The Honorable Andrew Bridgen MP

It is time to stand up and support the many heroes in this battle

Last week, I was asked by John Mappin if I would fly into London to help support the honorable Andrew Bridgen, MP in his quest to clear his name and to help spread the word about the censorship and barriers to free speech which he has encountered while trying to help alert the public to the the adverse events associated with the vaccine.

Jill and I immediately decided that this was a trip worth taking.

Brian Rose of “London Real” heard that I would be coming to town and asked for a sit-down interview. I consider him a friend and fellow truth warrior, and I had the time directly after landing, and so was glad to enthusiastically agree.

Once we landed at Heathrow, Jill and I took an Uber to the new studio of “London Real”. I had been thinking the interview with Brian would be two hours max, but almost five hours later, the interview finished. Another great hit with Brian, and we covered a wide range of topics. I love giving the long format interviews, but the truth is that making one’s self emotionally vulnerable, fact-based and being in the present for that long, can really wear you out! Jill and left his studio to arrive at the wonderful Connaught Hotel.

There we had a small dinner party with our host Mr. John Mappin, the Honorable Andrew Bridgen, MP and leaders in the fight for freedom of speech, medical freedom, justice, anti-fascism, globalism and freeing the people of England from an increasingly corrupt and authoritarian government, one which seems hell bent on rejoining the European Union.

The dinner lasted long into the UK morning (easy when you are on Eastern time) allowed us all to strategize, listen, compare battle scars and work out a plan for tomorrow’s big reception.

I think it was two in the morning, when we wrapped up the session and someone snapped this image in the lobby of the hotel.

This evening, there will be a private reception featuring the Hononable Andrew Bridgen MP, Dr. Aseem Malholtra, Dr. Ryan Cole, Eva Vlaardingerbroek, other luminaries and myself. The title of the reception is -

“ An evening Celebration of the Importance of Freedom of Speech Outside and Inside Parliament and Our Vital Need to Ensure Safety of Medical Protocols.”

Why is this important?

As many know, Mr Bridgen, the Member of Parliament (MP) for North West Leicestershire (UK), was removed from his position of whip for the Conservative party when he tweeted that a consultant cardiologist had told him the vaccine roll-out was “the biggest crime against humanity since the Holocaust”. Mr Bridgen could permanently lose the party whip - meaning he will sit as an independent, depending on the outcome of an “investigation.”

That would be an investigation to not allow free speech from a serving member of British Parliament. His free speech sin was expressing opinions, based on evidence-based, peer reviewed papers about the mRNA COVID-19 vaccine and the adverse events associated with it. Party members from both sides of the aisle tried to spin what Mr. Bridgen said as anti-semitic. Many, including many Jewish scientists feel differently.

In fact, Jewish scientists from around the globe have objected to this defamation of Mr. Bridgen:

Jewish scientists from around the world have called on Prime Minister Rishi Sunak to withdraw claims that Leicestershire MP Andrew Bridgen is guilty of making antisemitic comments. The request was made in an open letter to the PM amidst the continued controversy over Mr Bridgen’s remarks where he compared Covid-19 vaccinations to the Holocaust.

The group, which includes epidemiology expert and former advisor to the Israeli Healthcare Public Committee, Dr Ifat Abadi-Korek, claims that the PM’s remarks “seized upon an opportunity” to criticise the outspoken MP. They also believed the remarks “limited free speech” and the right to question vaccine efficacy.

This is the reason Jill and I are here. To support Andrew Bridgen. To support the rights of any member of British Parliament to speak freely. To stop censorship. In the USA, we have a republic with a strong constitution and Bill of Rights to protect the people right to free speech, the UK is not so lucky.

So, tomorrow we have a reception to show support for the Honorable Andrew Bridgen. Myself and others will provide the entertainment to a mixed audience of politicians and luminaries in the form of brief lectures about the free speech, propaganda, censorship and the need to ensure medical freedom and safety.

However, it is important to note that many believe that it wasn’t the tweet that got Mr. Bridgen suspended, but rather a speech given to Parliament in December. A speech which has generated an enormous number of views and interest (the transcript follows after the video link):

Vaccines: Potential Harms Transcript:

Speaker; Andrew Bridgen MP:

Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker.

Three months ago, one of the UK's most eminent and trusted cardiologists, a man with an international reputation, Dr. Aseem Malhotra published peer-reviewed research that concluded that there should be a complete cessation in the administration of the COVID mRNA vaccines for everyone because of clear and robust data of significant harms and little ongoing benefit.

He described the rollout of the biotech Pfizer vaccine as perhaps the greatest miscarriage of medical science, damage to population health, erosion of trust in public health, and attack on democracy that we will witness in our lifetime. Interesting, Madam Deputy Speaker, there's not been a single rebuttal so far in the scientific literature to Dr. Malhotra's findings despite its widespread circulation and it making international news.

Before I state the key evidence-based facts that make a clear case for complete suspension of these emergency use authorization vaccines, it's important to appreciate the key psychological barrier as to why these facts have not been acknowledged by policymakers and taken up by the UK mainstream media. That psychological phenomenon is willful blindness.

This is when human beings, including in this case institutions, turn a blind eye to the truth in order to feel safe, reduce anxiety, avoid conflict, and protect their prestige and reputations. There are numerous examples of this occurring in recent history, such as at the BBC with Jimmy Savile, the Department of Health and Mid Staffs, Hollywood and Harvey Weinstein, and specifically in the medical establishment, the Oxycontin scandal, which was portrayed in the miniseries Dopesick. What's crucial to understand is that the longer willful blindness to the truth continues, the more unnecessary harm it creates.

So here are the cold hard facts on the mRNA vaccines and an explanation of the structural drivers that continue to be barriers to doctors and the public receiving independent information to make informed decisions about these vaccines.

Since the rollout (in the UK) of the biotech Pfizer mRNA vaccine, we've had almost half a million yellow card reports of adverse effects from the public. Madam Deputy speaker, this is unprecedented. It is more than all the yellow card combined reports of the last 40 years. Such an extraordinary rate of side effects which are beyond mild have been reported in many countries across the world that have used the Pfizer vaccine, including of course the United States.

Of course I'll give way to the honorable gentlemen.

Speaker 3:

Thank him for giving way. I spoke to [inaudible 00:03:15] beforehand. He knows my feelings about the vaccines. I'm a supporter of the vaccines, many of my family are as well, but I understand where the [inaudible 00:03:24] come from. In fact, I've had some constituency have come to me and [inaudible 00:03:28] agree we need to ensure in this House we acknowledge risks and don't simply relegate them to fine print.

Andrew Bridgen MP:

He's absolutely right that those who feel they've been damaged by the vaccine should of course have the full support of their elected members of parliament and of course the full support of the NHS.

It's interesting that only a couple of weeks ago I was interviewed by a journalist from a major news outlet who said that he was being bombarded by calls from people who said that there were vaccine harms but unable to get the support they wanted from the NHS. And he also said that he thought this would be the biggest scandal in the medical history in this country. And disturbingly, he also said that if he were to mention that in the newsroom in which he worked, he would fear that he would lose his job and it is this conspiracy of silence that we need to break.

Madam Deputy Speaker, it's instructive to note that traditionally, according to pharmacovigilance analysis, when it becomes to serious adverse effects, what is actually reported by the public is thought to be only represent 10% of the true rate of serious adverse events occurring within the population. The gold standard of understanding the benefit and harm of any drug comes from the randomized controlled trial.

It's the randomized controlled trial conducted by Pfizer that led to the UK and international regulators approving the biotech Pfizer mRNA vaccine in the first place for administration. Contrary to popular belief, that original trial of approximately 40,000 participants did not show any statistically significant reduction in death as a result of vaccination, but it did show a 95% relative risk reduction in the development of infection against the ancestral, more lethal strain of the virus. However, the absolute risk reduction for an individual was only 0.84%.

In other words, from their own data, Pfizer revealed that you needed to vaccinate 119 people to prevent one infection. The World Health Organization and the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges have previously stated and made it clear that it's an ethical responsibility that medical information is communicated to patients in absolute benefit and absolute risk terms. This is to protect the public from a unnecessary anxiety and manipulation.

Very quickly, a few mutations of that original strain, indeed, within a few months, fortunately it became far less lethal. And it quickly became apparent that there was no protection against infection from the vaccine at all, and we were left with the hope that perhaps these vaccines would protect us from serious illness and death.

So what does the most reliable data tell us about the best case scenario of individual benefit from the vaccine against dying from COVID-19? Real world data from the UK during the three-month wave of Omicron at the beginning of this year reveals that you'd need to vaccinate 7,300 people over the age of 80 to prevent one death. The number needed to be vaccinated to prevent a death in any younger age group was absolutely enormous.

Speaker 4:

Will he give way?

Andrew Bridgen MP:

I will of course give way to my honorable friend.

Speaker 4:

I'm very grateful to him for giving away and for bringing this debate to the House. It's a very important debate that we should be having. He's just talking there about the relative risks for different cohorts of the population.

He will remember that when the vaccine was first announced, the intention was that it would only be used for those who were vulnerable and the elderly. Because, as he says, the expectation was that the benefit to younger people was minor.

Does he agree with me that it would be helpful for the minister to explain to us why the original advice that the vaccines would only be rolled out for the older population and would not be used for children in particular, why that original advice was laid aside and we ended up with a rollout for the entire population including children?

Andrew Bridgen MP:

I thank my humble friend, the [inaudible 00:07:50] for that intervention and his support on this very important issue. Of course, it's important that the government justify why they're rolling out a vaccine to any cohort of people, in particular our children.

He will recall in the Westminster Hall debate that we questioned the validity of vaccinating children who have minimal risk, if at all, from the virus, but there's a clear risk from the vaccine. And I will again report on evidence from America later in my speech regarding those risks to particularly young children.

So, in other words, the benefits of the vaccine are close to non-existent. Beyond the alarming yellow card reports, the strongest evidence of harm comes from the gold standard highest possible quality level data, a re-analysis of the Pfizer Moderna's own randomized control trials using the mRNA technology published in the peer-reviewed journaled Vaccine, revealed a rate of serious adverse events of one in 800 individuals vaccinated. These are events that result in hospitalization, disability or a life-changing.

What is most disturbing of all however is that, of those original trials suggesting that one was far more likely, someone was far more likely to suffer a serious side effect from the vaccine than to be hospitalized with the ancestral, more lethal strain of the virus. These findings, Madam Deputy Speaker, are a smoking gun suggesting that the vaccine should likely never have been approved in the first place.

In the past, vaccines have been completely withdrawn from use for a much lower instance of serious harm. For example, the swine flu vaccine was withdrawn in 1976 for causing Guillain-Barre syndrome in only one in 100,000 adults. And in 1999, the Rotavirus vaccine was withdrawn for causing a form of bowel obstruction in children affecting one in 10,000. With a COVID mRNA vaccine, we're talking of a serious adverse event rate of at least one in 800. Because that's the rate determined in the two months that Pfizer actually followed the patients following their vaccination.

Unfortunately, some of those serious events affecting such as heart attack, stroke, or pulmonary embolism will result in death, which is devastating for individuals and the families they leave behind. And many of these may take longer than eight weeks post vaccination to show themselves.

An Israeli paper published in Nature Scientific reports showed a 25% increase in heart attack and cardiac arrest in 16 to 39 year olds in Israel. And another report from Israel, which is looking at the level of myocarditis and pericarditis in people who've had COVID and those who hadn't, it was a study I think of 1.2 million who hadn't had COVID and 740,000 who had had COVID. The incidence of myocarditis and pericarditis was identical in both groups. This would tell the House that whatever is causing the increase in heart problems now, it's not due to having been infected with the COVID-19 vaccine.

It was accepted by a peer-reviewed medical journal that one of the nation's most respected and decorated general practitioners, honorary vice president of the BMA and the Labour Party's doctor of the year, Dr. Kailash Chand likely suffered a cardiac arrest and was tragically killed by the Pfizer vaccine six months after his second dose through a mechanism that rapidly accelerates heart disease.

In fact, in the UK, Madam Deputy Speaker, we've had an extra 14,000 out of hospital cardiac arrests in 2021 compared to 2020 following the vaccine rollout. Many of these will undoubtedly, because of the vaccine, and the consequences of this mRNA jab are clearly serious and common. The ministers-

Speaker 5:

Will my humble friend give way?

Andrew Bridgen MP:

I will, yes.

Speaker 5:

I'm very grateful and I think he's making a very interesting and important speech. And in particular, he's giving a lot of detail about the Pfizer vaccine. Does he have similar concerns about other vaccines? And if so, will he be talking about those later in his speech?

Andrew Bridgen MP:

I thank my honorable friend for that interject. Clearly this is relating to all mRNA vaccinations. He will be well aware that many of us will have had the AstraZeneca vaccine. That has effectively been withdrawn because of the health concerns around it. Indeed, I'll declare to the House I'm double vaccinated with AstraZeneca, which has now been withdrawn.

The ministers may understandably wish to defer responsibility for a decision, such as withdrawing the vaccines from the population to the regulators such as the MHRA or in America it'll be the FDA. Historically when undertaking the approval of any drug, the regulators themselves ultimately end up relying on the summary results of the drug companies in their sponsored trials where the raw data is kept commercially confidential. Furthermore, the MHRA has a huge financial conflict of interest, receiving 86% of its funding from the pharmaceutical industry they are supposed to regulate.

In effect, Madam Deputy Speaker, we've got the poacher paying the gamekeeper. As pointed out in a recent BMJ investigation into the financial conflicts of interest of the drug regulators, sociologist Donald Bly said of them, "It's the opposite of having a trustworthy organization, independent and rigorously assessing medicines. They're not rigorous, they're not independent. They're selective and they withhold data. Doctors and patients must appreciate how deeply and extensively drug regulators can't be trusted so long as they're captured by the industry funding."

Similarly, another investigation revealed that members of the JCVI have huge financial links to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, running to billions of pounds. The ministers, the media and the public know that the foundation itself is heavily invested in the pharmaceutical industry stocks.

Unfortunately, the catastrophic mistake over the approval and the coercion associated with this emergency use authorization medical intervention is not an anomaly, but in many ways it could have been predicted by structural failures that have allowed this to occur in the first place. These shortcomings are rooted in the increasingly unchecked, visible and invisible power of multinational corporations. In this case, big pharma.

We start by acknowledging that the drug industry has a fiduciary obligation to produce profit for their shareholders. Madam Deputy Speaker, they have no fiduciary obligation to provide the right medicines for patients. The real scandal is that those with the responsibility of patients and scientific integrity, namely doctors, academic institutions and medical journals, collude with the industry for financial gain.

Big pharma exerts its power by capturing the political environment through lobbying, the knowledge environment through funding university research, and influencing medical education, preference shaping through capture of the media financing, think tanks, et cetera, et cetera. In other words, the PR machinery of pharma excels in subterfuge, engages in smearing and deplatforming those who call out their manipulations.

No doubt, Madam Deputy speaker, they will be very busy this evening. It's no surprise that because of so much control by an entity that has been described as psychopathic for its profit making conduct, that one analysis suggests that the third most common cause of death globally after heart disease and cancer is because of the side effects of prescribed medications, which were mostly avoidable.

Because of the systemic failures, doctors often received biased information deliberately manipulated by the pharmaceutical industry that exaggerates the benefits and also exaggerates the safety of their drugs. Furthermore, the former editor of the BMJ, Richard Smith, claims that research misconduct is rife and is not effectively being tackled in the UK institution, stating, he states: "Something is rotten in British medicine and it has been for a long time."

Madam Deputy Speaker, it's also been brought to my attention by a whistleblower from a very reliable source that one of these institutions is covering up clear data that reveals the mRNA vaccine increases inflammation of the heart arteries. They are covering this up in fear that they may lose funding from the pharmaceutical industry.

The lead of that cardiology research department has a prominent leadership role with the British Heart Foundation, and I'm very disappointed to say that he has sent out non-disclosure agreements to his research team to ensure that this important data never sees the light of day.

This, Madam Deputy Speaker, is an absolute disgrace. Such systemic failure in an overmedicated population also contributes to huge waste of British taxpayers money and increasing strain on the NHS.

We clearly need an inquiry into the influence of big pharma on medications and our NHS. And this has been called for on many occasions, even by some very, very influential people, including prominent physicians such as the former president of the Royal College of Physicians and personal doctor to our former Queen, Sir Richard Thompson.

On a separate occasion, in the last few years, these calls have been supported also and covered in The Daily Mail, The Guardian and most recently the [inaudible 00:18:32] newspaper. We are not just fighting for principles of ethical evidence-based medical practice here, but we're also fighting for our democracy. The future health of the British public depends on us tackling head-on the cause of this problem and finding meaningful solutions.

In 2015, a commentary by Richard Horton, editor-in-chief of The Lancet suggested that possibly half of the published medical literature may simply be untrue. He wrote that science has taken a turn towards darkness and asked who is going to take the first step to clean up the system?

Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, that first step could start this evening with this debate. It starts here and the vaccine minister and the government ensuring in the first instance that there needs to be an immediate and complete suspension of any more COVID vaccines and their use of mRNA technology.

Madam Deputy Speaker, silence on this issue is more contagious than the virus itself. And I'd also now so should courage be. And I would implore all the scientists, the medics, the nurses and those in the media who know the truth about the harm these vaccines are causing to our people to speak out.

Madam Deputy Speaker, we've already sacrificed, in my view, far too many of our citizens on the altar of ignorance and unfettered corporate greed. Last week, the MHRA authorized these experimental vaccines for use on children as young as six months. A report, which I've already quoted in a Westminster Hall debate some weeks ago by the Journal of American Medical Associations studying the effects of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccination on children under five years of age, showed that one in 200 had an adverse event, which resulted in hospitalization and had symptoms that lasted longer than 90 days.

As the data clearly shows, to anyone who wants to look at it, the mRNA vaccines, they're not safe, they're not effective, and they're not necessary. I implore the government to halt their use immediately. And as I've demonstrated, and the data clearly shows, the government's current policy on the mRNA vaccines is on the wrong side of medical ethics, it's on the wrong side of scientific data and ultimately, Madam Deputy Speaker, it will be on the wrong side of history.

---

To conclude:

Jill and I know from personal experience how emotionally difficult being attacked by the legacy media and losing professional affiliates and positions can be. It is not only hard on the individual, but also their family. We stand proudly with Mr. Bridgen and his family. He has not said or done anything to deserve what has happened to him. He needs and I hope he knows that he has a circle of warriors to support his work and carry him forward. Please join that circle and support/follow him on twitter and other social media venues.

---