Connect with us

COVID-19

British MP Andrew Bridgen gives powerful speech on ‘scandal’ of excess deaths after COVID jab rollout

Published

2 weeks ago

17 minute read

MP Andrew Bridgen

From LifeSiteNews

By Frank Wright

British MP Andrew Bridgen called for an immediate suspension of ‘all mRNA treatments in both humans and animals,’ saying that excess deaths in 2022 and 2023 was ‘the greatest medical scandal in this country in living memory, and possibly ever.’

With three years of excess deaths still mysteriously unexplained, Dr. John Campbell devoted an entire video to a House of Commons debate on what MP Andrew Bridgen has called the “greatest medical scandal in this country in living memory.”

Introducing Bridgen as “a hero of the people,” Campbell’s report from April 18 shows footage of the “COVID-19: Response and Excess Deaths” debate of the same day.

Led by MP Andrew Bridgen, who was expelled from the Conservative Party for his outspoken criticism of the so-called vaccines and the political culture which enabled the disastrous lockdown measures, the opening speech was heard by a mere handful of MPs in a largely empty chamber.

His full speech can also be viewed here on the U.K. Parliament website, beginning at 14:33:21.

The public gallery was packed, however, with Bridgen’s summary call for the government “to immediately suspend the use of all mRNA treatments in both humans and animals” met with resounding cheers and applause.

Bridgen opened with a denunciation of a scandal whose dimensions he explored with forensic detail.

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.

The independent MP warned of the verdict of history on the actions of a government which had “gaslit” its people into compliance.

Future generations, who will be genuinely agog that the evidence has been ignored for so long, that genuine concerns were disregarded, and that those raising them were gaslit, smeared, and vilified.

The scandal of excess deaths, which the U.K. and other governments still refuse to connect to the “safe and effective” mRNA injections, is one dimension of a politically charged culture of silence, says Bridgen.

Data hidden

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.

He went on to recount how data on excess deaths was being withheld from the public, and had now been recalibrated to downplay the figures.

The public are being denied that data, which is unacceptable; yet again, data is hidden with impunity.

He notes how Professor Jenny Harries, the U.K. Health Security Agency chief, has “said that this anonymized, aggregate death by vaccination status data is “commercially sensitive” and should not be published.”

Bridgen records how “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.”

Data model changed

This new model is “now incredibly complex and opaque,” he claimed, “and by sheer coincidence, it appears to show a massive excess of deaths in 2020 and 2021 and minimal excess deaths in 2023.”

The implication is that the modeling has been altered to suit the narrative, which routinely denies any connection between the “vaccine” rollouts and excess deaths, as well as soaring heart conditions and rising cases of aggressive cancers.

Yet the “old calculation method, tried and tested for decades” showed “the [U.K.] excess death rate in 2023 was an astonishing 5 percent.”

Bridgen points out that these deaths came “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.”

Due to Harries’ changes in data capture, he said, “some 20,000 premature deaths in 2023 alone are now being airbrushed away through the new normal baseline.”

Harries attracted derision for her claim that 2,800 excess deaths over the summer of 2022 were due to climate change.

Safe and effective?

Earlier that day, Bridgen had called on Parliament to compel the ongoing COVID-19 inquiry to investigate directly the claim that the so-called vaccines, were “safe and effective.”

He said, “I asked the house to support the motion today for Baroness Hallet’s inquiry to open module four on the safety and efficacy of the experimental COVID-19 vaccines.”

This inquiry has lately been criticized by a group of U.K. public health scholars and academics for its lack of impartiality. The signatories include Oxford zoology Professor Sunetra Gupta, infectious medicine specialist Dr. Kevin Bardosh of Edinburgh University, and over 50 others including legal, sociological, and medical experts.

TikTok dance of death

In their March 12 open letter published on the website Collateral Global, it is claimed that “the [COVID] inquiry is not living up to its mission to evaluate the mistakes made during the pandemic,” being “fundamentally biased” in its “preferential treatment to scientific advisers … who have a vested interest in maintaining the justification for their policy recommendations.”

[T]he format of the Inquiry is impeding investigation into the key scientific and policy questions.

These policy questions include the confusing means by which deaths were recorded, alongside the further scandal of “iatrogenic deaths” – caused by medical intervention. The use of drugs which restricted breathing, such as morphine and midazolam, was condemned by Bridgen.

“The result is that people died who didn’t need to die while nurses performed TikTok dances,” he said.

Death by medical protocol

Pointing out that “the body clears all the viruses within around seven days,” Bridgen noted “very few people will know that the average time to death from COVID symptoms and testing positive was 18 days.”

He says this is due to the fact that “doctors abandoned the standard clinical protocols.”

Instead of using former antibiotic and steroid treatments, he says, “they sent people home … then when they returned to the hospital, they sedated them, put them on ventilators and would watch them die.”

Bridgen says this was done due to new “protocols for COVID-19 treatment” – which have now been deleted from the public record.

“The body responsible for this protocol (NG1 163) is called the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence – NICE.”

Bridgen says that a key passage – recommending the use of the respiratory depressant midazolam – had been removed from the updated guidelines. 

Can the minister explain why midazolam was then removed from the same updated guideline on the 30th of November 2023?

His next question was one which no one in government has been willing to answer.

If legal cases are brought for unlawful killing – can the minister tell us who’s going to be taking the blame?

Will it be NICE? Will it be NHS England – or will it be the individual doctors and nurses who will be held to account?

A cover-up?

Suggesting a cover-up of deaths which contributed to the excess seen in the lockdown period, Bridgen pointed out, “NICE has now removed these alternative protocols including NG1 163 from their website, although every other historic protocol is still there.”

Could the minister tell us why they have removed this protocol from their website?

Are they ashamed of the harm that they caused? They certainly should be.

Bridgen went on to note the contrast in recording “deaths and illnesses” after vaccination compared to those attributed to COVID.

There’s a huge stark contrast in how deaths and illnesses after vaccination have been recorded compared to COVID.

He said:

After a positive COVID test any illness and any death was attributed to the virus, [whereas] … after the experimental emergency use vaccine was administered, no subsequent illness and no death was ever attributed to the vaccine.

Recalling the mantra that governments were “following the science,” Bridgen added that “these are both completely unscientific approaches and that’s why we have to look at other sources of data excess deaths to determine if there is an issue.”

Noting that the notorious drug Thalidomide was also once described as “safe and effective,” he demanded rules be put in place to prevent the “government and other authorities” becoming the “Big Pharma’s marketing department,” as he claims it was under the COVID regime.

‘They knew’

Citing the millions of pounds paid to the vaccine-injured and the fact that the prime minister himself could not defend the “safe and effective” claim when it was put to him personally, Bridgen stated that “those who imposed these vaccines knew very well that they could never prevent infections from a disease of this kind.”

Referring to data from Australia, he stressed the unwillingness of governments to make the obvious connection between excess death, heart injuries, and cancer rates with the “novel mRNA vaccines.”

Calls for a ban

He closed with an appeal which condemned the fact the injections contained DNA and disrupted that of the host receiving the injections, also against former assurances to the contrary.

Madam Deputy speaker the evidence is clear: these vaccines have caused deaths … serious harm and they will have raised the risk of cancer to many more.

I ask the House – it’s time to take the politics out of our science and … to put some actual science back into our politics.

With this, he called for an immediate ban on the experimental treatments.

I call on the government once again to immediately suspend the use of all mRNA treatments in both humans and animals.

The science ‘was not followed’

One of only 12 other MPs in the almost empty chamber, Sir Christopher Chope, spoke in support of Bridgen’s call, which was met with resounding cheers from the public gallery. The speaker threatened to clear the public gallery, saying “the clapping must stop.”

Graham Stringer, Labour MP for Blackley and Broughton, is one of those few MPs with a scientific background. He said the claim made by the U.K. government and others to be “following the science” was simply false.

The science was not followed.

Stringer cites the change in public health advice, which contradicted earlier statements by public health officials such as the government’s chief scientific adviser, Sir Patrick Vallance, and the government’s chief medical adviser, Chris Whitty.

If you go back and look at the early statements, you will see … people from the NHS, Patrick Vallance and Chris Whitty saying masks were a waste of time and that lockdowns were ineffective.

The U.K.’s Independent reported in March 2020 that “[c]hief medical officer tells public not to wear masks – Chris Whitty instead advises people to regularly wash their hands.”

He told Sky News in an interview that “wearing a face mask if you don’t have an infection … really reduces the risk almost not at all.”

Stringer says, “That advice changed very quickly under political pressure.”

If this pressure did not come from following the science, where did it come from?

The U.K. government now appears to be following a policy of silence, given its own COVID inquiry in 2023 confirmed that the government knew that there was “no point” to wearing masks, which had “very little effect on the spread on [sic] COVID.”

Evidence was submitted from a government official at the prime minister’s residence, Number 10 Downing St., in February 2023. Parties at Number 10 during lockdown were captured on film.

In his own diaries, Vallance himself condemned the then Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon’s decision to mandate mask-wearing in schools as a “totally political” decision, according to a Daily Telegraph report from March 12. According to him, the decision was “not based on medical advice.”

It was instead a result of her political ambition to present a policy distinct from that in England to fortify a renewed call for Scottish independence.

It is obvious that political pressure has played a role in shaping the lockdown era. It is also now apparent that the obvious is excluded from the news, with governments still refusing to acknowledge any connection between the novel mRNA treatments and the entirely predictable side effects seen in the vaccine-injured and the otherwise inexplicable rate of excess deaths.

If you want to know where the truth of the matter lies, just follow the silence. It’s not coming from the public gallery.

Related Topics:

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

More from this author
Brownstone Institute / 19 mins ago

Musk Wins Latest Censorship Battle in Australia

Brownstone Institute / 40 mins ago

Enough With These Dangerous Calculations

Business / 4 hours ago

ESG Puppeteers

Brownstone Institute

Enough With These Dangerous Calculations

Published on May 20, 2024

By

From the Brownstone Institute

BY Jeffrey A. TuckerJEFFREY A. TUCKER 

Now that there is more open talk about vaccine injury, we are continually assured that overall these vaccines were worth it even so. The thought always occurs: it has not been worth it for the injured. Nor is their injury lessened by the knowledge that others were helped, if they were.

What precise metric are we going to use to determine costs and benefits population-wide? Many millions were forced to take experimental injections that they did not want nor need. Many were injured and with no chance of compensation. This is gravely unjust. You don’t need to take recourse to fancy philosophical conjectures (The Trolley Problem, The Lifeboat Dilemma, The Fat Man on the Bridge, etc.) to do the utilitarian calculation.

And yet, such calculations are precisely what the defenders of society-wide pandemic interventions are citing as evidence that we can and should do it again. The costs are high, they now admit, but worth the benefit.

Well, maybe not. It’s hard to say but they will keep working on it. They will decide in due course.

This is the argument of Professor John M. Barry. His book on the 1918 flu pandemic kicked off the entire pandemic-planning industry once George W. Bush read the book flap in 2005. Barry’s new article in the New York Times raises alarms about the Avian Bird Flu, the same as the whole pandemic industry is doing right now, and makes the argument that the interventions last time were just great overall.

“Australia, Germany and Switzerland are among the countries that demonstrated those interventions can succeed,” he claims even though all three countries have been torn apart by the pandemic response that is still rocking politics and showing itself in economic decline “Even the experience of the United States provides overwhelming, if indirect, evidence of the success of those public health measures.”

What is that indirect evidence? This you won’t believe: that flu deaths dramatically fell. “The public health steps taken to slow Covid contributed significantly to this decline, and those same measures no doubt affected Covid as well.”

That’s a heck of a thing. If you burn down the house to kill the rats and fail, but happen to kill the pets, surely you have some bragging rights there.

There is indeed a big debate on why seasonal flu seems to have nearly disappeared during the pandemic. One theory is simple misclassification, that flu was just as present as always but labeled Covid because PCR tests pick up even slight elements of the pathogen and financial incentives drove one to displace the other. There is surely an element of this.

Another theory relates to crowding out: the more serious virus pushes aside the less serious one, which is an empirically testable hypothesis.

A third explanation might in fact be related to interventions. With vast numbers staying home and the banning of gatherings, there was indeed less opportunity for pathogenic spread. Even if granting that is true, the effect is far from perfect, as we know from the failure of every attempt to achieve zero Covid. Antarctica is a good example of that.

That said, and even postulating this might be correct, there is nothing to prevent the spread among the population after opening except with even worse results because immune systems are degraded for lack of exposure.

Barry concedes the point but says “such interventions can achieve two important goals.” The first is “preventing hospitals from being overrun. Achieving this outcome could require a cycle of imposing, lifting and reimposing public health measures to slow the spread of the virus. But the public should accept that because the goal is understandable, narrow and well defined.”

Fine, but there is a major glaring error. Most hospitals in the US were not overrun. There is even a genuine question about whether and to what extent New York City hospitals were overrun but, even if they were, this had nothing to do with hospitals in most of the country. And yet the grand central plan closed them all for diagnostics and elective surgeries. In major parts of the country, parking lots were completely empty and nurses were furloughed in more than 300 hospitals.

Overall, that scheme (and who imposed this?) didn’t work too well.

The second supposed benefit you can predict: shutting down buys time “for identifying, manufacturing and distributing therapeutics and vaccines and for clinicians to learn how to manage care with the resources at hand.” This is another strange statement because authorities actually removed therapeutics from the shelves all over the country even though physicians were prescribing them.

As for the supposed vaccine, it did not stop infection or transmission.

So that scheme didn’t work either. There is also something truly cruel about using compulsory methods to preserve the population’s immunological naïveté in anticipation of a vaccine that may or may not work and may or may not cause more harm than good. And yet that is precisely the plan.

The most alarming part of Barry’s article, even aside from his incorrect claim that masks work, is this statement: “So the question isn’t whether those measures work. They do. It’s whether their benefits outweigh their social and economic costs. This will be a continuing calculation.”

Again we are back to benefit vs costs. It’s one thing for a person confronting a true moral or personal difficulty to make that calculation and live with the consequences. Every philosophical problem listed above – Trolly Cars and Lifeboats – involves personal choices and single decision-makers. In the case of pandemic planning and response, we are talking about groups of intellectuals and bureaucrats making decisions for the whole of society. In the last go-round, they made these decisions for the entire world with catastrophic results.

Many hundreds of years ago and following, the Western mind decided that giving such power to elites was not a good idea. The “continuing calculation” about what costs and benefits are experienced by billions of people from compulsory impositions is not something we should risk, not even with AI (which Barry says will solve the problems next time). Instead, we generally decided that a presumption of freedom is a better idea than empowering a small elite of scientists with the power to make “continuing calculations” for our supposed benefit.

Among many problems with the scientistic scheme for elite rule in the realm of infectious disease is that the population as a whole has no way to evaluate schemes and claims made to them by the government itself. They told us terrible population-wide death would come from Covid but it turned out to be exactly what others said back in February 2020; a disease impactful mainly on the aged and infirm.

Similarly, with the bird flu, we’ve been through a quarter century of claims that half of humanity could die from it. So far, every jump from animals to humans has resulted in reparable maladies like conjunctivitis.

But let’s say the bird flu really does get bad. Should the scientists who ruled us last time be trusted to do it again? That’s Barry’s plea: he demands “trust in government.” At the same time, he wants government to have the power to censor dissent. He falsely claims that last time, “there was no organized effort to counter social media disinformation” despite vast evidence of exactly this.

More information is actually what we need, especially from dissidents. For example, Barry celebrates that dexamethasone worked against Covid. But he fails to point out that the “experts” said in February 2020 that dexamethasone should not be used. Indeed, if you followed the Lancet, you would not have used them at all. In other words, Barry’s article refutes itself simply by showing the experts were desperately wrong in this case.

And, honestly, he knows this. Every bit of it. I have no doubt that if we met for cocktails, he would agree with most of this article. But he would also quickly point out that, after all, the New York Times commissioned the article so he can only say so much. He is merely being strategic, don’t you know?

This is the problem we face today with nearly all ruling-class intellectuals. We don’t actually disagree that much on the facts. We disagree on how much of the facts we are in a position to admit. And this puts Brownstone in a very awkward position of being a venue to say publicly what most people in the know say only privately. We do it because we believe in doing so.

All of which underscores the more general point: government and its connected scientists simply cannot be trusted with this kind of power. The last experience illustrates why. We forged our societies to have laws and guaranteed liberties that can never be taken away, not even during a pandemic. It is never worth using the power of the state to ruin lives to fulfill anyone’s abstract vision of what constitutes the greater good.

Author

  • Jeffrey A. Tucker
    Jeffrey A. Tucker

    Jeffrey Tucker is Founder, Author, and President at Brownstone Institute. He is also Senior Economics Columnist for Epoch Times, author of 10 books, including Life After Lockdown, and many thousands of articles in the scholarly and popular press. He speaks widely on topics of economics, technology, social philosophy, and culture.

Continue Reading

COVID-19

Top Fauci Aide Allegedly Learned To Make ‘Smoking Gun’ Emails ‘Disappear,’ Testimony Reveals

Published on May 19, 2024

By

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By JASON COHEN

 

“Dr. David Morens, a senior advisor to Fauci for decades, wrote in an email to Dr. Daszak, ‘I learned from our FOIA lady here how to make emails disappear after I am FOIA’d, but before the search starts. So I think we are all safe.

National Institutes of Health (NIH) Principal Deputy Director Lawrence Tabak testified on Thursday that a former aide to Dr. Anthony Fauci allegedly violated the agency’s public records policy by disposing of certain emails.

Fauci’s senior advisor at the NIH Dr. David Morens allegedly intentionally obstructed the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic’s investigations into the origins of COVID-19 to protect his boss. Tabak told Republican House Oversight Chair James Comer in response to his questioning during a hearing that Morens allegedly violated NIH policy by getting rid of emails following public records requests.

WATCH: 

“Dr. David Morens, a senior advisor to Fauci for decades, wrote in an email to Dr. Daszak, ‘I learned from our FOIA lady here how to make emails disappear after I am FOIA’d, but before the search starts. So I think we are all safe. Plus I deleted most of those earlier emails after sending them to Gmail.’ Is that consistent with NIH document retention policies?” Comer asked, to which Tabak answered that it’s not.

EcoHealth Alliance President Peter Daszak allegedly misled the federal government to receive grants that funded virus research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, where some suspect the COVID-19 pandemic originated.

“Does the NIH FOIA office teach employees how to avoid transparency?” Comer followed up.

“I certainly hope not,” Tabak said.

Daszak appeared for a transcribed interview in November 2023, where he called Morens a “mentor.”

“He also later wrote Dr. Daszak, ‘We are all smart enough to know to never have smoking guns and if we did, we wouldn’t put them in emails. And if we found them, ‘we would delete them,” Comer said, again asking if this is consistent with agency policy and Tabak again saying it’s not.

“Finally, emails show that Dr. Morens would share internal questions about upcoming FOIA releases with Dr. Daszak. He would then help Dr. Daszak craft responses to documents being released in these FOIAs. Are those actions consistent with NIH policies?” Comer asked.

Tabak expressed uncertainty about whether these actions took place, but said they would not be consistent with agency policy.

Morens in 2021 sent an email to Daszak, explaining that he tries “to always communicate on gmail because [his] NIH email is FOIA’d constantly,” The Intercept reported.

U.S. Right to Know is one organization that submitted public records requests to the NIH for emails Morens sent regarding content related to the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic. It is currently engaged in litigation with the agency for its lack of compliance with a January 2022 request.

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) on Wednesday informed EcoHealth Alliance that the federal government would be suspending current grants to the nonprofit and it is striving to block it from getting more grants. HHS cites a series of mistakes EcoHealth Alliance made, including issues with the organization’s monitoring of work at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

Continue Reading

Trending

X