Debate in Parliament Ignites over Excess Deaths and Vaccine Safety Concerns

Source: Sonia Elijah Investigates, Substack, 19 April 2024

CHD Europe Editor: Public in gallery immediately cheers after Andrew Bridgen’s last sentence of his speech in parliament on 18th April 2024.

On April 18th, in the UK House of Commons, Andrew Bridgen, MP (Independent) for North West Leicestershire gave an uncompromising and hard-hitting speech on the debate that he brought forward: “Covid-19 pandemic response and trends in excess deaths.” 

Last October, my report “Piercing the Veil of Silence over Excess Deaths” covered Bridgen’s speech, after he secured a 30-minute adjourned debate on excess deaths in the lower house of Parliament.

However, this debate went on for over two hours, where other MPs including Sir Christopher Chope, Danny Kruger and Neale Hanvey, also weighed in on their concerns over excess deaths and the link to mRNA COVID-19 injections- the group effectively doing more than piercing the silence on the topic. 

Similar to the October 20th debate, only roughly a dozen MPs bothered to be present. These included Sir Christoper Chope, Philip Hollobone, Dr Kieran Mullan, Danny Kruger, Wera Hobhouse, Neale Hanvey, Stephen Metcalfe, Andrew Gwynne, Graham Stringer, Sir Peter Bottomley, and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, Maria Caulfield.

Bridgen, who led the debate, opened with a powerful statement:

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 say clearly and unequivocally that I am not. I am in fact double vaccinated and vaccine harmed.

Hiding the data

The MP for North West Leicestershire since 2010, went on to state:

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 of 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!

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. 

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 anonymised aggregate 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.

Manipulating the data

Bridgen went on to explain how the Office of National Statistics (ONS) had recently changed the way they were calculating excess deaths.

He stated:

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’s a massive excess of deaths in 2020 and 2021 and now a minimal excess deaths in 2023 under the old calculation method. 

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 a new normal baseline.

The controversial ONS calculation change is explained in great detail in a video by Dr John Campbell. 

The DNRs

One of the great scandals in the early Covid response saga was the fact that countless DNRs targeting the elderly and those with certain disabilities were enacted by GPs and hospital doctors across the UK.

Bridgen explained:

In March 2020, the government conducted a consultation exercise on whether people over a certain age or with certain disabilities should have a Do Not Resuscitate orders imposed upon them, known as DNRs. 

A document summarising the proposals were 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 that they’d be overwhelmed. The result is that people died who didn’t need to die- while nurses performed Tik Tok dances.

The abandonment of standard clinical protocols

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 and antibiotics for secondary pneumonia infections and other standard protocols but 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 take paracetamol until their lips turn blue and then when they returned to hospital they sedated them put them on ventilators and watched them die.

NICE’s NG163 ‘death’ protocol: midazolam & morphine

Another great scandal in the Covid response was the introduction of midazolam and morphine, as part of NICE’s NG163 protocol.

If they [patients] were not fit for that level of care [placed on a ventilator] 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. The side effect is that 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 suppression to somebody struggling to breathe already 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, 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 down to this protocol. Ministers are announcing 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. Will the minister tell us why NICE have removed this protocol from their website? Are the ashamed of the harm that they caused? They certainly should be.

Upon doing further research on NG163, I came across a rapid response letter to the editor of The BMJ, written by Professor Emeritus Sam H Ahmedzai, from the University of Sheffield and a group of consultants in palliative medicine, who raised concerns about the use of morphine and midazolam. 

In their letter, the doctors write:

NG163 states: “Sedation and opioid use should not be withheld because of a fear of causing respiratory depression.” If COVID-19 infection were uniformly fatal, this would be an acceptable statement. But for people not previously known to be at the end of life, there is potential risk of unintended serious harm, if these medications are used incorrectly and without the benefit of specialist palliative care advice.

They went on to call for a revision to NG163 based on their concerns.

However, as current or retired consultants in palliative medicine, we respectfully suggest that some recommendations in NG163 should be revised to prevent inadvertently adding to that suffering.

The doctors’ letter was published on 19 May 2020 with NICE ignoring their warnings. 

Neither “safe”, nor “effective” 

Turning back to Bridgen’s speech, he raised a further salient point:

After a positive COVID test any illness and any death was attributed to the virus after the experimental emergencies vaccine was administered no subsequent illness and no death was ever attributed to the vaccine. These are both completely unscientific approaches…because with COVID-19 vaccines the media, the government and other authorities turned into big pharma’s marketing department and it’s very hard now to hear the word “safe” without the echo of the word “effective” but they’re not safe and effective.

He went on to report: 

These so-called vaccines were the least effective vaccines ever. Is there anyone left under any illusion that they prevented any infections? When he was at the Dispatch Box for Prime Minister’s questions on 31 January, even the Prime Minister, in answer to my question, could not bring himself to add “and effective” to his “safe” mantra. In his own words, he was “unequivocal” that the vaccines are “safe”. The word “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, totalling £19.5 million in compensation for harm caused by the covid vaccines? Have these people not suffered enough already? Those 163 victims are the tip of the iceberg, by the way. It also should be noted that the maximum payment is only £120,000, so each of those 163 victims got the maximum possible award, which should tell us something. The same compensation scheme paid out a total of only £3.5 million between 1997 and 2005, with an average of only eight claims per year, and that is for all claims for the entire country for all vaccines administered. So much for “safe”.

Scottish MP, Neale Hanvey (Alba party) shared important published scientific evidence on the harms of the mRNA vaccines and excess deaths. He also referenced the alarming findings of Professor of Oncology, Angus Dalgleish.

Let me move on to what we know about some of the issues surrounding mRNA technology. We know that it does not replicate locally, as we were assured it would do on launch. It metastasises to distant tissue, and replicates spike protein systemically distant from the site of administration. That is problematic for a number of reasons. According to the University of London Professor of Oncology, and principal of the Institute for Cancer Vaccines and Immunotherapy, Professor Angus Dalgleish, this has precipitated various serious and sometimes fatal consequences due to antibody development mediated by the spike protein. I will not go into the detail of that, but at a meeting convened by the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire, Professor Dalgleish told us that the UK Government and their agencies are in serious denial about this issue, resulting in many deaths being poorly understood.

Let me give a couple of examples. Vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia is one of the principal causes of blood clot formation, which can cause stroke, pulmonary emboli, and other cardiac-related events including heart attacks, all of which can be life-limiting or fatal. Another antibody linked to the spike protein exerts an effect on myelin, and is associated with Guillain-Barré syndrome and transverse myelitis, which is a swelling around the spinal cord. Professor Dalgleish believes that that constitutes medical negligence, because the facts are there for all to see. He contends that many deaths are as a direct result of unnecessary vaccination. Furthermore, he advises that there are a greater number of yellow cards in MHRA for covid vaccines than for all other vaccines recorded, and nothing has really been done.”

I will canter through some important published evidence, which comes back to the correlation/causation discussion. In a 2021 study looking at cardiac inflammatory markers in patients receiving mRNA vaccines, Steven Gundry observed that mRNA vaccination numerically increased markers “previously described by others for denoting inflammation on the endothelium and T cell infiltration of cardiac muscle” in a patient population receiving the vaccine. A 2022 study by Fraiman et al. noted that the “excess risk of serious adverse events” identified in their study pointed “to the need for formal harm-benefit analyses”. That suggestion is wholly consistent with the principles set out in the declaration of Helsinki and is an ethical imperative.

In 2023, a pre-print Lancet study by Nicolas Hulscher et al., including leading cardiologist Peter McCullough and Yale epidemiologist Harvey Risch, reviewed 325 autopsies after covid vaccination and found that 74% of the deaths were attributable to the vaccine. That study, which was published online, was then swiftly removed, allegedly for issues with ideological rigour.

I wonder whether it was the MHRA that did the assessment of its rigour. Surely those data and findings—however problematic some of the methodology might have been— demand further scrutiny, not removal.

A December 2023 Lancet Regional Health study by Jonathan Pearson-Stuttard et al. examined excess mortality in England post the covid-19 pandemic and the implications for secondary prevention. 

It stated: “Many countries, including the UK, have continued to experience an apparent excess of deaths long after the peaks associated with the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 and 2021. Numbers of excess deaths estimated in this period are considerable.” It noted that “overall trends tend to be consistent across the various methods.”

It continued: “The causes of these excess deaths are likely to be multiple…Further analysis by cause and by age- and sex-group may help quantify

the relative contributions of these causes.”

I ask again: should we not at least be curious about this?

The study continued: “The greatest numbers of excess deaths in the acute phase of the pandemic were in older adults. The pattern now is one of persisting excess deaths which are most prominent in relative terms in middle-aged and younger adults, with deaths from CVD causes and deaths in private homes being most affected.” That is a completely different clinical picture. 

It continued: “Timely and granular analyses are needed to describe such trends and so to inform prevention and disease management efforts.”

Documents recently disclosed as part of a freedom of information lawsuit against the US Food and Drug Administration indicate that the agency was aware that the safety monitoring system for Pfizer’s covid-19 vaccine was “not sufficient” for assessing associated heart conditions when it licensed the company’s vaccine. Those documents also reveal numerous manufacturing concerns with Pfizer batches that were released to the public and show that the FDA knew about a phenomenon known as vaccine- associated enhanced diseases in those who were vaccinated and experienced breakthrough covid-19.

Lastly, Bridgen concluded the debate with the following statement.

I wish this debate were not needed; I wish the experimental covid-19 vaccines were safe and effective, but they are not. The longer we go on not admitting the problem, the bigger the problem that will come, and the greater the harm that will continue to be caused. Those in this House can continue to deny that the vaccines are causing harm and deaths, and the legacy media can continue to censor all reports of vaccine harms and excess deaths, but the people know, in increasing numbers, because they are the ones who are losing their loved ones and relatives. I urge the Government: release the control-level data, and let us sort this out once and for all.

It must be noted that at the end of Bridgen’s first address (seen in the video above) there was an eruption of deafening applause and cheers from the packed, upper public gallery. This quickly prompted Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton) to try and put a stop to it.

“No, no, we will have to clear the Gallery if clapping continues; I will order it, if necessary,” she states with annoyance. 

No, Madam Deputy Speaker- you can’t ever order it to stop- the people are knowing in ever-increasing numbers.

Suggest a correction