Trish Wood
Trish Wood
Dr. Byram Bridle & Dr. Denis Rancourt
Dr. Byram Bridle & Dr. Denis Rancourt
Dr. Byram Bridle & Dr. Denis Rancourt
Saturday 30th April 2022
Join Trish Wood, Dr. Byram Bridle, and Dr. Denis Rancourt as they dissect a controversial paper on vaccinated vs. unvaccinated individuals.
93 minutes
Informative
Thought-provoking
Engaging
Raw
Honest
About this podcast
Author:
Trish Wood
Overview:
Categories:
Sexual Stigmas & Myths
Recovery from Trauma
Cultural Commentary
Sobriety Toolkit
Relationships & Community
Links:
Visit site
Episodes:
221 (View all)
Do you want to link to this podcast?
Get the buttons here!Vaccinated vs. Unvaccinated: Dr. Byram Bridle and Dr. Denis Rancourt Weigh In
At the end of the day, the public sees this as well. And this is important for your listeners to understand. I am not, as I said, I'm not a modeling expert, so I now understand that this concept of mixing and intermixing and all this- you know it- is a scientific term that can be used for scientific purposes, but I immediately saw the way this was being used in the newspapers was alarming to me because it did have those connotations of that, not this hypothetical scientific terminology of mixing, intermixing, just to run a model, but literally segregation.
Ever wondered if unvaccinated people pose a real threat to those who are vaccinated? This episode of 'Trish Wood is Critical' dives into this heated debate with guests Dr. Byram Bridle and Dr. Denis Rancourt. A recent paper in the Canadian Medical Association Journal has stirred up quite a controversy by suggesting that the unvaccinated endanger the vaccinated, but is it all smoke and mirrors?
Trish and her guests break down the paper's methodological flaws and challenge its conclusions with real-world data. They also explore how media coverage can twist scientific terminology, leaving the public confused and misinformed. This episode is a must-listen for anyone curious about the ongoing vaccine debate and the importance of transparent scientific discussions. Tune in for an eye-opening conversation that questions how we can make sure the public gets accurate information about scientific studies.