‘I BELIEVE that future generations will ridicule us for what we have just done in response to a seasonal airborne virus. We lost our collective minds. We imposed a brand new type of quarantine on a healthy population, in breach of all previous public health advice, in breach of our own carefully drafted, expert pandemic plan, and in flagrant breach of the sensible and experienced advice from many professionals. Those noble dissenters are being vindicated. One by one. Inevitably so, as the suppressed, shaming real world evidence emerges.’ – Andrew Bridgen MP, opening the parliamentary debate on Trends in Excess Deaths, Tuesday January 16
No one, even his worst enemy, could deny that Andrew Bridgen is a brave, exceptionally hardworking and determined man. He is the MP who goes where others fear to tread his pursuit of the truth: the Post Office scandal, vaccine injury and now excess deaths.
On Tuesday he crossed the second hurdle in his campaign to achieve a full parliamentary debate on excess deaths. The first, last October, was his speech on excess deaths in an adjournment debate. This one came as a result of his December 4 event at Portcullis House where he persuaded 20 MPs to hear Drs Pierre Kory, Robert Malone, David Martin, the analyst Steve Kirsch and Professor Angus Dalgleish speak on this very question to the crowded room assembled there. Following this success 17 sufficiently concerned MPs signed Andrew’s application to the Business Committee for a debate on ‘Trends in Excess Deaths’.
Hence the debate that took place in Westminster Hall on Tuesday. I was glad to see him flanked once again by his similarly resolute colleague Sir Christopher Chope MP.*
You can watch the full ninety minute debate here.
Needless to say, and disgracefully, not one mainstream newspaper has reported it. This is despite a record 23 backbenchers attending whose speech time limit, after Andrew’s opening 32-minute tour de force, had to be cut to three minutes each – that’s apart from the two front-bench speakers – the significance of which Andrew told me ‘certainly supports an application for a full three-hour debate in the main chamber’. His next hurdle.
MSM indifference, furthermore, was not for the want of a press pack, which is linked to here. They had no excuse. Except that any admission of excess deaths following covid vaccination blows a hole in the ‘saving lives’ narrative that the public health establishment, the Times, Mirror, Guardian and BBC have so blindly followed, and still do as they excitably report the latest spurious claims that ‘under-vaccination’ could be associated with more severe covid outcomes. As Will Jones explains here, the Lancet study in question is a deeply flawed and on more than one count. Yet these newspapers were much more interested in parroting baseless claims than in reading Andrew Bridgen’s carefully researched press pack. This includes the full transcript of his speech and evidence of the trend – statistical data and graphs compiled with the expert aid of Dr Clare Craig which eliminate inter alia covid itself as a cause. There is more than a doctoral thesis here. It is what the lazy and head-in-the-sand Office for National Statistics (ONS) should have started producing months ago. The graphs include global data that underline the worrying worldwide trend. The pack succeeds in its intent to provide a comprehensive overview of the issue of excess deaths and to highlight the need for urgent attention and action. An associated briefing paper points to all the questions which should concern journalists but which in the main they are ignoring. Not least the ‘defence’ made by Health Minister Maria Caulfield in her response to the adjournment debate in October.
During this she quoted a paper from Singapore that claimed covid caused heart disease and that the vaccine protected from this. But did she realise the paper’s authors were responsible for the vaccine rollout in Singapore? That vaccinated people were included as ‘unvaccinated’ in the data analysis? That half of the so-called ‘unvaccinated’ had received a vaccine? The answer to all the questions is ‘apparently not’. To the contrary, the data shows that the rise in heart deaths in Singapore came with the vaccine rollout and after covid, and that heavily vaccinated Singapore has had a 15-20 per cent increase in mortality. Believing that this is due to deaths in the fewer than 10 per cent of unvaccinated people, as Bridgen points out, is naïve in the extreme.
This is the institutionalised stupidity that Andrew Bridgen is up against. It’s a tough battle that most would baulk at. Not Andrew. Once more he is to be praised for his fortitude and persistence.
Here are three main points from his evidence that the establishment did indeed ‘go mad’ in its hysterical response to a not-so-lethal virus:
1. In 2022 there were 577,000 deaths and in 2023 581,000 – a huge rise when a significant deficit would have been expected. Moreover, the numbers are higher in middle-aged and younger groups: the 50-64 age group was stricken with 12 per cent more deaths than usual in 2022, 13 per cent in 2023.
2. One in 800 vaccine doses led to serious adverse consequences. But the products were not pulled. Why? The rotavirus vaccine was entirely withdrawn after causing an adverse event in one in 10,000. The 2009 swine flu vaccine was pulled after one in 35,000 were harmed. Still the covid jabs are being pushed and seriously harming people, inevitably at a rate greater than one in 800, since most people received multiple doses. Why?
3. All the standard procedures, protocols and science were bypassed to inflict on a healthy population a brand new and untested product never used outside clinical trials, never mind approved, for which there was a) no long term safety data, b) no age stratification for recipients for an illness with an average mortality age of 82, c) no liability under any circumstances for the manufacturers. Yet there were good reasons based on the science known at the time why these products might be harmful.
* To see if your MP was one of those attending the debate please see the Hansard transcript here
This article replaces our regular Democracy in Decay column this week. Next Thursday, however, Andrew Bridgen will address this topic head on – why he believes more direct democracy is the way forward.