A very warm welcome to this talk. Thursday, the 18th of April. Now we’re going to be listening to Mr. Andrew Bridgen’s presentation to an almost empty Chamber of the House of Commons, and this is a really important speech that he gives here. Now, at the end of this speech, you can hear the cheer from the public gallery. There’s a large glass sheet blocking off the public gallery from the Members of Parliament – a literal large sheet of glass blocking off the two. Some might say a metaphorical glass sheet exists between the people and the vast majority of Members of Parliament as well.

Because at the end, I couldn’t believe it – the Speaker threatened to clear the public gallery. Now if she’d done that, that would just have been an end of UK democracy if the people can’t watch their own MPs in debate. Quite incredible.

It deals with excess deaths and the causes. Andrew Bridgen talks about the lack of science degrees in the House of Commons – a complete disgrace. Doctors obeying guidelines, just doing what they were told (this has been used as an excuse in the past in various other situations), lack of good science. The Australians have an inquiry into excess deaths; we don’t seem to be bothering.

The Part 4 Therapeutics module of the public COVID inquiry has been kicked into the long grass. Evidence has been ignored, according to Mr. Bridgen. Cancers might be becoming more common due to SV40 DNA inclusions in vaccines. Genuine concerns ignored. GISAID data deliberately hidden with impunity. Record level data not available to the public and to scientific investigators, but apparently available to the pharmaceutical industry.

Excess deaths were 5% in 2023, and that’s consistent with other countries where they’re even higher, even though the system has now been changed (some might say fiddled). DNRs (Do Not Resuscitate orders) were overused. End-of-life medications were given. It’s just a litany of appalling things. Over to Mr. Bridgen now. In my view, thank goodness someone is speaking out.

(Mr. Bridgen begins speaking)

We now come to the backbench motion on the COVID-19 pandemic response and trends in excess deaths. Andrew Bridgen to move.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I beg to move the motion in my name on the Order Paper. We are witnesses to the greatest medical scandal in this country in living memory, and possibly ever. The excess deaths in 2022 and 2023 is that scandal. Its causes are complex, but the novel and untested medical treatment described as a COVID vaccine is a large part of the problem.

I’ve been called an anti-vaxxer, as if I rejected these vaccines based on some ideology. I want to state clearly and unequivocally that I have not. I am, in fact, double vaccinated and vaccine-harmed. Intelligent people must be able to distinguish between people being neither pro-vax nor anti-vax, but against a product that a) doesn’t work and b) causes enormous harm to a percentage of the people who take it.

I’m proud to be one of the few Members of Parliament with a science degree. It’s a great shame there are not more members with a science background in this place. Maybe if there were, there’d be less reliance on Whips’ Office briefings, more independent research, and perhaps less groupthink. And I say to the House, and I say it in all seriousness, this debate and others like it are going to be pored over by future generations, and they will be genuinely agog that the evidence has been ignored for so long and that genuine concerns were disregarded and those raising them were gaslit, smeared, and vilified.

You don’t need any science training at all to be horrified by officials deliberately hiding key data in this scandal. And that’s exactly what’s going on, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Office for National Statistics used to release weekly data on deaths per 100,000 in vaccinated and unvaccinated populations. It no longer does that, and no one will explain why. The public has a right to that data.

Madam Deputy Speaker, there have been calls from serious experts, whose requests I have amplified repeatedly in this House, for what’s called record-level data to be anonymized and disclosed for analysis. This would allow meaningful analysis of the deaths after vaccination and settle the issue of whether these experimental treatments are responsible for the increase in excess deaths once and for all. 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 this anonymized aggregate data on death by vaccination status is commercially sensitive and shouldn’t be published. The public is being denied this data. This is unacceptable, Madam Deputy Speaker. Yet again, data is hidden with impunity, just like the Post Office scandal.

Professor Harries has also endorsed a recent massive change in the calculation of the baseline population level used by the ONS to calculate excess deaths. It’s incredibly complex and opaque, and by sheer coincidence, it now appears to show that there was a massive excess of deaths in 2020 and 2021, and now 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%, long after the pandemic was over and when you would expect a deficit in deaths because so many people had sadly died in previous years. 20,000 premature deaths are now being airbrushed away in 2023 with this new “normal” baseline.

In March 2020, shocking things happened during the pandemic response. The government conducted a consultation exercise on whether people over a certain age or with certain disabilities should have “Do Not Resuscitate” orders (DNRs) imposed upon them. A document summarizing the proposals was circulated to doctors and hospitals, and this 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 they’d be overwhelmed. The result is that people died who didn’t need to die, while nurses performed TikTok dances.

Very few people will know that the average time to death from COVID symptoms and testing positive was 18 days. It’s a little-known fact that the body clears all the virus within around 7 days. What actually kills people is that some people, especially the vulnerable, have an excessive immune response. Doctors have been treating this for decades with steroids, antibiotics for secondary pneumonia infections, and other standard protocols. But they didn’t do this this time, even though the virus was long gone. Doctors abandoned the standard clinical protocols because COVID was a “new virus.” No, it wasn’t.

They sent people home, told them to stay home, take paracetamol until their lips turned blue, and then when they returned to hospital, they sedated them, put them on ventilators, and watched them die. The protocols for COVID-19 treatment were 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, they were given end-of-life medication, including midazolam and morphine.

The body responsible for this protocol, NG163, which was published on the 3rd of April 2020, is called the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Giving midazolam and morphine to people dying of cancer is reasonable, but there is a side effect. These drugs have a respiratory depressant effect. It’s hard to imagine, Madam Deputy Speaker, a more stupid thing to do than to give a respiratory suppressant to somebody already struggling to breathe with symptoms of COVID-19. But that is exactly what we did.

So can the Minister explain why midazolam was then removed from the same updated guideline, NG191, which is the successor to NG163, on the 30th of November 2023? As it was removed, is it now considered and admitted that it was a mistake to ignore the warnings of so many experts, including that specific drug midazolam in NG163 when it was introduced?

It’s been confirmed in letters from ministers to families who lost loved ones due to this protocol that ministers are now saying that doctors and nurses should have treated the individual patient with their own knowledge rather than strictly following NICE guideline NG163. 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?

Interestingly, Madam Deputy Speaker, NICE has now removed these alternative protocols, including NG163, from their website, although every other historic protocol is still there for historical reference. Could the Minister tell us why NICE have removed this protocol from their website? Are they ashamed of the harm that they caused? They certainly should be.

And what can we learn from this? We learn that very few doctors dare challenge what they’re told. Protocols with no authors are distributed, and doctors fall in line. There’s a huge, stark contrast in how deaths and illnesses after vaccination have been recorded compared to COVID. After a positive COVID test, any illness and any death was attributed to the virus. After the experimental emergency use vaccine was administered, no subsequent illness and no death was ever attributed to the vaccine. 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.

But first of all, I want to address “safe and effective.” The fear deliberately stoked up by the government promoted the idea of being rescued by a savior vaccine. The chanting of the “safe and effective” narrative began. The phrase seemed to hypnotize the whole nation, Madam Deputy Speaker. “Safe and effective” was the slogan of thalidomide, and after that scandal, rules were put in place to prevent such marketing in future by pharma companies. They’re prohibited from using “safe and effective” without significant caveats. But that didn’t matter this time, because with COVID-19 vaccines, the media, the government, and other authorities turned into Big Pharma’s marketing department.

It’s very hard now to hear the word “safe” without the echo of the word “effective.” But they’re not safe and effective. In March 2021, when the major majority of UK citizens had already received these novel products, Pfizer signed contracts with Brazil and South Africa in which the contract says, “The long-term effects and efficacy of the vaccine are not currently known and adverse events from the vaccine are not currently known.” That’s verbatim from the Pfizer contracts.

So these so-called vaccines, they were the least effective vaccines ever. Is there anyone left under any illusion that they prevented infections? When he was at the dispatch box on the 31st of January at PMQs following my question, even the Prime Minister could not bring himself to add “and effective” to his “safe” mantra when he said, in his own words, that the vaccines were unequivocally safe.

Madam Deputy Speaker, “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 totaling £19.5 million in compensation for harm caused by the COVID vaccines? Haven’t these people suffered enough already? Those 163 victims are the tip of the iceberg, though, by the way, and it should be noted that the maximum payment is only £120,000. So each of these 163 victims got the maximum award possible, and that should tell you something.

That same compensation scheme paid out a total of only £3.5 million between 1997 and 2005, with an average of only 8 claims per year. And that’s for all claims, for the entire country, for all vaccines administered. So much for “safe.”

And how about “effective”? Even by the 25th of October 2021, the former Prime Minister and Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip, Boris Johnson, admitted, and again I quote, “It doesn’t protect you against catching the disease, and it doesn’t protect you against passing it on.”

Looking at the levels of the virus found in sewage shows that the post-vaccine wave was the same order of magnitude and duration as the previous waves. This proves that the vaccines changed nothing. They were not safe, and they were not effective. Those who imposed these vaccines knew full well that they could never prevent infections from a disease of this kind. An injection in the arm can’t do that. Only immunity on the surface of the airways and the lungs can prevent viral infection. Antibodies in the blood cannot.

In Dr. Fauci’s own words, “It’s not surprising that none of the predominantly mucosal respiratory viruses has ever been effectively controlled by vaccines.” He continued, “This observation raises a question of fundamental importance. If natural mucosal respiratory virus infections do not elicit complete and long-term protective immunity against reinfection, how can we expect vaccines, especially systemically administered non-replicating vaccines, to do so?”

So, Madam Deputy Speaker, they knew that the so-called vaccines would never protect from infection, which explains why they never tested for protection from infection.

Madam Deputy Speaker, only a few days ago, the ABPI (Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry) rapped Pfizer on the knuckles for the sixth time and said their marketing practices had brought the industry into disrepute. They were asked to pay a paltry £30,000 in administrative expenses with no fine on top. Madam Deputy Speaker, the person heading the ABPI at the moment is also the head of Pfizer UK. The MHRA have a statutory duty to carry out this work and has handed the responsibility over to the industry itself. This is an outrageous conflict of interest.

So let’s turn back to excess deaths. In Australia, the government has launched an inquiry into their excess death problem. Australia is almost unique as a case study for excess deaths. They had the vaccine before they had COVID. Their excess deaths are not so easily blamed on the long-term side effects of a virus, because they saw a rise in deaths that began in May 2021 and has not let up since. The impact was evident on the ambulance service first. South Australia saw a 67% increase in cardiac presentations of 15 to 44-year-olds, which peaked in November 2021 before COVID hit.

We saw a similar, deeply worrying effect here too. Calls for life-threatening emergencies in the UK rose from 2,000 per day to 2,500 per day in May 2021, and it’s never returned back to normal. By October 2021, despite it being springtime in Australia, headlines reported on ambulances unable to drop off patients in hospitals that were already at full capacity. Mark McGowan, Premier of Western Australia, said he could not explain the overwhelmed hospitals. “Our hospitals are under enormous pressure,” he said. “This has been something no one’s ever seen before, why it is is hard to know.”

And by April 2022, Yvette D’Ath, Queensland Health Minister, said about the most urgent ambulance calls, called Code Ones, and I quote, “I don’t think anyone can explain why we saw a 40% jump in Code Ones. We just had a lot of heart attacks, chest pains, and trouble breathing – respiratory issues. Sometimes you can’t explain why these things happen, but unfortunately they do.”

Madam Deputy Speaker, I think we can explain why if we look to the link to the vaccine rollout. Omicron did cause excess deaths in Australia from 2022 onwards. However, there’s a huge chunk of excess deaths prior to that which doctors have not been able to blame on the virus. Could this death be caused by the vaccine? Well, very few people even dare to ask that question, Madam Deputy Speaker.

And it’s important to remember how these vaccines were made. Traditionally, the key to making a vaccine is to ensure that the pathological, the harmful parts of the virus or bacteria, are inactivated so the recipient can develop an immune response without the dangers of developing the disease. In stark contrast, these so-called COVID vaccines use 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 throughout the whole body after injection, potentially affecting all organs at the same time. Everyone was being reassured by the injectors that the injection was broken down in the arm and at the injection site.

Regulators ought to have known these were problems. Furthermore, it’s 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 be many more deaths to come, unfortunately, Madam Deputy Speaker, from these novel treatments. And that is from inducing extra cancer deaths.

Dr. Robert Tindle is the retired director of the Clinical Medical Virology Center in Brisbane and Emeritus Professor of Immunology. This month, Dr. Tindle published a paper highlighting the multiple potential harms from the vaccines, including harm to the immune system. As anyone who knows anything about biology knows, anything that disrupts the immune system can potentially increase the risk of cancer.

There are many other reasons to be concerned about cancer being induced by these vaccines. Cancer is a genetic disease or disorder that arises from errors in the DNA, allowing cells to grow uncontrollably. Moderna have multiple patents describing methods for reducing the risk of cancer induction from their mRNA products. This risk comes from the material interrupting the patient’s DNA. It turns out that what we were told about the mRNA injection actually has very high quantities of DNA in it. This massively increases the risks of disturbing a patient’s own DNA.

Worse still, the DNA that was injected contains sequences that were hidden from the regulator. This is the SV40 (Simian Virus 40) promoter region, which has been linked to cancer and has been found…