Thursday, May 23, 2024
HomeCOVID-19Andrew Bridgen’s masterly speech on excess deaths – to almost empty benches

Andrew Bridgen’s masterly speech on excess deaths – to almost empty benches


THE stubbornness, obstinacy and sheer laziness of our elected representatives in Parliament never ceases to amaze. Andrew Bridgen MP has worked doggedly to get debated in Parliament the extremely concerning problem of excess deaths – which the establishment is both in denial about and appears to be trying to hide. 

Last Thursday – the day he succeeded in securing this and was able to call on the Covid-19 Inquiry ‘to move on to its module 4 investigation into vaccines and therapeutics as soon as possible’ – he delivered another excellent speech covering a lot of ground, backed up by hard evidence, to an all-but-empty chamber. Fifteen MPs attended. In stark contrast was the packed visitors’ gallery, which in the view of one TCW reader was in some ways the most chilling part of the afternoon. If anything marked the gap which now exists between Parliament and the people who voted for them, and put them there, it was Madam Speaker’s threat to clear them out. Two lesser-known MPs, however put their heads well above the parapet in support – Graham Stringer and Neale Hanvey.

You can read the 20,000 words of the debate here.

You can watch the debate here. 

What follows are some key extracts from Andrew’s opening speech along with a list of the brave and decent MPs who did attend and some of their contributions.

‘We are witnesses to the greatest medical scandal in this country in living memory, and possibly ever: the excess deaths in 2022 and 2023. Its causes are complex, but the novel and untested medical treatment described as a covid vaccine is a large part of the problem. I have been called an anti-vaxxer, as if I have rejected those vaccines based on some ideology. I want to state clearly and unequivocally that I have not: in fact, I am double-vaccinated and vaccine-harmed. Intelligent people must be able to tell when people are neither pro-vax nor anti-vax, but are against a product that does not work and causes enormous harm to a percentage of the people who take it.

‘One does not need any science training at all to be horrified by officials deliberately hiding key data in this scandal, which is exactly what is going on. The Office for National Statistics used to release weekly data on deaths per 100,000 in vaccinated and unvaccinated populations – it no longer does so, and no one will explain why. The public have a right to that data. There have been calls from serious experts, whose requests I have amplified repeatedly in this House, for what is called record-level data to be anonymised and disclosed for analysis. That would allow meaningful analysis of deaths after vaccination, and settle once and for all the issue of whether those experimental treatments are responsible for the increase in excess deaths.

‘Far more extensive and detailed data has already been released to the pharma companies from publicly funded bodies. Jenny Harries, head of the UK Health Security Agency, said that this anonymised, aggregate death by vaccination status data is “commercially sensitive” and should not be published. The public are being denied that data, which is unacceptable; yet again, data is hidden with impunity, just like in the Post Office scandal. Professor Harries has also endorsed a recent massive change to the calculation of the baseline population level used by the ONS to calculate excess deaths. It is now incredibly complex and opaque, and by sheer coincidence, it appears to show a massive excess of deaths in 2020 and 2021 and minimal excess deaths in 2023. Under the old calculation method, tried and tested for decades, the excess death rate in 2023 was an astonishing 5 per cent – long after the pandemic was over, at a time when we would expect a deficit in deaths because so many people had sadly died in previous years. Some 20,000 premature deaths in 2023 alone are now being airbrushed away through the new normal baseline.

‘Shocking things happened during the pandemic response. In March 2020, the Government conducted a consultation exercise on whether people over a certain age or with certain disabilities should have “do not resuscitate” orders, known as DNRs, imposed upon them. A document summarising the proposals was circulated to doctors and hospitals; it was mistakenly treated as formal policy by a number of care homes and GPs up and down the country who enacted it. At the same time, multiple hospitals introduced a policy that they would not admit patients with DNRs, because they thought that they would be overwhelmed. The result was that people died who did not need to die while nurses performed TikTok dances.

‘The average time to death from experiencing covid symptoms and testing positive was 18 days. It is a little-known fact that the body clears all the viruses within around seven days; what actually kills people is that some, especially the vulnerable, have an excessive immune response. Doctors have been treating that response for decades with steroids, antibiotics for secondary pneumonia infections and other standard protocols, but they did not do so this time. Even though the virus was long gone, doctors abandoned the standard clinical protocols because covid was a “new virus” – which it was not. They sent people home, told them to take paracetamol until their lips turned blue, and then when those people returned to hospital, they sedated them, put them on ventilators and watched them die.

‘The protocol for Covid-19 treatment was a binary choice between two treatment tracks. Once admitted, ill patients were either ventilated in intensive care or – if they were not fit for that level of care – given end-of-life medication, including midazolam and morphine. The body responsible for that protocol, NG163, which was published on 3 April 2020, is called the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, or NICE. Giving midazolam and morphine to people dying of cancer is reasonable, but there is a side-effect, which is that those drugs have a respiratory depressant effect. It is hard to imagine a more stupid thing to do than giving a respiratory suppressant to someone who is already struggling to breathe with the symptoms of Covid-19, but that is exactly what we did.

‘Interestingly, NICE has now removed these alternative protocols, including NG163, from its website, although every other historical protocol is still there for reference. Could the Minister tell us why NICE has removed this protocol from its website? Is it ashamed of the harm it has caused? It certainly should be. What can we learn from this? We learn that very few doctors dare challenge what they are told. Protocols with no authors are distributed, and doctors fall into line.

‘There is a huge, stark contrast in how deaths and illnesses after vaccination have been recorded compared with those after covid. After a positive covid test, any illness and any death was attributed to the virus. After the experimental emergency vaccine was administered, no subsequent illness and no death was ever attributed to the vaccine. Those are both completely unscientific approaches, and that is why we have to look at other sources of data – excess deaths – to determine whether there is an issue.

‘First, however, I want to address the phrase “safe and effective”. The fear deliberately stoked up by the Government promoted the idea of being rescued by a saviour vaccine. The chanting of the “safe and effective” narrative began, and the phrase seemed to hypnotise the whole nation. “Safe and effective” was the sales slogan of thalidomide. After that scandal, rules were put in place to prevent such marketing in future by pharma companies, and they are prohibited from using “safe and effective” without significant caveats.

‘That did not matter this time because, with Covid-19 vaccines, the media, the Government and other authorities turned into Big Pharma’s marketing department, and it is very hard now to hear the word “safe” without the echo of the words “and effective”, but they are not safe and effective. In March 2021, when the majority of UK citizens had already received these novel products, Pfizer signed a contract with Brazil and South Africa saying that “the long-term effects and efficacy of the Vaccine are not currently known and adverse effects of the Vaccine are not currently known”. That is verbatim from the Pfizer contracts.

‘These so-called vaccines were the least effective vaccines ever. Is there anyone left under any illusion that they prevented any infections? When he was at the Dispatch Box for Prime Minister’s questions on 31 January, even the Prime Minister, in answer to my question, could not bring himself to add “and effective” to his “safe” mantra. In his own words, he was “unequivocal” that the vaccines are “safe”. The word “safe” means without risk of death or injury. Why is the Prime Minister gaslighting the 163 successful claims made to the vaccine damage payment scheme, totalling £19.5million in compensation, for harm caused by the covid vaccines? Have these people not suffered enough already? Those 163 victims are the tip of the iceberg, by the way. It also should be noted that the maximum payment is only £120,000, so each of those 163 victims got the maximum possible award, which should tell us something. The same compensation scheme paid out a total of only £3.5million between 1997 and 2005, with an average of only eight claims per year, and that is for all claims for the entire country for all vaccines administered. So much for “safe”.

‘How about effective? Those who imposed these vaccines knew full well that they could never prevent infection from a disease of this kind. An injection in the arm cannot do that. Only immunity on the surface of the airways and the lungs can prevent viral infection; antibodies in the blood cannot. In Dr Anthony Fauci’s words: “It is not surprising that none of the predominantly mucosal respiratory viruses have ever been effectively controlled by vaccines.”  

‘They knew that the so-called vaccines would never protect from infection, which explains why they never tested for protection from infection. 

‘It is important to remember how the vaccines were made. Traditionally, the key to making a vaccine is to ensure that the pathological, harmful parts of the virus or bacteria are inactivated, so that the recipient can develop an immune response without danger of developing the disease. In stark contrast, the so-called covid vaccines used the most pathological or harmful part of the virus – the spike protein – in its entirety. The harm is systemic because, contrary to what everyone was told, the lipid nanoparticles, encapsulating the genetic material, spread through the whole body after injection, potentially affecting all organs. At the time, everyone was being reassured that the injection was broken down in the arm at the injection site. Regulators ought to have known that those were problems.

‘Furthermore, it is now plentifully evident that the drug results in continued spike protein production for many months – even years, in some people. The deaths thus far have been predominantly cardiac, but there may unfortunately be many more deaths to come from these novel treatments, which may induce extra cancer deaths. Dr Robert Tindle is the retired director of the Clinical Medical Virology Centre in Brisbane, and emeritus professor of immunology. This month he published a paper highlighting the multiple potential harms from the vaccines, including harm to the immune system. As anyone who knows anything about biology will know, anything that disrupts the immune system can potentially increase the risk of cancer. 

‘An independent study in Japan, published last week, has found links between increased cancer rates in Japan and those who took the first and subsequent booster vaccines. Perhaps that explains why Pfizer acquired a cancer treatment company for a reported $43billion earlier this year.

‘In conclusion, the evidence is clear: these vaccines have caused deaths. Despite that, they have been described as safe and effective. However, for a proportion of people who took them, the vaccines have caused serious harm and death, and they will have raised the risk of cancer for many more. Nor are they effective. The vaccine does not prevent infection or transmission, and when the data is looked at objectively, it shows that the vaccine does not prevent serious illness or death. Those are hard truths to face, but we must face them if we want to learn the lessons of the last few years. At some point we will have to face up to all the evidence that is building. It was fairly convincing 18 months ago when I first spoke out, but it is unequivocal now.

‘It is time to take the politics out of our science, and to put actual science back into our politics. I ask the House to support the motion today, and for Baroness Hallett’s inquiry to open module 4 on the safety and efficacy of the experimental Covid-19 vaccines. Given the evidence, I call on the Government once again to immediately suspend the use of all mRNA treatments in both humans and animals, pending the outcome of that inquiry.’

The first and supportive response came from Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch, Con)  in an impassioned speech on the total inadequacy of the Vaccine Payments Damage scheme and his own efforts with the intransigent government to reform it. Philip Hollobone (Kettering, Con) intervened with his concerns. Wera Hobhouse (Bath, LD) negatively argued that the benefits of the vaccines outweighed the risks. Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich, Con) also appeared to justify the risks involved in medical interventions generally. Danny Kruger (Devizes, Con) intervened to say the Government’s position is that there is no link between the vaccines and the excess deaths. That if they were suggesting that there is a link but it is outweighed by the benefits, that is a different argument.

Christoper Chope concluded his speech with one of many letters he has received from constituents on appalling vaccine damage. ‘I do not think’, he said, ‘anybody is challenging the authenticity of their circumstances or the complaints they make.’

By default, in the absence of any display of concern by the majority of absent MPs, we have to assume they are challenging these things – or just couldn’t give a damn.

Another (unknown to me) MP to speak out was  Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath, Alba). His contribution and his critique of the MHRA’s terrible failings was encouraging. We will publish it later this week.

Others to make comments, mainly negative and government supportive were Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock, Con) and Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West, Con)Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish, (Lab) for example came out with that unthinking ‘article of faith’ that vaccines are a game-changer in fighting covid and people should not be frightened from taking the boosters. The seriously underwhelming and unimpressive The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social CareMaria Caulfield, predictably and entirely unconvincingly defended the government policy and the vaccine.

A really significant intervention was mad by Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton, Lab) who forcefully critiqued the government’s covid response (as he demonstrated he has done from the start). He said emphatically that it had failed to what it said that it would, to follow the science: ‘In their early statements, people from the NHS, and both Chris Whitty and Patrick Vallance, said that masks were a complete waste of time and that lockdowns were ineffective because there would be a peak six months later that would probably be worse than if we had not locked down. That advice changed very quickly, I believe under political pressure. Again, I think that was a mistake.’ 

It was a speech that deserved notice. We will publish it in full tomorrow. 

If you appreciated this article, perhaps you might consider making a donation to The Conservative Woman. Unlike most other websites, we receive no independent funding. Our editors are unpaid and work entirely voluntarily as do the majority of our contributors but there are inevitable costs associated with running a website. We depend on our readers to help us, either with regular or one-off payments. You can donate here. Thank you.
If you have not already signed up to a daily email alert of new articles please do so. It is here and free! Thank you.

Kathy Gyngell
Kathy Gyngell
Kathy is Editor of The Conservative Woman. She is @kathygyngelltcw on GETTR and is back on Twitter.

Sign up for TCW Daily

Each morning we send The ConWom Daily with links to our latest news. This is a free service and we will never share your details.