Vaccine Dangers: UK Parliament Debate

Vaccine Dangers: UK Parliament Debate


Dr John Campbell shares the powerful speech of Andrew Bridgen, MP at the UK Parliamentary Debate on Vaccine Dangers on Tuesday, December 13th.
Bridgen describes the harms of the COVID-19 vaccine and the multi-institutional corruption that is now culminating in the furtive genocide of the British people.
The emptiness of the Chamber seen during Bridgen’s speech is directly proportionate to the corruption of the House of Commons.

All those Members not present on Tuesday will continue to claim ignorance about the substance of Bridgen’s testimony.


Eminent and trusted cardiologist, 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 BioNTech-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 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 policy makers 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 BioNTech-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…
Those who feel they’ve been damaged by the the vaccine should, of course have the full support of the 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 they were vaccine-harmed 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 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 Control Trial. It’s the Randomized Controlled Trial conducted by Pfizer that led to the UK and international regulators approving the BioNTech-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 unnecessary anxiety and manipulation.
Very quickly, through 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 preventer death in any younger age group was absolutely enormous.
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 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 review journal, Vaccine revealed a rate of serious Adverse Events of 1 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 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 incidence of serious harm. For example, the Swine Flu vaccine was withdrawn in 1976 for causing Guillain-Barré Syndrome in only 1 in 100,000 adults. And in 1999, the Rotavirus vaccine was withdrawn for causing a form of bowel obstruction in children, affecting 1 in 10,000.
With the COVID mRNA vaccine, we’re talking of a serious Adverse Event rate of at least 1 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, 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 8 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 16-39 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 101.2 million who hadn’t had COVID and 740,000 who had had covered, 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, 6 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 be because of the vaccine and the consequence of this MRA jab are clearly serious and common…
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 health concerns. 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 they’d 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 in a recent BMJ investigation into the financial conflicts-of-interest of the drug regulators, Sociologist David Donald Light said of them, “It’s the opposite of having a trustworthy organization independently 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 a 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, etc, etc.
In other words, the PR machinery of Pharma excels in subterfuge, engages in smearing and de-platforming those who call out their manipulations.
No doubt, Madam Deputy Speaker, they will be very busy this evening. It’s no surprise that because there’s 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 these systemic failures, doctors often receive 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. He states, “Something is rotten in British medicine and it has been for a long time.”
Madame 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, Madame Deputy Speaker, is an absolute disgrace!
Systemic failure in an over-medicated population also contributes to huge waste of British taxpayers’ money and increasing strain on the NHS…We clearly need an inquiry into the the influence of Big Pharma on medications and our NHS and this has been called for on many occasions, indeed 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 separate occasions in the last few years, these calls have been supported also and covered in The Daily Mail, The Guardian and most recently, the The Iron newspaper.
We’re 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 the use of mRNA technology.
Madam Deputy Speaker, silence on this issue is more contagious than the virus, itself and 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 6 months. A report, which I’ve already quoted in 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 5 years of age showed that 1 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 – that 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.



https://youtu.be/-MSKzoI72eU


THANKS TO: https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/vaccine-dangers-uk-parliament-debate/