patrick.net

Andrew Bridgen
(North West Leicestershire) (Con)
Sharethis specific contribution
Three months ago, one of the most eminent and trusted cardiologists, a man with an international reputation, Dr Aseem Malhotra, published peer-reviewed research that concluded that there should be a complete cessation of the administration of the covid mRNA vaccines for everyone because of clear and robust data of significant harms and little ongoing benefit. He described the roll-out of the BioNTech-Pfizer vaccine as

“perhaps the greatest miscarriage of medical science, attack on democracy, damage to population health, and erosion of trust in medicine that we will witness in our lifetime.”

Interestingly, there has so far not been a single rebuttal of Dr Malhotra’s findings in the scientific literature, despite their widespread circulation and the fact that they made international news.

Before I state the key evidence-based facts that make a clear case for complete suspension of these emergency use authorisation vaccines, it is important to appreciate the key psychological barrier that has prevented these facts from being acknowledged by policymakers and taken up by the UK mainstream media. That psychological phenomenon is wilful blindness. It is when human beings—including, in this case, institutions—turn a blind eye to the truth in order to feel safe, reduce anxiety, avoid conflict and protect their prestige and reputations. There are numerous examples of that in recent history, such as the BBC and Jimmy Savile, the Department of Health and Mid Staffs, Hollywood and Harvey Weinstein, and the medical establishment and the OxyContin scandal, which was portrayed in the mini-series “Dopesick”. It is crucial to understand that the longer wilful blindless to the truth continues, the more unnecessary harm it creates.

Here are the cold, hard facts about the mRNA vaccines and an explanation of the structural drivers that continue to be barriers to doctors and the public receiving independent information to make informed decisions about them. Since the roll-out in the UK of the BioNTech-Pfizer mRNA vaccine, we have had almost half a million yellow card reports of adverse effects from the public. That is unprecedented. It is more than all the yellow card reports of the past 40 years combined. An extraordinary rate of side effects that are beyond mild have been reported in many countries across the world that have used the Pfizer vaccine, including, of course, the United States. ...

In other words, the benefits of the vaccine are close to non-existent. Beyond the alarming yellow card reports, the strongest evidence of harm comes from the gold standard, highest possible quality level of data. A re-analysis of Pfizer and Moderna’s own randomised controlled trials using the mRNA technology, published in the peer-reviewed journal Vaccine, revealed a rate of serious adverse events of one in 800 individuals vaccinated. These are events that result in hospitalisation or disability, or that are life changing. Most disturbing of all, however, is that those original trials suggested someone was far more likely to suffer a serious side effect from the vaccine than to be hospitalised with the ancestral, more lethal strain of the virus. These findings are a smoking gun suggesting the vaccine should likely never have been approved in the first place.

In the past, vaccines have been completely withdrawn from use for a much lower incidence of serious harm. For example, the swine flu vaccine was withdrawn in 1976 for causing Guillain-Barré syndrome in only one in 100,000 adults, and in 1999 the rotavirus vaccine was withdrawn for causing a form of bowel obstruction in children affecting one in 10,000. With the covid mRNA vaccine, we are talking of a serious adverse event rate of at least one in 800, because that was the rate determined in the two months when Pfizer actually followed the patients following their vaccination. Unfortunately, some of those serious events, such as heart attack, stroke and pulmonary embolism will result in death, which is devastating for individuals and the families they leave behind. Many of these events may take longer than eight weeks post vaccination to show themselves.

An Israeli paper published in Nature’s scientific reports showed a 25% increase in heart attack and cardiac arrest in 16 to 39-year-olds in Israel. Another report from Israel looked at levels of myocarditis and pericarditis in people who had had covid and those who had not. It was a study of, I think, 1.2 million who had not had covid and 740,000 who had had it. The incidence of myocarditis and pericarditis was identical in both groups. This would tell the House that whatever is causing the increase in heart problems now, it is not due to having been infected with covid-19. ...

Andrew Bridgen: We have surely now sacrificed enough of our own citizens’ lives on the alter of ignorance
"Big Pharma have put profits before people. Governments across the globe have been their willing marketing agents."

Nicholas Creed
3 min ago

“I therefore call on the government to immediately stop the mRNA booster programme and initiate a full public enquiry not only into the vaccine harms but how every agency set up to protect to public interest have failed so abysmally”

The mere handful of other people present in the House of Commons speaks volumes to how entrenched this corruption goes.

Most of the UK’s politicians have been captured, bribed, bought off, compromised, and now serve their globalist and corporate masters.

They do not serve the people.

Thank you Andrew Bridgen.

An historic speech in the House of Commons by Andrew Bridgen
"Mr. Deputy Speaker, if we were to perpetuate [the jabs] what we'll actually be doing is engaging in very expensive state-sponsored self-harm on a national level."

Transcriber B
3 min ago
New transcript, just posted:

Dr. John Campbell Presents Mr. Andrew Bridgen's Well Thought-out, Well-researched Speech
"The figures are stark, Mr. Deputy speaker. What I'm quoting from is the government's own published data... We have surely now sacrificed enough of our citizens on the lives on the altar of ignorance and unfettered corporate greed to satisfy anyone I therefore call on the government to immediately stop the mRNA vaccine booster program and initiate a full public inquiry into not only the vaccine homes but how every agency and institution set up to protect the public interest have failed so abysmally in their duties."— Andrew Bridgen, Member of Parliament, UK

Andrew Bridgen
@ABridgen
·
May 15
Lots of things don’t add up such as this, also why Bill Gates invested in Pfizer in Sept 19 just before the pandemic from which he profited by over $500m.

Britain’s most senior policeman has said his officers will not be allowed to express support for “woke” causes while on duty because it is essential that they are impartial.

Sir Mark Rowley, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, made it clear that he will not tolerate officers taking the knee, flying rainbow flags or adorning their uniforms with badges that support environmental causes.

He described himself as “fairly narrow-minded” on the issue and said the only acceptable additions to uniforms were remembrance poppies, Help for Heroes wristbands and the police memorial badge.

His comments signal that he will take a much harder line than his predecessor, Dame Cressida Dick, who was criticised for allowing officers to take the knee while policing Black Lives Matter protests and under whose watch officers danced and skateboarded with Extinction Rebellion activists.

Sir Mark said getting drawn into political causes – even popular ones – could be “fatal” for policing, telling The Telegraph: “Wearing a poppy in the autumn is perfectly proper, but there is not a lot that we should align to because the danger is that once you say, ‘we are going to align ourselves to a cause because 90 per cent of the population support it’, what about the 10 per cent?

British MP Andrew Bridgen, After 20 Tries, Lands Parliamentary "Debate" On Excess Deaths Following MRNA Blitzkrieg: Speaks To Near Empty House, While People Cheer From Public Gallery

Eerie, surreal scene of near empty house with BBC broadcast denying—with establishment Covid sloganeering-- what they are refusing to report on.

After more than 20 attempts to bring this topic to a parliamentary debate, Bridgen was finally granted 30 minutes to discuss excess deaths. Addressing a chamber all but empty of the 650 MPs who serve in the House of Commons, he began,

“We have experienced more excess deaths since July 2021 than in the whole of 2020. Unlike during the pandemic, however, those deaths are not disproportionately of the old. In other words, the excess deaths are striking down people in the prime of life, but no one seems to care... Well, I care.”

In his speech, Bridgen gave a thorough rundown of the UK’s mortality situation, including flaws in the official data, lethal Covid care pathways, and safety concerns with the jabs, such as the recent revelation that the mRNA shots are contaminated with plasmid DNA at levels above regulatory limits.

The content of Bridgen’s speech is inconvenient to the official narrative that the government’s pandemic measures were necessary and appropriate, and that the Covid shots are safe and effective.

The continuation of this narrative benefits government and institutional officials who imposed the measures on the UK public, as it allows them to dodge accountability for their failures. It also benefits the stakeholders whose profits would be threatened if the public came to the conclusion that perhaps the pandemic measures and vaccine products were not so necessary, safe or effective after all.

Parliament Debate on the Silent Health Crisis

“The experimental COVID-19 vaccines are not safe, and they’re not effective,” said MP Andrew Bridgen. And he brought the receipts to prove it. ...

“What will it take to stop these products?” MP Bridgen asked. “The complete failure to stop infection was not enough. And we all know plenty of vaccinated people have caught and spread COVID. The mutation of the virus to a weaker variant. Omicron, that wasn’t enough. The increasing evidence of the serious harm. So, for those of us that were vaccinated, that’s not enough. And now the cardiac deaths and the deaths of young people’s apparently not enough either,” Bridgen lamented.

“It’s high time these experimental vaccines were suspended and a full investigation into the hands of cause initiated. History will be a harsh judge if we don’t start using evidence-based medicine. We need to return to basic science, basic ethics immediately, which means listening to all voices and investigating all concerns,” he continued.

“In conclusion, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the experimental COVID-19 vaccines are not safe, and they’re not effective, despite there only being limited interest in the chamber from colleagues. And I’m very grateful for those who have attended. We can see from the public gallery there is considerable public interest. I would implore all members of the House present and those not to support calls for a three-hour debate on this important issue. And Mr. Deputy Speaker, this might be the first debate on excess deaths in our parliament. Indeed, it might be the first debate on excess deaths in the world. But very sadly, I promise you, it won’t be the last.”

VIDEO - UK MP Andrew Bridgen - Parliament debate on Excess deaths (first debate on excess deaths in the world) (Oct.20, 2023)

MP ANDREW BRIDGEN: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

We've experienced more excess deaths since July 2021 than the whole of 2020. Unlike the pandemic, however, these deaths are not disproportionately of the old. In other words, the excessive deaths are striking down people in the prime of life. But no one seems to care. I fear history will not judge this House kindly. We're still in a country supposedly committed to free and frank exchange of views. It appears that no one cares that no one cares.

Well, I care, Mr. Deputy Speaker. And I credit those members here in attendance today who also care. And I'd also like to thank the honorable member for Lincoln for his support and I'm sorry that he couldn't attend today's debate.

It's taken a lot of effort and more than 20 rejections to be allowed to raise this topic, but at last we're here to discuss the number of people dying. Nothing could be more serious.

Numerous countries are currently gripped in a period of unexpected mortality. And no one wants to talk about it. It's quite normal for death numbers to fluctuate up and down by chance alone, but what we're seeing here is a pattern repeated across countries, and the rise does not let up.

1:16
MP PHILIP DAVIES: Will you give way?

MP ANDREW BRIDGEN: I'll give way to the honorable gentleman.

MP PHILIP DAVIES: I'm very grateful, and can I commend him for his, the tenacious way he's, he's battled on this particular issue. I, I certainly admire him for that. I just want to, where we found the media was in all of this? Because of course during the covid pandemic, every day the media, particularly the BBC, couldn't wait to tell us how many people had died in that particular day without any context of those figures whatsoever. But they seem to have gone strangely quiet over these excess deaths now.

MP ANDREW BRIDGEN: I thank the gentleman for his intervention. He's absolutely right, the media have let the British public down badly. There will be a full press pack going out to all media outlets following my speech with all the evidence to back up all the claims I'll make in that speech, but I don't doubt there'll be no mention of it in the mainstream media.

You might think that a debate about excess deaths is going to be full of numbers. This speech does not have that many numbers because most of the important numbers have been kept hidden. All the data is being oddly presented in a distorted way and concerned people seeking to highlight important findings and ask questions have found themselves inexplicably under attack.

Before debating excess deaths, it's important to understand how excess death is determined, to understand if there is an excess by definition you need to estimate how many deaths it would have been expected. The Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development used 2015 to 2019 as a baseline, and the government's Office of Health Disparities and Improvement [Office for Health Improvement and Disparities] uses 2015 to 2019 baseline, modeled to allow for aging, and I've used that data here.

Unforgivably, the Office of National Statistics have included deaths in 2021 as part of their baseline calculation for expected deaths, as if there was anything normal about the deaths in 2021. By exaggerating the number of deaths expected, the number of excess can be minimized. Why would ONS want to do that?

There's just too much that we don't know and it's not good enough, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The ONS published promptly each week the number of deaths that were registered, and while this is commendable, it's not the data point that really matters. There's a total failure to collect, never mind publish, data on deaths that are referred for investigation to the coroner. Why does this matter? A referral means that it can be many months, and given the backlog, many years, before a death is formally registered. Needing to investigate the cause of a death is fair enough. Failing to record when the death happened is not. Because of this problem we actually have no idea how many people actually died in 2021. Even now.

The problem is greatest for for the younger age groups where there's a higher proportion of deaths that are investigated. This data failure is unacceptable. It must change. There's nothing in a coroner's report that can bring anyone back from the dead, and those deaths should be reported.

The youngest age groups are important not only because they should have their whole lives ahead of them. If there is a new cause of excess mortality across the board, it would not be noticed so much in the older cohorts because the extra deaths would be drowned out amongst the expected deaths.

However, in the youngest cohorts that is not the case. There were only 2 extra deaths a day in the second half of 2021 among the 15 to 19 year-old males, but potentially even more if those referred to the coroner were fully included.

In a judicial review of the decision to vaccinate yet younger children the ONS refused in court to give anonymized details about these deaths. They admitted that the data they were withholding was statistically significant. And I quote, they said, the ONS recognizes that more work could be undertaken to examine the mortality rates of young people in 2021 and intends to do so once more reliable data are available.

How many more extra deaths in 15 to 19 year-olds will it take to trigger such work? Surely the ONS should be desperately keen to investigate deaths in young men. Why else have an independent body charged with examining mortality data? Surely the ONS has a responsibility to collect data from the coroners to produce timely information.

Let's move on to old people because most deaths in the old are registered promptly and we do have a better feel for how many older people are dying.

Deaths from dementia and Alzheimers show what we ought to expect. There was a period of high mortality coinciding with covid and lockdowns, but ever since there have been fewer deaths than expected. After a period of high mortality we expect, and historically have seen, a period of low mortality because those who have suddenly died cannot die again. Those whose deaths were slightly premature because of covid and lockdowns, died earlier than they otherwise would have. This principle should hold true for every cause of death in every age group. But that's not what we're seeing.

Even for the over 85 year-olds, according to the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities, there were 8,000 excess deaths, 4% above the expected levels, for the 12 months starting in July 2020. That includes all of the autumn 2020 wave of covid, when we had tiering, the second lockdown, and it includes all of the first covid winter.

However, for the year starting July 2022, there have been over 18,000 excess deaths in this age group, 9% above expected levels. More than twice as many in a period when there should have been a deficit. And when deaths from diseases previously associated with old age were actually fewer than expected.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have raised my concerns around NG163 and the use of midazolam and morphine which may have caused and may still be causing premature deaths in the vulnerable. But that is, sadly, a debate for another day.

There were just over 14,000 excess deaths in the under 65 year-olds before vaccination from April 2020 to the end of March 2021. Ever since that time there's been over 21,000 excess deaths, ignoring the registration delay problem, the majority, 58% of these deaths, were not attributed to covid.

We turned society upside down before vaccination for fear of excess deaths from covid, today we have substantially more excess deaths, and in younger people, and there's complete and eerie silence, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

The evidence is unequivocal. There was a clear step-wise increase in mortality following the vaccine roll out. There was a reprieve in the winter of 2021-22 because there were fewer than expected respiratory deaths, but otherwise the excess has been incessantly at this high level.

8:18
Ambulance data for England provides another clue. Ambulance calls for life-threatening emergencies were running at a steady 2,000 calls per day until the vaccine roll out. From then it rose to 2,500 daily, and calls have stayed at this level since.

The surveillance systems designed to spot a safety problem have all flashed red, but no one's looking.

Claims for personal independence payments for people who have developed a disability and cannot work rocketed with the vaccine roll out, and it's continued to rise ever since. The same was seen in the USA, also started with the vaccine roll out, not with covid. A study to determine the vaccination status of a sample of such claimants would be relatively quick and inexpensive to perform, yet nobody seems interested in ascertaining this vital information. Officials have chosen to turn a blind eye to this disturbing, irrefutable and frightening data, much like Nelson did, and for far less honorable reasons. He would be ashamed of us, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Furthermore, data that has been used to sing the praises of the vaccines is deeply flawed. Only one covid-related death was prevented in each of the initial major trials that led to authorization of the vaccines, and that is taking their data entirely at face value, whereas a growing number of inconsistencies and anomalies suggest we ought not to do this.

Extrapolating from that means that between 15,000 and 20,000 people had to be injected to prevent a single death from covid. To prevent a single covid hospitalization, over 1,500 people needed to be injected. The trial data showed that one in 800 injected people had a serious adverse event, meaning that they were hospitalized or had a life-changing or life-threatening condition. The risk of this was twice as high as the chance of preventing a covid hospitalization. We are harming one in 800 people to supposedly save one in 20,000. This is madness.

The strongest claims have too often been based on modeling carried out on the basis of flawed assumptions. Where observational studies have been carried out, researchers will correct for age and co-morbidities to make the vaccines look better. However, Mr. Deputy Speaker, they never correct for socioeconomic or ethnic differences that would make vaccines look worse. This matters. For example, claims of higher mortality in less vaccinated regions in the United States took no account of the fact that this was the case before the vaccines were rolled out. That is why studies that claim to show the vaccines prevented covid deaths also showed a marked effect of them preventing non-covid deaths. The prevention of non-covid deaths is always a statistical illusion and claims of preventing covid deaths should not be assumed when that illusion has not been corrected for. And when it is corrected for, the claims of efficacy for the vaccines vanish with it.

Covid disproportionately killed people from ethnic minorities and lower socioeconomic groups.

During the 2020, during the pandemic, the deaths among the most deprived were up by 23% compared to 17% for the least deprived. However, since 2022 the pattern has reversed, with 5% excess mortality amongst the most deprived, compared to 7% among the least deprived. These deaths are being caused by something different.

In 2020, the excess was highest in the oldest cohorts, and there were fewer than expected deaths amongst younger age groups. But since 2022 the 50 to 64-year-old cohort has had the highest excess mortality. Even the youngest age groups are now seeing substantial excess, with a 9% excess in the under-50s since 2022 compared to 5% now in the over-75 group.

Despite London being a younger region, the excess in London is only 3%, whereas it is higher in every more heavily vaccinated region of the UK. And it should be noted, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that London is famously the least vaccinated region in the UK by some margin. Studies comparing regions on a larger scale show the same thing. There are studies from the Netherlands, Germany and the whole world each showing that the highest mortality after vaccination was seen in the most heavily vaccinated regions.

So we need to ask, what are people dying of? Since 2022, there has been 11% excess in ischemic heart disease deaths and a 16% excess in heart failure deaths. In meantime, cancer deaths are only 1% above expected levels, which is further evidence this is not simply some other factor that affects deaths across the board, such as a failing to account for an aging population or a failing NHS. In fact, the excess itself has a seasonality with a peak in the winter months. The fact it returns to baseline levels in summer is a further indication that this is not due to some statistical error or an aging population alone.

Dr. Clare Craig from the HART group* first highlighted a stepwise increase in cardiac arrest calls after the vaccine roll out in May 2021 and HART have repeatedly raised concerns about the increase in cardiac deaths. And they have every reason to be concerned. Four participants in the vaccine group of the Pfizer trial died from cardiac arrest compared with only one in the placebo group. Overall there were 21 deaths in the vaccine group up to March 2021 compared with 17 in the placebo group. And there are serious anomalies about the reporting of the deaths within this trial, with the deaths in the vaccine group taking much longer to report than those in the placebo group. And that's highly suggestive, Mr. Deputy Speaker, of a significant bias in what was supposed to be a blinded trial.

An Israeli study clearly showed an increase in cardiac hospital attendances among 18 to 39 year-olds that correlated with vaccination, not with covid. There have now been several post-mortem studies demonstrating a causal link between vaccination and coronary artery disease leading to death up to four months after the last dose. And we need to remember that the safety trial was cut short to only two months, so there's no evidence of any vaccine safety beyond that point.

The decision to unblind the trials after two months and vaccinate the placebo group is nothing less than a public health scandal. Everyone involved failed in their duty to do the truth. But no one cares, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

The one place that can help us understand exactly what caused this is Australia. Australia had almost no covid when vaccines were first introduced, making them the perfect control group. The state of South Australia had only 1,000 cases of covid across its whole population by December 2021 before omicron arrived. What was the impact of vaccination there? For 15 to 44 year-olds, there was historically 1,300 emergency cardiac presentations a month. With vaccine roll out in the under-50s this rocketed to 2,172 cases in November 2021 in this age group alone, a 67% more than usual. Overall there were 17,900 South Australians who had a cardiac emergency in 2021 compared to only 13,250 in 2018, a 35% increase. It is clearly the vaccine that must be the number one suspect in this, and it cannot be dismissed as just a coincidence. Australian mortality overall has increased from early 2021, and the increase is due to cardiac deaths.

These excess deaths are not due to an aging population because there are fewer deaths in the diseases of old age. These deaths are not an effect of covid because they've happened in places where covid have not reached. And they are not due to low statin prescriptions or under-treated hypertension, as Chris Whitty** would suggest, because prescriptions did not change, and any effect would have taken many years and been very small. The prime suspect must be something that was introduced to the population as a whole, something novel. The prime hypothesis must be the experimental covid-19 vaccines.

The ONS published a dataset of deaths by vaccinated and unvaccinated. At first glance, it appears to show that the vaccines are safe and effective. However, there were several huge problems with how they presented that data. One was that for the first three-week period after injection, the ONS claimed there were only a tiny number of deaths, the number the ONS would normally predict to occur in a single week. Where were the deaths from the usual causes? When this was raised, the ONS claimed that the sickest people did not get vaccinated and therefore the people were taking the vaccination were self-selecting for those least likely to die. Not only is this not the case in the real world, with even hospices heavily vaccinating their residents, but the ONS’s own data show that the proportion of sickest people was equal in the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups. This inevitably raises serious questions about the ONS’s data presentation.

There were so many problems with the methodology used by the ONS that the statistics regulator agreed that the ONS data could not be used to assess vaccine efficacy or safety. That tells you something about the ONS.

Consequently, HART asked the UK Health Security Agency to provide the data they had on people who had died and therefore needed to be removed from their vaccination dataset. This request has been repeatedly refused, with excuses given including the false claim that anonymizing this data would be the equivalent of creating it, even though there is case law that anonymization is not considered creation of new data. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I believe that if this data was released, it would be damning.

Some claim that so many lives have been saved by mass vaccination that any amount of harm, suffering, and death caused by the vaccines is a price worth paying. They're delusional, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The claim of 20 million lives saved is based on now discredited models which assume that covid waves do not peak without intervention. There have been numerous waves globally that now demonstrate that is not the case. And it was also based on there having been more than half a million lives saved in the UK. That's more than the worst-case scenario predicted at the beginning of the pandemic. For the claim to have been true, the rate at which covid killed people would have had to have taken off dramatically at the beginning of 2021 in the absence of vaccination. That is ludicrous and it bears no relationship to the truth.

In the real world, Australia, New Zealand and South Korea have a mortality rate of 400 deaths per million up to the summer 2022 after they were first hit with omicron. So how does that compare? With the Wuhan strain, France and Europe as a whole had a mortality rate of under 400 deaths per million up to the summer of 2020. Australia, New Zealand and South Korea were all heavily vaccinated before infection, so tell me: where, where was the benefit?

The UK had just over 800 deaths per million up to the summer of 2020, so twice as much, but we know omicron is half as deadly as the Wuhan variant. The death rates per million are the same before and after vaccination, so where was the benefits of vaccination?

The regulators have failed in their duty to protect the public. They've allowed these novel products to skip crucial safety testing by letting them be described as vaccines. They've failed to insist on safety testing being done in the years since the first temporary emergency authorization. Even now, no one can tell you how much spike protein is produced on vaccination and for how long, yet another example of where there is no data for me to share with the House.

And when it comes to properly recording deaths due to vaccination, the system's broken. Not a single doctor registered a death from a rare brain clot before a doctor in Scandinavia forced the issue and the MHRA* acknowledged the problem. Only then did these deaths start to be certified by doctors in the UK. It turns out the doctors were waiting for permission from the regulator, and the regulator was waiting to be alerted by the doctors. This is a lethal circularity.

Furthermore, coroners have written regulation 28 reports highlighting deaths from vaccination to prevent further deaths, yet the MHRA said in a response to a FOI [freedom of information request] that it had not received any of them. The system we have in place is clearly not functioning to protect the public.

The regulators also missed the fact that the Pfizer trial, in the Pfizer trial, the vaccine was made for the trial participants in a highly controlled environment, in stark contrast to the manufacturing process used for the public roll out, which was based on a completely different technology. And just only, just over 200 participants were given the same product that was given to the public, but not only was the data from these people never compared to those in the trial for efficacy and safety, but the MHRA have admitted that they dropped the requirement to provide the data. That means that there was never a trial on the Pfizer product that was actually rolled out to the public, and that product has never been compared to the product that was actually trialed.**

The vaccine mass production processes use vats of Escherichia coli and present a risk of contamination with DNA from the bacteria, as well as bacterial cell walls, which can cause dangerous reactions. This is not theoretical, Mr. Deputy Speaker, this is now sound evidence that has been replicated by several labs across the world. And the mRNA vaccines were contaminated by DNA, which far exceeded the usual permissible levels. Given that this DNA is enclosed in lipid nanoparticle delivery system, it is arguable that even the permissible levels would have been far too high, these lipid nanoparticles are known to enter every organ of the body. As well as this potentially causing some of the acute adverse reactions seen, there is a serious risk of this foreign bacterial DNA inserting itself into human DNA. And will anybody investigate? No they won't.

MP DANNY KRUGER: Will you give way?

MP ANDREW BRIDGEN: I'll give way on that point.

22:33
MP DANNY KRUGER: Conscious that time is tight, I, I, I recognize that the honorable gentleman is making a very, very powerful case. Does he agree with me, that the government should be looking at this properly and should commission a review into the excess deaths, partly so we can assure our constituents that the case he's making is not in fact valid, and that the vaccines have no cause behind these excess deaths?

MP ANDREW BRIDGEN: I thank the honorable gentleman for his support on this topic, and of course that is what exactly any responsible government should do.

I wrote to the Prime Minister on the 7th August 2023 with all the evidence of this, but sadly, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I still await a response.

What will it take to stop these products? Their complete failure to stop infections was not enough, and we all know plenty of vaccinated people who have caught and spread covid. The mutation of the virus to a weaker variant, omicron, that, that, that wasn't enough. The increasing evidence of the serious harms to those of us who were vaccinated, that's not enough. And now the cardiac deaths and the deaths of young people are apparently not enough, either.

It's high time that these experimental vaccines were suspended and a full investigation into the harms they've caused initiated. History will be a harsh judge if we don't start using evidence-based medicine. We need to return to basic science, basic ethics immediately, which means listening to all voices and investigating all concerns.

In conclusion, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the experimental covid-19 vaccines are not safe and they're not effective. Despite there only being limited interest in the Chamber from colleagues, and I am very grateful to those who have attended, we can see from the public gallery, there is considerable public interest, I would implore all members of the House, present and those not, support calls for a three-hour debate on this important issue.

And Mr. Deputy Speaker, this might be the first debate on excess deaths in our Parliament, indeed, it might be the first debate on excess deaths in the world, but very sadly I promise you, it won't be the last.

[loud cheering from the public gallery]

24:29
[END OF SPEECH]

The expert testimony at the invitation of MP Andrew Bridgen in the UK parliament yesterday was important.

The room was overflowing with people. Many members of Parliament and Lords showed up to listen. The testimony given by myself as well as other scientists and physicians was science based, truthful and accurate.

Members of Congress in the USA and in Parliaments all over the worlds are hearing one main topic from their constituents.

What about the cover-up about the origins of the virus?

What about the dangers of the vaccine?

What about the cover-up of the effectiveness of early treatments?

What about the censorship?

When is the government going to come clean?

At this testimony, we had 12 members of Parliament and 4 members from the House or Lords in attendance. They listened. They were receptive. Some congratulated the Honorable Mr. Bridgen afterwards. As many of you know, this is a huge change from the empty chamber that Mr. Bridgen has been confronted with in the past.

Hello. My name is Dr. Mike Yeadon. Probably know by now that I'm a career research scientist and biologist. I've worked in the biopharmaceutical industry for over 30 years. Famously, a former vice president at Pfizer, left in 2011 as vice president and worldwide head of Respiratory research. I was responsible for everything from idea to clinical proof of concept. In the ten years after leaving Pfizer, I've worked as an independent. I consulted to 30 biotech companies. I also founded Led and sold my own biotech Ziarco. And we were written up in a 2017 article in Forbes magazine. I think it was Converting Pfizer Discards into Gold, and it was written by a former Pfizer board member. So three years before this alleged event started, I was very well regarded in the industry.

I'm going to tell you that the design of the so called vaccines was intentionally to harm people, and I'm going to give you several examples of that based on my extensive industry experience of rational drug design. Not a single atom or molecule in a synthetic drug is in there. By luck, it's in there because people chose it to be in there and they intended certain things to flow from their choices. But just very briefly, you should know, I hope there has not been a pandemic.

Denis Rancourt's data shows that the all cause mortality evidence data did not increase at all in the run up to the Declaration. Fraudulently by who? Of a pandemic. There is no public health emergency except that created by our governments. An inappropriate fraudulent PCR test was used to give people the impression that they had a particular disease where they didn't. There were all normal diseases. And then what happened was in three different ways. People were treated badly through changed medical procedures that were imposed above the level of nation. Briefly, mass ventilation of people inappropriately in hospitals that led to lots of deaths. In care homes, many people were given sedatives and respiratory depressants which led to their deaths. My PhD was specifically in that area of opiates and respiratory depression. And in the community, people were denied life saving antibiotics and died of bacterial pneumonia. There's your pandemic. There is no other pandemic. And based on this lie, we were told that vaccines were coming our way and would be our savior.

Two things, as I say. First, there's no pandemic, so you certainly don't need an experimental, rushed medical intervention. But secondly, even if you did, as someone who's worked in the industry for over 30 years, I am telling you it's absolutely impossible to invent, test, clinically, evaluate and manufacture and then launch on global scale a complex biomedical product. It's absolutely impossible. It's not as close, it's years wrong. The fastest record price of this was six years. And friends of mine who've worked all their lives in manufacturing of complex biological products tell me the methods development alone for the development of a reproducible manufacturing process itself takes a number of years. So whatever it is you think was done, I am telling you, there was not the development of a proper medical product.

What I think happened was the advancement of materials that are intentionally toxic. And then they were sketchily, advanced and jammed into people's arms, often coerced, sometimes even mandated, with the unsurprising effect that millions of people have died. I don't have time today to explain what I think they're going to do in the future, but suffice to say, more injections are coming if we don't stop this. So, like I said, I'm skilled in the arts of rational drug discovery.

So why am I saying these materials are intentionally toxic? Well, let me give you the first example. How do you think your body plays nice with itself, but when it's infected or detects a cancer, it goes to war. And the answer is, it distinguishes self things that are meant to be inside you from non self, from foreign things that are not meant to be inside you. And it is trained exquisitely to detect and attack non self foreign things. If you inject a person with a gene that encodes a foreign piece of protein, like a spike protein from a foreign organism, your body will detect that. And every single cell that takes up that material and expresses foreign protein will be attacked and killed by your immune system.

Now, if you think that's advanced immunology, let me put you right. It's in the first chapter. Distinguishing self from non self is one of the foremost lessons of immunology. And every single person involved in the train of delivery of these materials to doctor's hands knew what I've just told you, they will inevitably cause injury. Then on top of that, it's not just bad enough that you're making a foreign protein, you're making a specific material called spike protein. Those materials are biologically active. That is, if you add them to human blood, for example, they start to coagulate, it clots. Those materials are biological toxins. So now you've got a genetic sequence that forms foreign proteins. That means your body attacks and kills every cell that does it. And if you should release any of that protein in your blood, it will form blood clots. If it releases it near nerves, for example, you will get one or other of several neurological defects. And of course, it's not just nerves or blood. There's a third major factor, and there are many others. But let me give you the third one. These materials are formulated it's normal to formulate drugs. These are formulated in fatty globules called lipid nanoparticles. What they do is disguise the foreign genetic information so your body doesn't see it initially until it gets inside your cells and it goes all around your body. It will glide through the cell wall as if it wasn't there. And that was the entire point of it. So that means these materials don't just go to your lymph nodes. And they certainly don't stay in your arm where they're injected. They go all around the body, including into your brain and your blood and every organ in your body. But here's the thing. Ten years ago, there were papers published, and it was well established and well known in the industry that lipid nanoparticles, lipid nanocarriers deposit their cargo, preferentially in the ovaries, and that was confirmed with the pfizer products in an animal experiment performed for the Japanese regulators.

So, by design, these agents cause an autoimmune attack on every tissue. They make your body form a well understood biological toxin that can damage multiple organs in your body. And they deposited their cargoes, preferentially in the reproductive tissues of women and girls. So if you think that's by luck, then you're mistaken. There is no doubt in my mind, anyone of my caliber, and this is my peers that worked on this, absolutely understood what they were designing and manufacturing.

So I think, having heard what I've just said, that there was no pandemic and the lie was maintained in order to inject people en masse, I think five and a half billion people with an intentionally dangerous substance, 17 million of whom have died so far. What do you think is happening and what do you think your role as an individual is in stopping this crime?

Thank you for listening.

Heroic Englishman stands his ground in epic street standoff at the Million Mask March

“You wanna fight me for England?”