This interview should be read in conjunction with Neil Harrison’s UK Column article on lockdown harms.
Andrew Bridgen MP was trending on X (formerly Twitter) after his explosive adjournment debate in Parliament on Friday 20 October 2023 exposing the excess deaths crisis. And yet there was silence from the broadcast media about the issue that is refusing to go away and that is possibly to become the biggest scandal of this century so far.
In an exclusive interview with UK Column, the North West Leicestershire MP discussed the speech, its reaction, and what he hoped it would achieve.
There were huge cheers heard in the House of Commons just before and after your speech. Was the public gallery full, and did you get to meet the members of the public afterwards?
There were about twenty spaces left in the public gallery, but they closed it for some reason, and there were 150 people in Central Lobby who had come especially to see the speech but couldn’t get in. The security guards were very good: they put the television on in the cafe and let them sit there with a cup of tea and watch the speech live from the same building. After I had completed the adjournment debate, I went down to see them and said:
Look, you didn’t see the speech. If you come across to Parliament Square, I will give you another one.
And you’ve had a very positive reaction since. I understand you have had thousands of e-mails: what have they been saying?
They are just glad that this issue has been raised finally. Let’s not diminish what has happened. This is the first speech on excess deaths in the UK Parliament, probably in the world, and it won’t be the last. I’ve been petitioning for this for more than nine months and have had more than twenty refusals. They have always been rejected until now, so something is moving. And I also did detect—I don’t want to be overoptimistic, and there is a long way to go—but colleagues in the House are starting to change their position in their response letters to constituents, even if they won’t turn up to the adjournment debate.
I think Stephen Barclay [Secretary of State for Health and Social Care] has moved his position. When I asked him on Tuesday about the correlation in the increase in cardiac deaths and the vaccine rollout, he was more conciliatory to look at the data. And I think even the limited response from Maria Caulfield, the Vaccines Minister, to my adjournment debate yesterday, there is not so much of the “safe and effective” and there is more of “we need to look at the data”—which at least is a start, and a move in the right direction.
Is the interest from MPs coming from the left and right of politics, or is it more from the Tory MPs?
It’s more from the Conservatives. Most of it is self-preservation because of the lobbying of constituents who know what is going on. The [Conservative] Party basically told me through a grandee in January that they wanted to cover up excess deaths and the vaccine harms for twenty years. That is not acceptable to me, and I don’t think that is acceptable to the public, and I don’t think they are going to get that. This is about how fast we can get to the truth; and, of course, the longer it takes to get to the truth, the more people are going to be harmed—and, sadly, die—because of these experimental vaccines, which are not safe and are not effective.
Do you think the mainstream media is going to pick up the ball on this issue? You’ve sent press packs to the national press and TV stations.
The press packs went out as soon as I finished my speech. I put the press pack out to demonstrate there is nothing they can pick apart over the facts and data I give in my speech. I have to be very careful about what I say in the Chamber on the record, because if I get one thing wrong out of a hundred, they will focus on that and try to discredit the whole of the speech.
So my speech was fact-checked by top scientists, and then they pulled together all the scientific papers to support those assertions. That’s what’s gone out to all the press, all the TV stations, and that’s what I have done for my last three speeches now since December , but nobody ever picks up on it. It’s almost a conspiracy of silence.
But a lot of people now have got friends, relatives, neighbours who have died unexpectedly before their time in unusual circumstances, and, sadly, the number of deaths are not diminishing. So the Government cannot just sweep this under the carpet, as it is affecting far too many people around the world.
I read a paper last week that I didn’t quote in the Chamber, but they extrapolated the deaths. They were working that, every time you are jabbed, one in 800 people are dying—but those deaths are not equally distributed across the age ranges so, after about the age of 40, every five years there is a doubling of the chances of dying after vaccination, to the point where you get to the over-85s and the odds are down to one in twenty. There are more excess deaths in the over-85 age group than we had during Covid, but nobody wants to talk about it.
Another part of your speech was using Pfizer’s own data to show how dangerous these injections are.
The excess deaths we are seeing around the world are predominantly heart-related. Four people in the Pfizer trials died of heart attacks, compared to one in the placebo. That’s pretty significant, isn’t it? They only followed those injected with a very carefully-created vaccine, which is not the same way they created it for the mass rollout. And they only followed those people for eight weeks. There is no data anywhere in the world of the Pfizer efficacy after eight weeks, because after eight weeks they destroyed the trial by vaccinating the placebo group.
That is a criminal act, as there is no way they can go back and compare health outcomes between the vaccinated and unvaccinated, because they have destroyed the data by vaccinating the placebo group, which you should never ever do. As far as I am concerned, that is a criminal act against public health.
But, also, in Australia they can’t hide the fact we have the perfect control group, as most of Australia was vaccinated before they caught Covid. And what we saw was in big chunks of Australia, there was no Covid but excess deaths—because of the vaccine rollout. There is no other explanation.
You mentioned in your speech about the Office for National Statistics withholding data.
The ONS, in my view, is deliberately obstructing the true death rates, because we are having a large, large number of deaths of predominantly young people, who are dying when they were not expected to be dying—and they are being referred to coroners, so they do not appear in the weekly death certificates. And so the ONS weekly death certificates are understated considerably concerning deaths of young people.
I know that the coroners’ courts are absolutely overwhelmed: they have not been given any extra resources and have thousands and thousands of extra cases. It’s going to take years to get through this backlog. We are never going to know the true death rates in any of the last three years; and that, from a transparency and public accountability point of view, is unforgivable.
I don’t think it is by accident. I think it is deliberate. And the UK Health Security Agency refuses to release data from their data sets on vaccination and the death rates of the vaccinated. And the UK Government won’t do an investigation into the people who have suddenly had to sign on for Personal Independence Payments [sickness benefits] for people who are now incapable of working and taken ill over the past three years. A very quick analysis of these people and their vaccine status would establish whether there is a link to vaccination. The Government won’t do that very cheap analysis, and I would suggest that is because they know damn well what the results would show.
What do you think is the next step now that you have had this adjournment debate? Will you have to have another adjournment debate?
No, I think we will get the names of all the MPs who attended. I think we will have enough MPs if they all sign to force the Backbench Business Committee to give us a three-hour debate in the next four weeks to keep the pressure on.
I think one of the other MPs mentioned your tenacious drive to get this debate raised publicly in Parliament. That is the place to do it, isn’t it—to get the public aware of it who might otherwise have their views shaped by the BBC?
Following on from my dogged perseverance with the Post Office Horizon scandal, the slaves in the Leicester garment industry and my nine-year pursuit of getting Keith Vaz out of Parliament—which I did—my nickname in Parliament was always ‘Pitbull’ anyway, because once Andrew Bridgen bit in, he didn’t let go.
Was there anything else from the speech hitting home with the MPs (as it was incredibly powerful)? I got the impression you were having to hold back—perhaps not tears, but a simmering anger at the injustice.
I was angry at the deaths. I nearly did cry at the end, to be honest, because it was particularly moving about what can we do to stop the rollout of these vaccines. When I see people going for their sixth booster or whatever, my heart breaks for them, because the evidence is all there and it is unequivocal.
There is going to have to be a day of reckoning for all of this, and it can’t come soon enough, as this is a crime against humanity. And it is not just in our country; it is happening right across the world. The latest figures I saw: if you are working on the one-in-800 death rate—higher in the older age groups, given the number of vaccines administered—[then] we are talking about 17 million excess deaths around the world. I mean, whatever this is, I struggle to have the vocabulary to describe the horror. And yes, it does make me pretty upset at times.
The BBC, when the speech went out live, were putting a ‘ticker’ onto my speech saying that the vaccines are actually safe and effective. That had to be pre-planned: they weren’t responding to anything I’d said. I’ve not heard that done to any politician on their speech in our Parliament, ever. I guess they must be scared. But, at the end of the day, they can ridicule me, they can attack me, they can do what they want, but the truth will out; and that was the truth that I said in that Chamber and I stand by every word, as will the scientists who have corroborated the evidence.
History will not be kind [to those who promoted the safe and effective line] and the mainstream media are completely bought up in this: they are completely committed now, and I don’t see a way out for them. They are going to fight tooth and nail to stop the truth getting out, because it is devastating for them as well now.
Has any mainstream journalist approached you since the speech?
Only one, who will remain nameless. He sent me a text and said:
Andrew, one day, the speech you gave yesterday about excess deaths will be seen as historic.
History is written by the victors, so we had better make sure we win, hadn’t we?
That’s a great note to end the interview on, but is there anything else you would like to add?
I potentially have another big speech on Tuesday [24 October 2023], when I have a Ten-Minute Rule motion, and I’m going to try and get permission from the House to bring in a bill—the Sovereignty and Referendums Bill—that would prevent the Government from giving away sovereign powers to supranational bodies like the WHO (World Health Organisation). So I will be trying to make my colleagues aware of the huge dangers to our freedoms, human rights and sovereignty from the Pandemic Preparedness Treaty and the amendments to the International Health Regulations 2005, which just hand autocratic power to the Director-General of the WHO. What could possibly go wrong there(!)?
Yes, it ties in with the vaccines if we surrender our powers to the WHO.
With the next pandemic—who knows when that will be released from the lab—they will just be insisting on mandatory vaccination with these experimental, dangerous vaccines. I can’t think of a more nightmarish scenario, and while I have breath in my body, it won’t be happening.
The full transcript of Andrew Bridgen MP’s Adjournment Debate speech on excess deaths can be found here.
Main article image: Adjournment Debate on Trends in Excess Deaths, House of Commons, London