Show notes and Transcript
At long last it has happened. Andrew Bridgen MP (Reclaim Party) secured a debate on excess deaths in the UK Parliament.
Nearly twenty requests were turned down but Andrew simply would not give up.
His courage and determination to find out the truth won in the end.
Andrew gave a 25 minute presentation of all the data and facts which show a shocking rise in excess deaths since the covid jab rollout.
The fact that many people have died after receiving an injection appears to be the very reason every government wants total silence on this issue.
As you watch Andrew speak, be inspired to speak truth in the circles you find yourself in.
Use the information in the speech to arm yourself with the facts.
We now await a much longer 3 hour debate on excess deaths which Andrew is requesting.
*This episode contains a background of the debate, the full speech by Andrew Bridgen MP, his message afterwards to the supporters gathered outside in Parliament Square and Peter catches a few words with the man himself.
Andrew Bridgen
Member of Parliament for North West Leicestershire since 2010https://www.reclaimparty.co.uk/andrew-bridgen
Some Key Points Made During the Speech...
- Ambulance calls for life-threatening emergencies ranged from a steady 2,000 calls per day until the vaccine rollout, from then it rose to 2,500 daily and calls have stayed at this level since.
- The surveillance systems designed to spot a safety problem have all flashed red, but no one’s looking.
- Payments for Personal Independent Payments (PIP) for people who have developed a disability and cannot work, have rocketed with the vaccine rollout and have continued to rise ever since.
- The trial data showed that one in eight hundred injected people had a serious adverse event, meaning the risk of this was twice as high than the chance of preventing a Covid hospitalisation.
- There were just over 14,000 excess deaths in the under 65-year-olds, before vaccination, from April 2020 to the end of March 2021. However, since that time there have been over 21,000 excess deaths in this age group alone.
- There were nearly two extra deaths a day in the second half of 2021 among 15 – 19-year-old males, but potentially even more if those referred to the coroner were fully included.
Recorded 20.10.23
*Special thanks to Bosch Fawstin for recording our intro/outro on this podcast.
Check out his art https://theboschfawstinstore.blogspot.com/ and follow him on GETTR https://gettr.com/user/BoschFawstin and Twitter https://twitter.com/TheBoschFawstin?s=20
To sign up for our weekly email, find our social media, podcasts, video, livestreaming platforms and more... https://heartsofoak.org/connect/
Support Hearts of Oak by purchasing one of our fancy T-Shirts.... https://heartsofoak.org/shop/
Please subscribe, like and share!
Subscribe now
Transcript(Hearts of Oak)
Hello, Hearts of Oak. Today we are here with Andrew Bridgen at a debate in Parliament, the first debate in this Parliament, on excess deaths. There's been very little debates, very little discussions on vaccine harms here. Of course, this is the issue that Andrew Bridgen MP was thrown out of the Conservative Party, the Tories, for beginning to raise the issue of vaccine harms and now raising the issue of excess deaths was simply is not discussed in this place. I've seen discussion in other parts of the world, especially Germany, with the AFD. But Andrew Bridgen has made this the hill that he will fight and die on. And he has been thrown out of the Conservative Party. He's lost that position he had for many years. Andrew Bridgen, of course, is one of the original Brexiteers, well known to any of us involved in the Brexit movement, in the UKIP movement.
And Andrew has been fearless.
He's one of those strange beasts in Westminster.
He is led by conviction. He is led by courage and led by a desire to do what is right.
And he had no desire to climb up the greasy pole. He's traditionally been a backbencher.
So has stood his ground, kept his position as a lowly MP and not wanted to rise to the ministerial level, because that gives him the freedom to discuss what he wants.
He's not held, he's not restricted by government restrictions, but he can say what he thinks and do what is right for his constituents, for those who vote for him, and realise that he is the servant of the people and he is not the servant of the government. So today there will be a debate led by Andrew Bridgen, I assume he will be one of maybe very few, one of one, who will actually speak on this. I'm really curious to see. I've seen a couple of Conservative, MPs who have touched on this, who have spoken a little bit about this, sometimes on GB News, but they have not gone as far as Andrew Bridgen. And Andrew Bridgen has gone this far. He has lost his job over it, and he doesn't care, because this is the right thing to do when a jab when an experimental vaccine, so-called vaccine, was rolled out and everyone was coerced and more or less forced to take it. Andrew was in that, he also took it, now regrets that and wants to keep raising the alarm on the ongoing effects of this and of course to challenge this government overreach that wants to force this upon everyone. This of course is a conservative government supposedly that stands up for freedom of speech, personal responsibility, rights, and yet all those traditional understandings of a conservative party have been completely upended and is no longer a party of freedom and liberty but is now a party of coercion and control. A number of MPs I assume will come in and speak after Andrew will present his position on excess deaths and ask the question, why is this? It seems to correlate to the rollout of the jab.
You and I know that. We've seen the data. Andrew will be careful in how he puts it forward. He will use parliamentary language. He's skilled enough in this chamber to know what to say, what not to say, what connects with those in the chamber, and to win them over. Because ultimately, politics is about the art of persuasion. It is about winning the public over. And today, it is not necessarily the public is winning over, although you will watch the debate in a few moments, but actually is winning over MPs. And that also is crucial. Whatever you think, we still have 650 individuals and many of us mistrust absolutely, many of us detest. Many of us have had a traditional understanding of politics where there was a level of trust with our institutions and that included those in the building behind me. That is gone. I think for all of us, that is completely gone.
And to have an individual who is a champion on the issue of curtailing that government overreach, asking questions, following the money, saying, was this just a push by big pharma for profits?
Was this something darker? There are a whole load of areas we can go into, but Andrew has, wisely stayed within the areas he can understand. He has read papers, he has, understood them and he has presented those and I think he has been extremely wise on how far he has gone on this because it is a case of winning people over. That's what we have faced, all of us, over the last three years of winning friends, family, colleagues, connections over to persuade them that this is a dangerous experiment on not only the UK population but on the world population.
We have a police car. I hope they don't want to arrest Andrew before his debate.
I don't think even our government would do that, would they? Anyway, I will let you watch the debate, watch Andrew speaking, and then after I will try and catch up with a number of the people who have been here to support Andrew. I saw, Mike Yeadon earlier heading into the debate and I saw Matt Le Tissier earlier, I saw Fiona Hines earlier, I saw a big group of people who are here to support Andrew as he speaks truth and to let him know that he is not alone because it must feel very alone in that chamber. No one to back you, no one to support you and you feel as though you are a lonely voice crying out in the wilderness and yet.
Many people have come to show Andrew that there are many people behind him who are indebted to him for actually speaking truth in this place and are standing with him shoulder-to-shoulder. So we'll hopefully talk to a few of those people after the debate.
(Andrew Bridgen MP)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. We've experienced more excess deaths since July 2021, than the whole of 2020. Unlike the pandemic, however, these deaths are not disproportionately of the old.
In other words, the excessive deaths are striking down people in the prime of life.
But no one seems to care. I fear history will not judge this House kindly.
Worse still, in a country supposedly committed to free and frank exchange of views, it appears that no one cares that no one cares.
Well, I care, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I credit those members here in attendance today who also care.
And I'd also like to thank the Honourable Member for Lincoln for his support, and I'm, sorry that he couldn't attend today's debate.
It's taken a lot of effort and more than 20 rejections to be allowed to raise this topic, But at last we're here to discuss the number of people dying.
Nothing could be more serious. Numerous countries are currently gripped in a period of unexpected mortality, and no one wants to talk about it.
It's quite normal for death numbers to fluctuate up and down by chance alone, but what we're seeing here is a pattern, repeated across countries, and the rise has not let up.
I'll give way to my Honourable Gentleman.
(Phillip Davies MP)
I'm very grateful and can I commend him for the tenacious way he's battled on this particular, issue. I certainly admire him for that. I just wonder where he found the media was in all of this, because of course during the Covid pandemic, every day, the media, particularly the BBC, couldn't wait to tell us how many people had died in that particular day without any context of those figures whatsoever. But they seem to have gone strangely quiet over these excess deaths now.
(Andrew Bridgen MP)
I thank the gentleman for his intervention. He's absolutely right. The media have let the British public down badly.
There will be a full press pack going out to all media outlets following my speech with all the evidence to back up all the claims I'll make in that speech.
But I don't doubt there'll be no mention of it in the mainstream media.
You might think that a debate about excess deaths is going to be full of numbers.
This speech does not have that many numbers because most of the important numbers have been kept hidden.
Other data has been oddly presented in a distorted way, and concerned people seeking to highlight important findings and ask questions have found themselves inexplicably under attack.
Before debating excess deaths, it's important to understand how excess death is determined.
To understand if there is an excess, by definition you need to estimate how many deaths it would have been expected.
The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development used 2015-2019 as a baseline, and the Government's Office of Health Disparities and Improvement used its 2015-2019 baseline modelled to allow for ageing, and I've used that data here.
Unforgivably, the Office of National Statistics have included deaths in 2021 as part of their baseline calculation for expected deaths, as if there was anything normal about the deaths in 2021.
Exaggerating the number of deaths expected, the number of excess can be minimized. Why would the ONS want to do that? There's just too much that we don't know and it's not good enough Mr. Deputy Speaker. The ONS published promptly each week the number of deaths that were registered and while this is commendable it's not the data point that really matters. There's a total failure to collect, never mind publish, data on deaths that are referred for investigation to the coroner. Why does this matter? A referral means that it can be many months and, given the backlog, many years before a death is formally registered.
Needing to investigate the cause of a death is fair enough. Failing to record when the death happened is not. Because of this problem, we actually have no idea how many people actually died in 2021. Even now, the problem is greatest for the younger age groups, where there's, a higher proportion of deaths are investigated. This date of failure is unacceptable. It must change. There's nothing in a coroner's report that can bring anyone back from the dead and those deaths should be reported. The youngest age groups are important not only because they should have their whole lives ahead of them.
If there is a new cause of excess mortality across the board, it would not be noticed so much in the older cohorts because the extra deaths would be drowned out amongst the expected deaths.
However, in the youngest cohorts, that is not the case. There were nearly two extra deaths a day in the second half of 2021 among 15 to 19 year old males, but potentially even more if those referred to the coroner were fully included. In a judicial review of the decision to vaccinate yet younger children, the ONS refused in court to give anonymised details about these deaths. They, admitted that the data they were withholding was statistically significant and I quote they said, the ONS recognises that more work could be undertaken to examine the mortality rates of young people in 2021 and intends to do so once more reliable data are available.
How many more extra deaths in 15 to 19 year olds would it take to trigger such work?
Surely the ONS should be desperately keen to investigate deaths in young men.
Why else have an independent body charged with examining mortality data?
Surely the ONS has a responsibility to collect data from the coroners to produce timely information?
Let's move on to old people, because most deaths in the old are registered promptly and we do have a better feel for how many older people are dying.
Deaths from dementia and Alzheimer's show what we ought to expect.
There was a period of high mortality coinciding with COVID and lockdowns, but ever since there have been fewer deaths than expected.
After a period of high mortality, we expect, and historically have seen, a period of low mortality because those who have sadly died cannot die again.
Those whose deaths were slightly premature because of COVID and lockdowns, died earlier than they otherwise would have.
This principle should hold true for every cause of death and every age group, but that's not what we're seeing.
Even for the over 85-year-olds, according to the Office of Health Improvement and Disparities, there were 8,000 excess deaths, 4% above the expected levels, for the 12 months starting in July 2020.
That includes all of the autumn 2020 wave of COVID, when we had tiering, the second lockdown, and it includes all of the first COVID winter.
However, for the year starting July 2022, there have been over 18,000 excess deaths in this age group, 9% above expected levels, more than twice as many in a period when there should have been a deficit.
And when deaths from diseases previously associated with old age were actually fewer than expected.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I have raised my concerns around NG163 and the use of midazolam and morphine, which may have caused and may still be causing premature deaths in the vulnerable, but that is sadly a debate for another day. There were just over 14,000 excess deaths in the under 65-year-olds before vaccination from April 2020 to the end of March 2021. However, since that time there have been over 21,000 excess deaths, ignoring the registration delay problem, the majority, 58% of these deaths, were not attributed to Covid. We turned society upside down before vaccination for fear of excess deaths from Covid. Today we have substantially more excess deaths, and in younger people, and there's complete and eerie silence, Mr Deputy, Speaker. The evidence is unequivocal. There was a clear stepwise increase in mortality following the vaccine rollout. There was a reprieve in the winter of 2021-22 because there were fewer than expected respiratory deaths, but otherwise the excess has been incessantly at this high level.
Ambulance data for England provides another clue. Ambulance calls for life-threatening emergencies were running at a steady 2,000 calls per day until the vaccine rollout. From then it rose to 2,500 daily and calls have stayed at this level since. The surveillance systems designed to spot a safety problem have all flashed red but no one's looking. Claims for personal independence payments for people who've developed a disability and cannot work rocketed with the vaccine rollout and it's, continued to rise ever since. The same was seen in the USA, also started with the vaccine rollout, not with Covid. A study to determine the vaccination status of a sample of such claimants, would be relatively quick and inexpensive to perform, yet nobody seems interested in ascertaining this vital information. Officials have chosen to turn a blind eye to this disturbing, irrefutable and frightening data, much like Nelson did, but for far less honourable reasons. He would be ashamed of us, Mr Deputy Speaker. Furthermore, data that has been used to sing the praises of the vaccines is deeply flawed. Only one COVID-related death was prevented in each of the initial major trials that led to authorisation of the vaccines and that is taking their data entirely at face value, whereas a growing number of inconsistencies and anomalies suggest we ought not to do this.
Extrapolating from that means that between 15,000 and 20,000 people had to be injected to prevent a single death from COVID.
To prevent a single COVID hospitalisation, over 1,500 people needed to be injected.
The trial data showed that 1 in 800 injected people had a serious adverse event, meaning they were hospitalised or had a life-changing or life-threatening condition.
The risk of this was twice as high as the chance of preventing a COVID hospitalisation.
We're harming 1 in 800 people to supposedly save 1 in 20,000.
This is madness.
The strongest claims have too often been based on modelling carried out on the basis of flawed assumptions. Where observational studies have been carried out, researchers will correct, for age and comorbidities to make the vaccines look better. However, they never correct for socio-economic or ethnic differences that would make the vaccines look worse. This matters.
For example, claims of high mortality in less vaccinated regions in the United States, took no account of the fact that this was the case before the vaccines were rolled out.
That is why studies that claim to show the vaccines prevented Covid deaths also showed a marked effect of them preventing non-Covid deaths.
The prevention of non-Covid deaths is always a statistical illusion and claims of preventing Covid deaths should not be assumed when that illusion has not been corrected for.
And when it is corrected for, the claims of efficacy for the vaccines vanish with it.
COVID disproportionately killed people from ethnic minorities and lower socioeconomic groups.
During the 2020, during the pandemic, the deaths among the most deprived were up by 23%, compared to 17% for the least deprived. However, since 2022, the pattern has reversed, with 5% excess mortality amongst the most deprived, compared to 7% among the least deprived. These deaths are being caused by something different. In 2020, the excess was highest in the oldest cohorts and there were fewer than expected deaths amongst the younger age groups. But since 2022, the 50 to 64 year old cohort has had the highest excess mortality.
Even the youngest age groups are now seeing substantial excess, with a 9% excess in the under 50s since 2022 compared to 5% now in the over 75 group.
Despite London being a younger region, the excess in London is only 3%, whereas it is higher in every more heavily vaccinated region of the UK. It should be noted that London is famously the least vaccinated region in the UK by some margin. Studies comparing regions on a larger scale show the same thing. There are studies from the Netherlands, Germany and the whole world each showing that the highest mortality after vaccination was seen in the most heavily vaccinated regions. So we need to ask, what are people dying of? Since 2022, there has been 11% excess in ischemic heart disease deaths and a 16% excess in heart failure deaths. In meantime, cancer deaths, only 1% above expected levels, which is further evidence that it is not simply, some other factor that affects deaths across the board, such as a failing to account for an aging population or a failing NHS. In fact, the excess itself has a seasonality with a peak in the winter months. The fact it returns to baseline levels in summer is a further indication that this is not due to some statistical error or an ageing population alone. Dr Clare Craig from the Heart Group first highlighted a stepwise increase in cardiac arrest calls after the vaccine rollout in May 2021 and Heart have repeatedly raised concerns about the increase in cardiac deaths and they have every reason to be concerned. Four participants in the vaccine group of the Pfizer trial died from cardiac arrest compared to only one in the placebo group. Overall there were 21 deaths in the vaccine group up to March 2021 compared to 17 in the placebo group.
And there are serious anomalies about the reporting of the deaths within this trial, with the deaths in the vaccine group taking much longer to report than those in the placebo group.
And that's highly suggestive, Mr Deputy Speaker, of a significant bias in what was supposed to be a blinded trial. An Israeli study clearly showed an increase in cardiac hospital attendances, among 18 to 39 year olds that correlated with vaccination, not with COVID. There have now been several postmortem studies demonstrating a causal link between vaccination and coronary artery disease leading to death up to four months after the last dose. And we need to remember that the safety trial was cut short to only two months. So there's no evidence of any vaccine safety beyond that point. The decision to unblind the trials after two months and vaccinate the placebo group is nothing less than a public health scandal. Everyone involved failed in their duty to the truth. But no one cares, Mr Deputy Speaker. The one place that can help us understand exactly what caused this is Australia. Australia had almost no Covid when vaccines were first introduced, making them the perfect control group. The state of South Australia had only a thousand cases of Covid across its whole population by December 2021, before Omicron arrived. What was the impact of vaccination there? For 15 to 44 year olds there was historically 1,300 emergency cardiac presentations a month. With vaccine rollout in the under 50s this rocketed to 2,172 cases in November 2021 in this age group alone, a 67% more than usual. Overall there were 17,900 South Australians who had a cardiac emergency in 2021, compared to only 13,250 in 2018, a 35% increase.
It is clearly the vaccine that must be the number one suspect in this and it cannot be dismissed as just a coincidence. Australian mortality overall has increased from early 2021 and the increase is due to cardiac deaths. These excess deaths are not due to an ageing population because there are fewer deaths in the diseases of old age. These deaths are not an effect of COVID because they've happened in places where COVID have not reached and they're not due to low statin prescriptions or under-treated hypertension, as Chris Whitty would suggest, because prescriptions did not change and in any effect would have taken many years and been very small. The prime suspect must be something that was introduced to the population as a whole, something novel. The prime hypothesis must be the experimental COVID-19 vaccines.
The ONS published a data set of deaths by vaccinated and unvaccinated. At first glance, it appears to show that the vaccines are safe and effective.
However, there were several huge problems with how they presented that data.
One was that for the first three-week period after injection, the ONS claimed, there were only a tiny number of deaths.
The number the ONS would normally predict to occur in a single week.
Where were the deaths from the usual causes? When this was raised, the ONS claimed that the sickest people did not get vaccinated, and therefore people who were taking the vaccination were self-selecting for those least likely to die.
Not only is this not the case in the real world, with even hospices heavily vaccinating their residents, but the ONS's own data showed that the proportion of sickest people was equal in the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups.
This inevitably raises serious questions about the ONS's data presentation.
There were so many problems with the methodology used by the ONS that the Statistics Regulator agreed that the ONS data could not be used to assess vaccine efficacy or safety.
That tells you something about the ONS.
Consequently, Hart asked the UK Health Security Agency to provide the data they had on people who had died and therefore needed to be removed from their vaccination dataset.
This request has been repeatedly refused, with excuses given, including the false claim that anonymising this data will be equivalent to creating it even though there is case law that, anonymization is not considered creation of new data. Mr Deputy Speaker I believe if this data was released it would be damning.
That so many lives have been saved by mass vaccination that any amount of harm, suffering and death caused by the vaccines is a price worth paying.
They're delusional, Mr Deputy Speaker. The claim of 20 million lives saved is based on now discredited models which assume that Covid waves do not peak without intervention.
There have been numerous waves globally that now demonstrate that is not the case, and it was also based on there having been more than half a million lives saved in the UK.
That's more than the worst-case scenario predicted at the beginning of the pandemic.
For the claim to have been true, the rate at which Covid killed people would have to have taken off dramatically at the beginning of 2021 in the absence of vaccination.
This is ludicrous and it bears no relationship to the truth.
In the real world, Australia, New Zealand and South Korea had a mortality rate of 400 deaths per million up to the summer of 2022, after they were first hit with Omicron.
So how does that compare with the Wuhan strain? France and Europe as a whole had a mortality rate of under 400 deaths per million up to the summer of 2020.
Australia, New Zealand and South Korea were all heavily vaccinated before infection.
So tell me, where was the benefit?
The UK had just over 800 deaths per million up to the summer of 2020. So twice as much.
But we know that Omicron is half as deadly as the Wuhan variant.
The death rates per million are the same before and after vaccination.
So where was the benefits of vaccination?
The regulators have failed in their duty to protect the public.
They've allowed these novel products to skip crucial safety testing by letting them be described as vaccines.
They've failed to insist on safety testing being done in the years since the first temporary emergency authorisation.
Even now, no one can tell you how much spike protein is produced on vaccination and for how long.
Yet another example of where there is no data for me to share with the House.
And when it comes to properly recording deaths due to vaccination, the system's broken.
Not a single doctor registered a death from a rare brain clot before doctors in Scandinavia forced the issue and the MHRA acknowledged the problem.
Only then did these deaths start to be certified by doctors in the UK.
It turns out that doctors were waiting for permission from the regulator and the regulators were waiting to be alerted by the doctors.
This is a lethal circularity.
Furthermore, coroners have written Regulation 28 reports highlighting deaths from vaccination to prevent further deaths, yet the MHRA said in a response to an FOI that they had not received any of them.
The system we have in place is clearly not functioning to protect the public.
The regulators also missed the fact that the Pfizer trial, in the Pfizer trial, the vaccine was made for the trial participants in a highly controlled environment, in stark contrast to the manufacturing process used for the public rollout, which was based on a completely different technology.
And just over 200 participants were given the same product that was given to the public.
But not only was the data from these people never compared to those in the trial for efficacy and safety, But the MHRA have admitted that they dropped the requirement to provide the data.
That means there was never a trial on the Pfizer product that was actually rolled out to the public.
And that product has never been compared to the product that was actually trialled.
The vaccine mass production processes use vats of Escherichia coli and present a risk of contamination with DNA from the bacteria as well as bacterial cell walls which can, cause dangerous reactions.
This is not theoretical, Mr Deputy Speaker, this is now sound evidence that has been replicated by several labs across the world, and the mRNA vaccines were contaminated by DNA which far exceeded the usual permissible levels.
Given that this DNA is enclosed in the lipid nanoparticle delivery system, it is arguable that even the permissible levels have been far too high.
These lipid nanoparticles are known to enter every organ of the body, as well as this potentially causing some of the acute adverse reactions seen, there is a serious risk that this foreign bacterial DNA is inserting itself into human DNA. Will anybody investigate? No, they won't.
I'll give way on that point.
(Danny Kruger MP)
I am conscious that time is tight. I recognise that the hon. Gentleman is making a very powerful case. Does he agree that the Government should be looking at this properly and should commission of review into the excess deaths, partly so that we can reassure our constituents that the case he's making is not in fact valid and that the vaccines have no cause behind these excess deaths.
(Andrew Bridgen MP)
I thank the Honourable Gentleman for his support on this topic and of course that is what exactly any responsible government should do. I wrote to the Prime Minister on the 7th August 2023 with all the evidence of this but sadly Mr Deputy Speaker I still await a response.
What will it take to stop these products? Their complete failure to stop infection was not enough and we all know plenty of vaccinated people who have caught and spread Covid. The, mutation of the virus to a weaker variant, Omicron, that wasn't enough. The increasing evidence of the serious harms to those of us that were vaccinated. That's not enough.
And now the cardiac deaths and the deaths of young people is apparently not enough either.
It's high time these experimental vaccines were suspended and a full investigation into the harms they've caused initiated. History will be a harsh judge if we don't start using evidence-based medicine. We need to return to basic science, basic ethics immediately, which means listening to all voices and investigating all concerns.
In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, the experimental Covid-19 vaccines are not safe and they're not effective. Despite there only being limited interest in the chamber from colleagues, and I'm very grateful for those who have attended, we can see from the public gallery there is considerable public interest. I would implore all members of the House, present and those not.
Support calls for a three-hour debate on this important issue. And Mr Deputy Speaker, this might be the first debate on excess deaths in our Parliament. Indeed, it might be the first debate on excess deaths in the world, but very sadly I promise you won't be the last.
(Parliament Square Speech Andrew Bridgen MP)
But without further ado let's welcome to the stage Mr Andrew Bridgen.
Thank you ladies and gentlemen, thank you for coming down here to support the debate today, and thank you for supporting me and the cause.
More? I just spoke for 25 minutes. Blood. It's been quite a week.
Start of the week, get attacked from behind by a blunt instrument.
But what an ending to this week. We have made history today. Nine months, more than 20 refused attempts to get a debate on excess deaths, the first debate on excess deaths in the UK, Parliament, the first proper debate on excess deaths in the world and I promise you, I absolutely promise you, it won't be the last. We will get a three hour debate in the next few weeks now on excess deaths.
We've got two democracies under challenge all over the world. We're hanging over and using what we've got to make sure we get our message out there. On Tuesday next week I'm, I'm bringing in a bill, a ten minute rule motion, a bill called the Sovereignty and Referendums Bill. I'm going to put it to the House. That would stop, if we could bring that in, that would stop the WHO power grab of the people of the UK.
I've been invited to speak as well next week on Zoom to some African political leaders, to try and persuade them to resist the WHO power grab, because it doesn't matter where we break this, we can break it in the UK, we can break it anywhere else in the world.
This is a worldwide problem, an absolute assault on humanity, and we've all got to stick together.
I've been an MP for nearly 14 years. I've given a lot of speeches in that chamber.
That I was a bit nervous today because I knew there was never going to be a more important, speech I've ever given.
I've never been in a more important speech than the one I was giving today.
Can't you hear at the back?
Turn up the PA. So, here we go. There was never going to be a more important speech than the one I was giving today, and, even after 14 years as an MP I was a little bit nervous standing up.
But what really got me was, OK, there wasn't as many MPs in the chamber as I'd liked, but, the public gallery was full and the support from there was absolutely incredible.
And they always say the politicians, that place over there, is in the Westminster bubble.
We are going to burst the bubble in Westminster. Absolutely.
Ultimately, my message to send you away with is that your determination, your cheerfulness, your resilience will deliver us victory. Thank you very much for coming today.
(Hearts of Oak)
Andrew, we've just been in on the debate on vaccine harms. Tell us about the process, because it's been a long, hard battle, which you talk about in the chamber.
(Andrew Bridgen MP)
Yeah, I've been putting in since January every week for a backbench business debate.
That was refused. I've put in for a Westminster Hall debate on a weekly basis and I've put in for an adjournment debate. Eventually, after nine months and more than 20 rejections, we had the first debate on excess deaths in the UK Parliament.
I think it's the first one in the world, but I promise you it won't be the last.
I think the dozen or so MPs who attended today's debate, I'm hoping I'll be able to get a get them to sign up that we can have a three-hour debate well before Christmas and then it's going to grow from there because ultimately the data that I imparted in the chamber today, it's all backed up with the science. Every MP is going to be getting a copy of my Hansard speech and the full data pack of all the evidence that backs up everything I've said. There's no excuses now. So this goes to law because it's a no-brainer really to have these conversations because we've all seen excess deaths across Europe.
Ask yourself in a democracy why don't they want to have a conversation about anything? I mean, I'm aware that in the Australian Senate four or five senators asked for a debate on excess deaths they ended up having a debate on whether you should have a debate on excess deaths and the consensus of the Australian Senate was they didn't want to have a debate on excess deaths.
Well, I mean that's a red flag straight away, isn't it?
(Hearts of Oak)
Last question, I assume you believe that there are some MPs that can be won over, that public figures have kept quiet a further reputation, which you don't care about and you've walked away from the party.
Tell us about those who you think you can possibly win over and then support you publicly on this.
(Andrew Bridgen MP)
Well certainly some of the ones that were there today, I know of some who weren't there today who will support calling for a much bigger debate on excess deaths.
And ultimately it's the pressure of the electorate, the people, and you could see that although the House wasn't very full of members, the public gallery was full and that shows you that public opinion is they want this issue debated, they want to know what's gone on, and it's their right to have it happen.
And that will become an irresistible force for politicians. That's how democracy works.
(Hearts of Oak)
Well, we've just had the debate in Parliament, a debate that I actually, to be honest, didn't think would happen. I thought that it would be stopped and held off.
Only one member of 650 MPs in that place was willing to stand up and have this conversation, on vaccine arms as on excess deaths. He spoke for 24 minutes, presented everything in a measured calm manner, no emotion. One of the many things Andrew is great at, that he just lays it out gently, softly, step by step, that he doesn't raise the hyperball that maybe some others will rise to. And he laid it out in 24 minutes. And of course, the government's response is, Well, excess deaths are other factors, lifestyle factors, like smoking, like cholesterol, even fatty foods.
So the government are blaming all the excess deaths over a period of a sudden spike in, smoking and a spike in eating fish and chips.
That's what the government. Wow.
Like ostriches with their heads in the sand. So Andrew presented his figures. The great thing is that we expect now there to be a much longer debate in Parliament. That was a short motion, a short debate, a 30 minute session. Andrew is hopeful that this can now go to a three hour fuller debate and that will be really interesting to see whether that gets tabled and whether it actually does go ahead and I would like to see other MPs backing Andrew and I think the more he speaks the more courage they will get. Andrew is someone with courage, with conviction, with a backbone, with a determination to speak truth and often, that is a rarity across there, it really is, really people want to, keep their heads down, they want to climb up the greasy pole and attain those higher levels of political achievement. So we obviously will watch this, follow Andrew. He is a hero. There's no one else in that Parliament across the way that's a hero like Andrew. And what else? I mean, it's the hill that he's chosen to die on. It's the hill that he has chosen to fight on. It's the hill that he has lost his career in the Conservative Party. And why? Because people are dying and no one is talking about it. What more important issue is there apart from life and death? And if something has been introduced and it's killing people, you need to look at it, you need to address, you need to understand it, to analyse it and then see what you do with that. So we have won here amongst 650. We will follow this and watch this closely as we see this move towards a fuller debate in Parliament and certainly my hope and prayer is that many other MPs stand up and speak, and that this happens across the world. We've seen a debate happening, I know, in the German Parliament with the AfD. I know we've seen debates happening in the Australian Parliament and the One Nation Party with Pauline and Malcolm are doing a fantastic job there.
And here is one individual. Obviously, the Reclaim Party is behind Andrew Bridgen. He's a member of that of Lawrence Fox's party. And Andrew will continue to speak. And as he speaks, I believe that we will see ripple effects across the world because the world watches what happens here.
This is called the mother of parliament and I believe that as Andrew continues to speak and continues to speak within this chamber that we will see other parliaments around the world address this issue.
But this doesn't affect future debt, I mean, the damage is done, the deaths are happening.
But at least you have to hold people to account.
And for me, this is about justice. It's about honesty.
It's about clarity. It is about truth, which is something that's been in short supply over the last couple of years during the COVID tyranny.
So keep an eye on this space for Andrew to continue to push this.
And when that longer three hour debate does happen, we will be here reporting on us and reporting on those who have come out to support Andrew today. Matt Le Tissier was here, Le God was in the chamber watching Andrew, Mike Yeadon was here speaking, Fiona Hine has done a great job in pulling people together. There is massive support and I think the parliamentarians in the government want individuals like Andrew Bridgton to feel they are alone, but they are not alone. They are backed by masses of the population and today was a small subset, of that, but Andrew knows he is not alone. Make sure and post this video, let others see what has happened here in the UK Parliament and have hope, because I think often that's also in short supply and I think what has happened today is a day of hope, is a day of reckoning and is a day of moving forward to actually presenting the truth and holding people to account.
Create your
podcast in
minutes
It is Free