SIR Christopher Chope is a courageous and good MP. Alone amongst all MPs of all parties, the Conservative member for Christchurch has taken up the cause of the ignored vaccine-injured that we reported on here and here.
He has also publicly called into question the very safety of these vaccines. He stands head and shoulders above his colleagues who have continued to toe the party line despite the evidence of its terrible costs and harms.
For his pains he has been outrageously traduced, and not just by the incumbent ‘full-fact’ but startlingly fact-free ideologues who have invaded the media to control the narrative, but shockingly by the Speaker in Parliament who last week shamefully reprimanded him for saying ‘10,000 or more people have suffered serious injury or even death as a result of adverse reactions to the Covid-19 vac’.
Had the Rt Hon Sir Lindsay Hoyle bothered to do his homework he would have found it was he, not Sir Christopher, whose effort was poor. The number cited by Sir Christopher was if anything an underestimate given the published MHRA yellow-card figures reported here which themselves are officially considered to be but 10 per cent of the real figure.
It is the Speaker who we should expect better from, even though I can have no such hope for such an MP as ignorant and unpleasant as Wes Streeting is:
I hope other Parliamentarians can prove themselves to be more open-minded by watching the mild-mannered Sir Christopher’s interview about injection harm, here below, with Roger Guttridge for Journalists Against Covid Censorship. @Holding_the_Line. He argues that the Government has been in denial about Covid-19 injection harm and used a ‘disinformation campaign’ to encourage take-up of the treatment. He alleges some seeking help from the NHS for Covid injection harm were being ‘ridiculed as having mental-health problems’. He says he is speaking out for the ‘forgotten heroes’ of the pandemic who were harmed by the injections after being told they were safe. The full transcript follows.
ROGER GUTTRIDGE: I’m Roger Guttridge, a spokesman for Holding the Line: Journalists Against Covid Censorship, and I’m delighted to be joined today by Sir Christopher Chope, the Member of Parliament for Christchurch. Chris, I have the impression, rightly or wrongly, that many of your parliamentary colleagues have been a bit reluctant to put their heads above the parapet on the subject of vaccine injuries. But if I may say so, you’ve been rather courageous on this matter and recently made an impassioned speech in the House on this. What prompts you to make this stand?
SIR CHRISTOPHER CHOPE: Well, thank you for your generous comments, but the reason I’m making a stand is because I know that there are a whole group of people who are the forgotten heroes of the pandemic, really. They’re the people who followed the government’s advice that they should get vaccinated in order to promote good public health and in following that advice, they have suffered dire consequences – in some cases fatalities and in other cases life-changing injuries. And the deal that the government had offered was that if people did the right thing and then they were in that small minority who suffered adverse consequences, then the government would ‘see them right’, in inverted commas. And that was set out in the Vaccine Damage Payments Scheme, which was adopted for Covid-19 vaccines at the outset. But as of now, none of the people who are eligible under that scheme has received any pay-out, and they’ve only just started processing claims, and they seem to be putting a lot of obstacles in the path. And I have now accused the government of being in denial about the fact that the vaccines, actually, are not safe for everybody. And we’ve now got a concession from the government to the effect that the vaccines are safe for most people, but not for everybody. And my question is: well, what are we doing to help those people for whom the vaccines weren’t safe?
RG: Do you feel you’ve made any progress on that so far?
CC: I think we have, yes. First of all, we’ve managed to get the administration of the scheme transferred to the NHS Business Authority. They have now got a dedicated team trying to deal with it, so we’re told. The government has now conceded that there are people who have been . . . died or been seriously injured as a result of these, vaccine. That wasn’t the initial case. The initial view was these vaccines are absolutely safe, and we’ve now got the government, I think, saying that they’re going to answer some of my questions. I had a meeting last week with the Secretary of State to discuss some of these issues, and he’s promised to come back with answers in writing to the series of questions, which I raised in the debate to which you were referring earlier.
RG: Yes, well, that sounds like potential progress, doesn’t it? You mentioned in your speech that you’ve received hundreds of emails, I think, from people across the UK concerning deaths and injuries as a result of the vaccine? Can you give any idea of the scale of this problem, statistically?
CC: Well, the only indication I’ve got of the scale is that the starting point for people who’ve been adversely affected by the vaccine is the Yellow Card system, where you can register an adverse reaction. And we know, from information I’ve obtained and being produced by the government, that there are between 400,000 and 500,000 Yellow Cards which have been issued in relation to vaccines, and they’re continuing to be issued at quite a high rate, about 100 a day, the latest figures I’ve got. So that’s the whole mass of people who feel they’ve had adverse reactions, but that may just be a swelling or something like that. If you look at the people who’ve been seriously affected, we know that there are at least 2,000 reports of deaths in these Yellow Card reports and that there is probably a five-figure sum of people who have suffered very serious consequences. And when I do . . . I did something on one of the television channels a couple of nights ago, and every time I speak out about this, more people start emailing me saying, ‘Well, I’ve been affected,’ or my mum or my daughter has been affected and so on. And the . . . so it’s a growing problem and all we do know is that there has never been, in our memory, a vaccine which has generated so many adverse consequences. Now, that’s because, obviously, a lot of people have been vaccinated, but that’s . . . the whole of the system was designed to ensure that those people for whom there were adverse consequences would be assisted.
RG: Yes. And I also understand that you’ve spoken to staff at the hospitals that serve your constituency, which would be the Royal Bournemouth and Poole hospitals. What sort of feedback are you getting from them about vaccine injury?
CC: Well, I’m getting some feedback to the effect that some of the people who were working in the hospitals didn’t want to have the vaccines and are relieved that now the government has pulled back from making vaccination a condition of employment. And the reason a lot of those people didn’t want to have vaccines, it’s because they have seen with their own eyes some of the adverse consequences. Now, I haven’t gone into all the details of all that, but this is not just anecdotal evidence. This is people in the medical profession who can actually see what’s happening. And there have been real difficulties in diagnosis of some of the complications that arise from vaccine damage. And the NHS has, I think, been found wanting in diagnosing and identifying what should be done in those cases. And in some cases, the people who have complained have been sort of ridiculed as having mental health issues, rather than somebody listening to the facts. Sadly, so many of the people who’ve written to me were fit and healthy and had no underlying medical issues, many of them in the middle-aged to younger age group whose lives have been completely wrecked.
RG: Yes, I mean, I personally know of people who are in that very position. Now, there is a thing that we have called ‘informed consent’, but the message we’ve heard so often in the last year or two in relation to vaccines is ‘safe and effective, safe and effective,’ repeated endlessly. So I’m wondering if you think people have been adequately informed about the risks of the Covid-19 vaccination, particularly parents and their children, because there’s been a, you know, a big push to have children vaccinated, despite the fact that the Covid risk for them seems minimal at worst. And of course, we know, don’t we, that some of those children, I don’t know how many, but we know that some of them will possibly die or be seriously . . . you know, have life-changing injuries as a result . . . do you think people have been sufficiently well informed of the risks throughout this thing?
CC: Frankly, I don’t. And particularly at the beginning there was an absolutism about the propaganda war, that the vaccines were perfect and there was no reason for not taking a vaccine. And indeed, that was the background to requiring everybody working in the care sector and, at one stage everybody working in the NHS, to have vaccination as a condition of employment. And then we had the same pressure put on people wanting to go to certain venues or to travel abroad, and the information was sadly lacking. I think more information is now coming out and some of the conditions which we’ve found have resulted, if GPs knew of those conditions before their patients were vaccinated, they should have been advised about it. But that’s a very complex area. And my biggest concern is essentially this was a propaganda war in which truth was the victim and where people were discouraged from using their own judgment, basically. And that’s why there’s almost sort of underground stories getting together now on social media, where people feel the need to club together to fight back against the disinformation campaign from the government.
RG: Yes, I absolutely agree with you on that. And of course, the group that I represent, Holding the Line, is subtitled Journalists Against Covid Censorship, which I think speaks for itself. So my next question – and you’ve kind of started to answer it already – but my next question was going to be: how do you assess the mainstream media coverage and social media coverage over the last two and a quarter years? How do you think the media have handled events?
CC: Well, I think the media have seen themselves as spokespersons for the government propaganda machine and continue so to do. And to give you an example, the debate that I initiated a fortnight ago, that debate, which was accepted by the minister as raising lots of questions – she didn’t challenge any of the facts I put forward – that debate was put up on YouTube by somebody and YouTube have taken it down, and they have prevented people seeing on YouTube what I said in Parliament on this issue, alleging that this was disinformation or factually incorrect, which it wasn’t. And I give you that as a relatively current example of what’s happening. And when I speak to mainstream journalists, including some of the main television companies and broadsheet correspondents, I find that they are saying that there’s nervousness about opening up on these issues. There’ve been some brave journalists who have bucked that trend, but at the editorial level, there’s very much a ‘let’s keep this under wraps.’
RG: Yeah, that’s exactly what we’ve found. I mean, we have members in our group who’ve been censored by their own publications, freelancers who’ve been blacklisted, journalists who’ve been given written warnings for daring to not to toe the line and so on. So yeah, we’re acutely aware of that. And that’s been going on for the whole of the two and a half, two and a quarter years that this has been happening. And in fact, you’re in good company in being censored by YouTube because many of the world’s leading immunologists, vaccinologists, doctors, scientists, people like Robert Malone, Geert Vanden Bossche, Mike Yeadon, Peter McCullough, Vladimir Zelenko, to name but five who have been censored. The British Medical Journal has been censored by Facebook for – I mean, that’s, you know, a very worthy publication, I would suggest – that’s been censored by Facebook for daring to quote a whistleblower on the failings of the Pfizer testing procedures. So let’s say you’re in jolly good company. And this is an immense concern to the group that I represent. Relating to that, there’s also going through parliament now, I believe, an Online Safety Bill, which obviously has some very commendable aims, protecting children and so on. But there are concerns in some quarters that by giving the social media companies a share of responsibility and penalising them if they don’t censor, as it were, that this might increase the level of censorship against what you call government propaganda or . . . if you see what I’m getting at? There is a concern that might be the case. Do you share that concern and will you be keeping an eye on this?
CC: Well, I am increasingly concerned about this, the implications of the Bill, and I am indeed keeping an eye on it. And a number of people who’ve written to me have shared their concerns about this, that this is all about good intentions, but actually, the consequence may well be quite the reverse of what people want. And fundamental to our democracy is the ability for people to speak out fearlessly expressing their views. And that looks as though that could be under challenge and when you see organisations purporting to be fact-checkers, then coming along and really trying to ridicule and discredit the facts, then you start wondering who’s behind all this? And I think some of them would be . . . Mr Putin would be quite proud of some of them, I think.
RG: Yeah. Who do you think is behind that?
CC: Well, I think there is always a . . . there is a group of people who are rather statist in outlook who would like to . . . life would be so much easier if people couldn’t express individual opinions, wouldn’t it?
RG: Absolutely, yes. Well, Chris, it’s been very good to talk to you today. Thank you very much for joining us and I look forward to talking about this again, and hopefully you’ll have made more progress in your campaign to get people adequately compensated for vaccine damage. Thank you very much.
CC: Well, thank you, and good luck to you and your team, and let’s try and win this battle and the war. Thank you.
RG: Absolutely. Yes, we’ll do that, or we’ll try. Thanks.