MARKHAM, Ontario (LifeSiteNews) –– Big Pharma’s Moderna has admitted that they did not have an optimal quality control system in place when they rolled out their mRNA jabs, that they could not accurately control the dose, and that they did not know where the mRNA was being distributed in the human body.
“This is breaking news,” announced Dr. Byram Bridle at LifeSiteNews’ annual general meeting near Toronto on July 19 and presented on the large screen behind him an article produced by Montreal’s McGill University. The article was entitled “McGill University and Moderna to expand collaborations with new projects in Lipid Nanoparticle research.”
“Remember, lipid nanoparticles are the foundation for the mRNA vaccine,” Bridle said. “That’s what they even talk about in this article.”
Before discussing the actual research projects, Bridle drew his audience’s attention to the partnership between Big Pharma and the publicly funded university.
“First of all, recognize that…this is not a new collaboration. They’re ‘expanding’ collaboration. So, there are conflicts of interest that you need to be aware of. There’s nothing wrong with this per se,” the vaccinologist added, gesturing to the screen behind him. “There’s nothing wrong with researchers and academics collaborating with companies. This is routine. But you have to be very careful when you look at the messaging. There’s a lot of money involved here. Note how proud McGill is.”
Bridle informed LifeSiteNews that scientific researchers are susceptible to pressure and intimated that this pressure may influence what they publish.
“If they find something in this research that counters the narrative that McGill University has been pushing for the past 3 years… I can tell you that they’re going to feel pressure.”
The article featured two McGill projects being funded with Moderna. Bridle, who was visibly infuriated by the article, asked his audience to focus first on the second project, “Characterization and Quality Control with the Nanoparticles.”
“This is… ‘a study to characterize LNPs [lipid nanoparticles] so that their specific size and payload distribution may be better understood’,” the scientist read.
“Payload distribution,” he repeated with emphasis. “What they’re going to be researching is where you put the nanoparticles in the body or where they take the messenger RNA. Hello? Should we not have known that before we rolled out this technology to the entire global population? This is precisely what I said two years ago.”
‘My life has been destroyed because of me saying that’
Bridle made the irony of the project crystal clear to his hearers.
“This [subject], right here, that they’re going to be researching, I said this two years ago when I said, ‘I have serious concerns that this technology has been behaving like it has been for the previous ten years, which means it gets systematically distributed throughout the body,’” he continued. “And I said that we need to conduct research on this: ‘We need to stop these shots and figure out what’s going on. And my life has been destroyed because of me saying that. Now researchers … are spending all kinds of research dollars to study the exact question that I said we needed to understand two years ago.”
The vaccinologist explained that this research should have been done before the mRNA technology was ever used on people, and then turned to another startling admission in the McGill University article.
“Look at this: ‘standard techniques cannot quantify the size and payload of individual nanoparticles,’” Bridle read aloud.
“In other words, we understand that there are a number of nanoparticles,” he explained. “Some of them don’t contain any mRNA. Some contain one copy of the mRNA, which is a genetic blueprint helping our cells make copies of the spike protein. Some of them encode more than one messenger RNA. In [still] other words, there’s no way of controlling the dose…. This is an incredible admission.”
Bridle then moved to a consideration of the quality control issues that are only now being acknowledged by Big Pharma and its academic handmaidens.
“It is absolutely shocking that there is plasma DNA contaminating these shots,” he said. “You have to understand, plasma DNA is very long-lasting. They try to tell us that messenger RNA is very short-lived… Natural RNA, yes. It will last only seconds in most environments, it is so prone to degradation. We know now that the synthetic messenger RNA can be found up to months later in the body. The plasma DNA…is very robust and stable. It can survive years in the body. This totally changes the game.”
“There are just so many quality control issues,” Bridle continued. “You have to understand, this is an…admission. They’re making this announcement that we don’t know how to properly control the dose. So from batch to batch, one person could be getting one dose of the mRNA and .. people getting another batch could be getting a completely different dose.”
According to the expert, an “average dose” has been marked on vials of mRNA COVID jabs, but in reality, there’s “massive variability.”
“When, in the history of mankind, has a [product] been rolled out to people when the physicians have no way of knowing what dose they’re administering to an individual?” Bridle demanded.
“They’re admitting this! This is the kind of research that has to be done before the rollout. This is why you don’t do ‘warp speed’ research.”
‘This has been done on the backs of the global population’
Bridle next pointed out to LifeSiteNews another important passage in the McGill announcement: “The results [of the study] will guide the optimization of lipid nanoparticles manufacturing. It could be used for quality control for the manufacture of mRNA-based vaccines and therapeutics.”
This, he pointed out, showed that the jabs accepted by millions of people had not already been “optimized.”
“This global rollout has been a clinical translational study, which [has] always historically been done in animals,” he said. “So, this global rollout has been used to inform scientific questions that are now going to be addressed in research. This has been done on the backs of the global population.”
Bridle underscored that Moderna has admitted, through the article, that they did not have an optimal quality control system in place when they rolled out their mRNA jabs, and that they could not accurately control the dose, and that they had “no clue” where the mRNA was being distributed in the human body. Rather belatedly, they now want to make the technology work, be effective and be safe. But Bridle doesn’t think Moderna and its enablers deserve a second chance.
“You cannot trust Big Pharma with this technology,” he said. “This [article] shows us that you cannot trust academia with promoting the conduct of proper clinical science, and this tells you that you cannot trust the regulatory agencies.”
The latter should have demanded that this now sought-for data should have been “on the desk in front of them” and “acceptable” before they allowed the mRNA jabs to be rolled out to the public, he said.
Responding to a remark about COVID jab injuries and different batches of vaccines, Bridle acknowledged that severe adverse effects associated with the shots occurred disproportionately on people who received “certain batches” of the so-called vaccine.
“It all comes down to batch-to-batch variability,” he said and noticed that this, too, is as shocking departure from the normal quality controls.
“Manufacturing any drug historically has required an incredible amount of precision quality control systems,” he said.
“We know there are huge differences in the amount of contaminants from batch to batch [of COVID jabs]. Here [in the article] is the admission that there are differences in the dose administered from batch to batch. That’s exactly why there has been the batch-to-batch variability.
During his speech, Bridle hypothetically suggested that his hearers had been “used” for vaccine research. These remarks were not intended for LifeSiteNews staff, specifically, but for Canadians in its wider audience, whom he knew would ultimately hear him.