharkawy.

[248] One of Dr. Bridle’s main criticisms of the Covid vaccine was that it did not stop transmission or provide immunity, or that the duration of immunity was “ridiculously short” to use his words, requiring Canadians to have multiple doses.

[249] When asked by the court if he accepted that the Covid vaccine prevents serious illness and death, regardless of the shorter duration of immunity, Dr. Bridle would not acknowledge that receiving the vaccine prevented severe or serious illness and death. In fact, Dr. Bridle stated that vaccinated people are at greater risk than unvaccinated people given his interpretation of hospital admissions. He remained very firm in these views.

[250] Respectfully, this is so far removed from the mainstream and widely accepted views of the Canadian and international medical and scientific community that the court cannot accept Dr. Bridle’s evidence on the Covid vaccine as reliable.

[251] He did not dispute that regulatory bodies around the world such as the World Health Organization, the Canadian Pediatric Society, Health Canada, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Centers for Disease and Control (CDC) and the Royal College of Pediatrics and Child’s Health (UK) have supported and endorsed the safety and efficacy of the Covid-19 vaccine for children. He did not agree with them.

[252] Throughout his evidence, Dr. Bridle stated that he reviews data, he relies on data, and he interprets data. His views that all Canadian and international regulatory bodies are wrong suggests that his interpretation of the data is the correct interpretation against the vast and overwhelming majority of the national and international scientific community.

[253] Dr. Bridle also acknowledged that 88 of his colleagues (other faculty members at the University of Guelph) wrote an open letter to the university criticizing Dr. Bridle’s views on the vaccine. He did not state that there was any formal retraction of the letter, although he said that some of his colleagues were embarrassed about it.

[254] Dr. Bridle also testified that he is working on his own Covid vaccine, for which he has received government funding and is currently in the pre-clinical stage. The court was concerned that it is possible in Dr. Bridle’s interest, consciously or not, to advance views that discredit the existing mRNA technology used in Covid vaccines because he is working on a competing technology."