International Health Regulations

Andrew Bridgen Excerpts

Tuesday 14th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Stephenson]

As a volunteer vaccinator during the pandemic, I 100% agree with my right hon. Friend. We have to look after our own people—our own citizens; the people we are elected to represent—first. We are investing heavily in the British life sciences sector to ensure that it is even more prepared for any future pandemic. We are ensuring that we have more domestic manufacturing capability, so that we can have more vaccines ourselves without being reliant on other countries. However, at the point where a new pandemic is emerging in a part of a world far from our shores, we still need to ensure that the data—particularly the pathogen data—is shared early, so that world-beating British companies, whether the tiny life sciences start-ups or the big pharmaceutical companies, can use it to produce the drugs that will hopefully ensure that it does not become a full-blown pandemic and does not cost as many lives as the last one.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Ind)]

I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger) on his timing of this important urgent question. Repeatedly during this session, the Minister has stated that we do not really know what shape the pandemic agreement, accord or treaty will take. Under paragraph 2 of article 55 of the international health regulations, all member states must have a full draft of the amendments to treaties to be voted on four months in advance. Despite the fact that the WHO is breaking its own rules, it is insisting on moving forward with the votes in Geneva on 27 May on the pandemic treaty and the amendments to the international health regulations. Will the Minister join me and many others in calling for a deferment of those votes until this House and others around the world have had a chance to examine these important details?

[Andrew Stephenson]

No, because there is no text that has been agreed. This has been evolving: we have seen new amendments and new, revised drafts. The latest negotiations on the accord took place on 29 April to 10 May and the next round of negotiations will take place on 16 and 17 May and continue on 20 to 25 May, leading up to the World Health Assembly meeting taking place in Geneva on 27 May to 1 June. There has been a lot of progress in getting a text that is more agreeable to a majority of member states, but we are still some way off getting to a text that can be agreed. We are hoping for significant changes in the coming days, and I will do my best to keep the House updated.

Heart and Circulatory Diseases: Premature Deaths

Andrew Bridgen Excerpts

Thursday 22nd February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. It will be obvious to the House that we have very little time this afternoon, so I hope that Members will limit their remarks to around five minutes.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Ind)]

Five minutes?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Would the hon. Gentleman like to find some way to make the House sit longer?

[Andrew Bridgen]

No, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am just rather surprised. We often have three hours for Backbench Business debates, but we have ended up with an hour.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I appreciate the point that the hon. Gentleman is making, but there is nothing I can do about it now. Don’t we all sometimes wish that we could turn back the clock? I do not have that power.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Ind)]

I thank the hon. Member for Watford (Dean Russell) for securing this important debate, and for sharing his personal experience of suffering a heart attack. I am delighted to see that he has made such a strong recovery that he can be here in the Chamber today. I am sure that many Members have been affected by cardiac disease, or know people close to them who have been deeply affected by this appalling and shocking killer.

The Library briefing pack for this debate contains a startling statistic. Almost casually, it mentions that cardiovascular deaths per 100,000 population have risen by 10% since 2019, after falling steadily for decades.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I apologise for interrupting the hon. Gentleman, but I have taken what he has just said to heart. I have done my best to squeeze out more time, and he can have around seven minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Bridgen]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. That is a 40% increase. Ask and ye shall receive.

The previous steady reductions followed major improvements in public health policy, reductions in risk factors such as smoking, and the controlling of blood pressure, as well as improvements in medical care. Although I am grateful to the hon. Member for Watford for securing this debate, and to the other Members who will contribute, there is an elephant in the room—indeed, there are so few speakers that there is probably room for a herd of elephants. Why has there been a significant uptick in cardiac deaths in recent years? What novel intervention in public health has occurred since 2019?

Some might think that covid is the cause. Not so. The same uptick in cardiac deaths was observable in Australia and Singapore before those countries got covid but after they rolled out the experimental messenger ribonucleic acid injection. Ah, the jab! I can see some Members tutting and turning away. Everyone knows that MPs with a science degree are few and far between, and that some Members’ eyes glaze over when science is discussed. Well, I am one of those MPs fortunate enough to have a science degree. Another was Margaret Thatcher, who was rather prouder of being the first Prime Minister with a science degree than of being the first woman Prime Minister, and rightly so.

Some Members appear to have prejudged the issue. It is often said that it is easier to fool someone than to persuade them that they have been fooled. For posterity, we must remember that it was 11 years after the thalidomide scandal was exposed in 1961 before the word “thalidomide” was mentioned in the Chamber. I refuse to let this new mammoth medical scandal be ignored in the same way.

We are witnesses to the greatest medical scandal in decades—perhaps in living memory, and possibly ever. It is bigger than thalidomide and bigger than the Tuskegee untreated syphilis scandal, in which some black people were deliberately not treated to see what would happen to their bodies over time. It might be bigger than the Vioxx scandal, hitherto the grandaddy of medical scandals.

I can see some Members looking puzzled. Vioxx was a new drug invented by Merck as an alternative to aspirin—a mild painkiller. A researcher first highlighted an issue to Merck’s senior management in 1997, two years before the drug was approved. One in 115 people who took Vioxx suffered a heart attack. Merck’s profits from Vioxx comfortably exceeded the criminal fine, the compensation and the litigation costs after the drug was pulled. It was a good business decision for Merck. Not one pharma executive went to jail for skewing the trial results, for deceiving the regulators or for recklessly causing the deaths of 60,000 ordinary Americans for profit. It is always for profit—lives tragically cut short, families destroyed and children devastated. Imagine the incentive structure in an industry where profits like that can be made, and the corporate greed where there is full immunity from prosecution. In 1986, pharma companies got immunity in the USA for all vaccines. The number of vaccines administered to children in America has exploded since then.

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Does the hon. Member share my hope that the Minister, in responding to the debate, will address the article in The Daily Sceptic on 20 February this year by Will Jones, headlined “Covid Vaccines Linked to Large Increase in Heart, Blood and Neurological Disorders, Major Study Finds”?

[Andrew Bridgen]

I hope that the Minister will address that, and of course this will go on. Cardiac deaths were already the biggest killer in our country, but we have a mysterious 10% increase. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, like others in the Chamber, has witnessed the horrifying sight of super-fit athletes keeling over on pitches around the world. A mountain of peer-reviewed evidence is emerging and hypotheses are being proposed. Numerous cardiologists have concerns, but unfortunately, many experts do not feel able to speak out openly about their concerns because of the climate of fear, and the consequences of whistleblowing or speaking out against big pharma, which has so often been found to be not operating in the public interest, and causing harm. I am afraid that we will see much the same, following the roll-out of the covid-19 vaccines, as we saw with Vioxx and thalidomide, and in so many other cases.

The evidence is mounting up so rapidly, and the only people who cannot appreciate what is going on in this country are those who really do not want to see. The public will be extremely harsh on this Parliament and our response to the covid-19 pandemic, including the roll-out of the vaccines. We were going to stop vaccinating after the over-70s, but we then decided that vaccination would include the over-50s. We then decided it would be for everyone. Then this House took the appalling decision, unsupported by the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, in September 2021 to vaccinate children who were at very little risk, if any, of covid, but who have been harmed seriously by the vaccines.

Why ever did we use a systemic vaccine for a mucosal respiratory virus? One expert said last year:

“it is not surprising that none of the predominantly mucosal respiratory viruses have ever been effectively controlled by vaccines. This observation raises a question of fundamental importance: if natural mucosal respiratory virus infections do not elicit complete and long-term protective immunity against reinfection, how can we expect vaccines”

to work, when natural immunity does not give protection? And what is the name of this expert? Mr Anthony Fauci, the former head of the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention in America, who pushed the vaccines.

I wish I had more time, Madam Deputy Speaker; this is a huge issue and we need to debate it again. It is the biggest killer of our constituents, and our fear is that the rate of increase in cardiac deaths will not slow in the UK, or the rest of the world.

International Health Regulations 2005

Andrew Bridgen Excerpts

Monday 18th December 2023 Westminster Hall

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Reclaim)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Maria. I, too, thank the 116,000 members of the public who signed this public petition so that we can have this important debate today. I would also like to thank Dr David Bell—someone who actually worked for the WHO for a number of years—for his briefings to me, and also the Swiss lawyer Philipp Kruse for his contributions to the information I have with me today.

I would like to start by agreeing with the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies). Both he and I spoke in the public petition debate on 17 April this year when we considered the pandemic treaty. It is impossible to consider either the pandemic treaty or the amendments to the international health regulations in isolation; they are two linked instruments of the WHO, and they need to be considered in parallel. My opening question is this: why does the WHO make false claims regarding proposals to seize states’ sovereignty?

In referring to the WHO’s new pandemic agreement and the proposed amendments to the international health regulations currently being negotiated, the director general of the WHO has stated:

“No country will cede any sovereignty to WHO.”

His statements are clear, unequivocal, and also wholly inconsistent with the text he is referring to. I remind the Chamber that this is the unelected, unaccountable, non-taxpaying, and immune-from-prosecution-due-to-diplomatic-immunity director general of the WHO. All employees of the United Nations and the WHO enjoy those particular perks.

Any rational examination of the text in question shows that the documents propose a transfer of decision-making power to the WHO regarding basic aspects of societal function that countries undertake to enact. The WHO director general will have the sole authority to decide when and where they are required, and the proposals are intended to be binding under international law. Continued claims that sovereignty is not lost, echoed by politicians in this House, other elected assemblies, and of course the media, therefore raise very important questions concerning motivations, competence and ethics.

The intent of the texts is a transfer of decision making, currently vested in nations and individuals, to the WHO when its director general decides that there is a threat of a significant disease outbreak or other health emergency likely to cross multiple national borders. It is very unusual for nations to undertake to follow external entities regarding the basic rights and healthcare of their citizens, more so when that has a major economic and geopolitical implication. The question of whether sovereignty is being transferred, and the legal status of such an agreement, is therefore of vital importance, particularly to legislators of democratic states such as ourselves. We have an absolute duty to be sure of our ground, and I systematically examine that ground here today.

Amending the 2005 international health regulations may be a straightforward way to quickly deploy and enforce what appears to be the new normal for health control measures that we have seen implemented since the covid-19 pandemic. The current text applies to virtually the entire global population, counting 196 states, including all 194 WHO member states. Approval may or may not be required by a formal vote of the World Health Assembly: the recent 2022 amendment was adopted through consensus. If the same approval mechanism were to be used in May 2024, many countries, and indeed the public, might remain unaware of the broad scope of the new text and its implications for national and individual sovereignty. That is why today’s debate is so important.

The IHR set recommendations under a treaty process that currently has force under international law. Those recommendations seek to provide the WHO with some moral authority to co-ordinate and lead responses when an international health emergency occurs, such as the pandemic. Most are non-binding, and those regulations contain very specific examples of measures that the WHO can currently recommend. That includes article 18, under which it can

“require medical examinations; review proof of vaccination or other prophylaxis; require vaccination or other prophylaxis; place suspect persons under public health observation; implement quarantine or other health measures for suspect persons; implement isolation and treatment where necessary of affected persons; implement tracing of contacts of suspect or affected persons; refuse entry of suspect and affected persons; refuse entry of unaffected persons to affected areas; and implement exit screening and/or restrictions on persons from affected areas.”

When implemented together, those measures have generally been referred to since 2020 as lockdowns and mandates—“lockdown” was previously a term reserved for people incarcerated as criminals. It removes basic, universally accepted human rights. Such measures were previously considered by the WHO itself to be detrimental to public health.

However, since 2020, it has become the default standard for public health authorities to manage epidemics, despite its contradictions to multiple stipulations of the universal declaration of human rights—the UDHR. I will remind the Chamber of those rights. Under article 2,

“Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind”,

including, under article 9, no arbitrary detention. Protected under article 12,

“No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence”.

Under article 13,

“Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state”

and,

“Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.”

Under article 19,

“Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”

Under article 20,

“Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.”

Under article 21,

“The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government”.

Under article 23,

“Everyone has the right to work”.

Under article 26,

“Everyone has the right to education.”

Under article 28,

“Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.”

Under article 30,

“Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group of person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.”

These UDHR stipulations are the basis of the modern concept of individual sovereignty and the relationship between authorities and their populations. Considered the highest codification of the rights and freedoms of individuals in the 20th century, they may soon be dismantled behind closed doors in a meeting room in Geneva.

The proposed amendments will change the “recommendations” of the current documentation to requirements through three mechanisms. The first is the removal the term “non-binding” from article 1, as we have already heard from the hon. Member for Shipley. Second is the insertion under new article 13A the phrase that “Member States” will

“undertake to follow WHO’s recommendations”

and recognise WHO not as an organisation under the control of countries, but as the “co-ordinating authority”. New article 13A states:

“States Parties recognize WHO as the guidance and coordinating authority of international public health response during public health Emergency of International Concern and undertake to follow WHO’s recommendations in their international public health response.”

As article 18 makes clear, these include multiple actions directly restricting individual liberty. If the transfer of decision-making power—sovereignty—is not intended here, then the current status of the IHR as “recommendations” could remain and countries would not be undertaking to follow the WHO’s requirements.

Thirdly, under article 42, “State Parties” undertake to enact what previously were merely recommendations, without delay, including requirements of WHO regarding non-state entities under their jurisdiction. Article 42 states:

“Health measures taken pursuant to these Regulations, including the recommendations made under Article 15 and 16, shall be initiated and completed without delay by all State Parties, and applied in a transparent, equitable and non-discriminatory manner. State Parties shall also take measures to ensure Non-State Actors operating in their respective territories comply with such measures.”

“Non-State Actors” means private businesses, charities, and individuals. In other words, everyone and everything comes under the control of the WHO, once the director general declares a public health emergency of international concern.

Articles 15 and 16 mentioned here allow the WHO to require a state to provide resources,

“health products, technologies and knowhow”

and to allow the WHO to deploy “personnel” into the country—that is, it will have control over entry across national borders for whoever it chooses. The WHO also repeats the requirement for the country to require the implementation of “medical countermeasures”—testing, vaccines, quarantine—on their population where the WHO demands it.

Of note, the proposed article 1 amendment to remove the term “non-binding” is actually redundant if new article 13A and/or the changes to article 42 remain in place. That can, and likely will, be removed in the final text, giving the appearance of a compromise without actually changing the thrust of the transfer of the sovereignty, because of the two other articles.

All of the public health measures in article 18, and additional ones such as limiting freedom of speech to reduce public exposure to alternative viewpoints—as annex 1, new article 5(e) says, “Counter misinformation and disinformation”—clash directly with the UDHR. Although freedom of speech is currently exclusively for national authorities to decide, and its restriction is generally seen as being negative and abusive, United Nations institutions including the WHO have been advocating for censoring unofficial views in order to protect the people from what they call “information integrity”. No doubt, if these amendments were in place, I would not be allowed to give this speech and, if I was, it would not be allowed to be reported in the mainstream media or even on social media.

It seems outrageous, from a human rights perspective, that the amendments will allow the WHO to dictate to countries to require individual medical examinations and vaccinations whenever it declares a pandemic. While the Nuremberg code and the declaration of Helsinki refer specifically to human experimentation in cases such as clinical trials and vaccines, and the universal declaration on bioethics and human rights refers specifically to the provider-patient relationship, they can reasonably be extended to public health measures that impose restrictions or changes to human behaviour and specifically to any measures requiring injection, medication or medical examination, which involve a direct provider-person interaction.

If vaccines or drugs are still under trial and not fully tested, the issue of being subject to an experiment is also real. There is a very clear intent to employ the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness and Innovations’ 100-day vaccine programme, which, by definition, cannot complete meaningful safety and efficacy trials within the timespan. As we know, the covid-19 vaccines are still experimental, years on from their first introduction, because they are still under emergency use authorisation. Forced examination or medication outside of a situation where the recipient is clearly not mentally competent to be able to comply or reject, when provided with the information, is unethical. Requiring compliance to access what are considered basic human rights under the UDHR would constitute coercion. If that does not fit with the WHO’s definition of infringement of individual sovereignty or of national sovereignty, then the director general and his supporters need to publicly explain what definition of sovereignty they are using.

The proposed pandemic agreement will set humanity into a new era that is strangely organised around pandemics: pre-pandemic, pandemic and inter-pandemic times. A new governance structure, under WHO auspices, will oversee the IHR amendments and related initiatives. It will rely on new funding requirements, including the WHO’s ability to demand additional funding and materials from countries and to run a supply network to support its work in health emergencies. That is under article 12, which states that

“in the event of a pandemic, real-time access by WHO to a minimum of 20% (10% as a donation and 10% at affordable prices to WHO) of the production of safe, efficacious and effective pandemic-related products for distribution based on public health risks and needs, with the understanding that each Party that has manufacturing facilities that produce pandemic-related products in its jurisdiction shall take all necessary steps to facilitate the export of such pandemic-related products, in accordance with timetables to be agreed between WHO and manufacturers”

and article 20(1)(e):

“provide support and assistance to other Parties, upon request, to facilitate the containment of spill-over at the source.”

The entire structure will be financed by a new funding stream that is separate from WHO funding and an additional requirement on taxpayers over current national commitments. Article 20(2) states that the funding will also include an endowment of

“voluntary…contributions from all relevant sectors that benefit from international work to strengthen pandemic prevention, preparedness and response; and…donations from philanthropic organizations”.

I wonder who those organisations referred to in article 20(2)(b) might be; perhaps someone who made a lot of money out of mRNA vaccination.

This is taxation without representation. Currently, countries decide on their level of foreign aid on the basis of national priorities, apart from limited funding that they may already have agreed to allocate to organisations such as the WHO under existing obligations or treaties. The proposed agreement is remarkable not just in greatly increasing the amount of money that countries must give as part of treaty agreements but in setting up a parallel funding structure disconnected from other disease priorities, which is quite the opposite of previous ideas on integrated health policy. It also gives power to external groups, which are not directly accountable, to demand or acquire further resources whenever they deem it necessary.

In a further encroachment into what is normally within the legal jurisdiction of nation states, the agreement will require countries to establish, under article 15:

“no-fault vaccine injury compensation mechanism(s)”.

That will consecrate effective immunity for pharmaceutical companies for harm to citizens resulting from use of their products that the WHO recommends under an emergency use authorisation—that will be embedded; that will be the norm—or indeed that the WHO requires countries to mandate on their citizens.

As is becoming increasingly acceptable for those in power, ratifying countries will agree to limit the right of their public to voice opposition to the WHO’s measures and claims regarding such an emergency, under article 18, in order to:

“combat false, misleading, misinformation or disinformation, including through effective international collaboration and cooperation”.

As we have seen during the covid-19 response, the definition of “misleading” information can depend on political or commercial expediency, including factual information on vaccine efficacy and safety and orthodox immunology that would impair the sale of health commodities. This is why open democracies put such emphasis on defending free speech, even at the risk of sometimes being misleading. In signing this agreement, Governments will be agreeing to abrogate that principle regarding their own citizens when instructed to do so by the WHO.

The scope of this proposed agreement and the IHR amendments is broader than pandemics, greatly expanding the scope under which a transfer of decision-making powers can be demanded by the WHO. Other environmental threats to health, such as changes in climate, can be declared emergencies at the director general’s discretion, if broad definitions of a One Health policy are adopted as recommended.

It is difficult to think of another international instrument where such powers over national resources are passed to an unelected external organisation, and it is even more challenging to envisage how this can be seen as anything other than a loss of sovereignty. The only justification for this claim would appear to be if the draft agreement is to be signed on the basis of deceit and that there is no intention for us to treat it in any other way than as an irrelevant piece of paper or as something that would perhaps only apply to less powerful states than the United Kingdom—possibly as a colonialist tool. I have spoken at length to elected representatives in Africa and urged them to urge their elected assemblies to reject this power-grab by the unelected and unaccountable WHO.

Both texts are intended to be legally binding; the IHR already has such status. Therefore, the impact of the proposed changes on the need for new acceptance by countries are complicated national jurisdictional issues. There is a current mechanism for rejection of new amendments. However, unless a high number of countries actively voice their opposition and rejections, the adoption of the current published version, dated February 2023, will likely lead to a future shadowed by the permanent risks of the WHO’s lockdown and lockstep diktats.

The proposed pandemic agreement is also clearly intended to be legally binding. The WHO discusses this issue, and it has been supported by the International Negotiating Body and various declarations of the G20.

As I have said, the IHR already has standing under international law. While seeking such status, WHO officials, who previously described the proposed agreement as a “treaty”, now insist that neither instrument impacts sovereignty. The implication is that it is states’ representatives at the World Health Assembly who will agree the transfer, not the WHO itself, as if that makes any difference to the UK’s loss of sovereignty.

The WHO’s position raises a real question of whether its leadership is truly ignorant of what is being proposed or is actively seeking to mislead countries and the public in order to increase the probability of acceptance. The latest version, dated 30 October 2023, requires 40 ratifications for the future agreement to enter into force, after a two-thirds vote in favour within the WHA. Opposition from a considerable number of countries will therefore be needed to derail the project. Because it is backed by powerful Governments and institutions, financial mechanisms, including the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and bilateral aid, are likely to make opposition from lower-income countries extremely difficult to sustain. Much of the world therefore looks to our Parliament to step up to the plate and protect democracy around the world.

The relevant question regarding the two WHO instruments should be not whether sovereignty is threatened, but why democratic states would forfeit any sovereignty to an organisation that is significantly funded by and bound to obey the dictates of corporations and self-proclaimed philanthropists, and jointly governed by member states half of which are not even open and transparent democracies. Why would we do that? If sovereignty is being knowingly forfeited by Governments, without the knowledge and consent of their peoples and based on the false claims of Governments and the WHO, the implications are extremely serious. It would imply that leaders were working directly against the interests of their people. Most countries have specific fundamental laws for dealing with that practice, so it is important that those defending these projects to either explain their definitions of sovereignty and democratic process, or explicitly seek informed public consent.

The other question to be asked is why public health authorities and the media are repeating the WHO’s assurances of the benign nature of the pandemic instruments. They assert that claims of reduced sovereignty are misinformation or disinformation, which they assert elsewhere are major killers of mankind. Although such claims are somewhat ludicrous and appear intended to denigrate dissenters, such as myself, the WHO is clearly guilty of the very crime of which it accuses others. If its leadership cannot demonstrate how its claims regarding these pandemic instruments are not deliberately misleading, its leadership would appear ethically compelled to resign from their positions, and we should defund them.

The WHO lists three major pandemics of the last century: the influenza outbreaks in late 1950s and 1960s, and the covid-19 pandemic. The first two killed fewer than die each year from tuberculosis. The reported deaths from covid-19 never reached the level of cancer or cardiovascular disease, and remain almost irrelevant in low-income countries compared with endemic infectious diseases including tuberculosis, malaria and HIV/AIDS. To put the pandemics in perspective, no other non-influenza outbreak recorded by the WHO that fits the definition of a pandemic—that is, the rapid spread across international borders for a limited time of a pathogen that does not normally cause significant harm—has caused greater mortality in total than a few days of tuberculosis, which kills about 4,000 a day, or more life years lost than a few days of malaria, which sadly kills 1,500 children under five every day.

If our Government, the Opposition parties and their supporters in the public health community consider that the powers currently vested in national jurisdictions should be given over to external bodies on the basis of that level of recorded harm, it would be best that we have a public conversation as to whether this is a sufficient basis for abandoning democratic ideals in favour of a more fascist and authoritarian approach. After all, we are talking about restricting basic human rights that are essential for any democracy to function.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Bridgen]

Does the right hon. Gentleman share my concerns that the WHO refuses to conduct any review of the recommendations it issued during the covid-19 pandemic, so sure is it that its advice and recommendations were absolutely perfect? If we sign up to these instruments, we will only get more of the same.

[John Redwood]

That is one of my worries. We need more transparency, debate, discussion and challenge of those in the well-paid positions at the WHO, so that science can advance.

As I understand scientific method, it is not choosing a limited number of scientists and believing everything they say; it is having a population of talented and able scientists who challenge each other, because then we get more truth out of the challenge and exchange of ideas. We do not want an international body saying, “There’s only one way to look at this problem or to think about it.” We need that process of challenge, and we need it to be an accelerated process. When we have an urgent and immediate need of better medicines, vaccines, procedures and approaches to lockdown or non-lockdown, that is surely the time for healthy debate, constant review and sufficient humility by all of us who venture opinions, because time and events could disprove them very quickly. If that happens, we should learn from the process and be honest about it, rather than saying that we were right all along and there was only one possible approach.

That is all I wish to say, that I think we need much more accountability, exposure and proper debate. Yes, the WHO can make an important contribution and can be a forum for scientists, pharmaceutical companies and others who will be part of the solution should we get some future wave of infection, but please, Government, do not trust it with everything. Do not ensure that future Ministers are unable to act responsibly and well in response to public opinion and to medical opinion within our own country. Do not sell us short, because that would also sell the world short. This country has a lot to offer in these fields, and it will be best if we allow open debate, proper review and serious challenge.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Dame Maria.

I begin by declaring an interest. My wife, Olivia, works as a senior radiographer in the national health service. Throughout the pandemic, she continued to report for duty at her hospital, including, on occasion, knowingly treating patients who were covid positive. I married a good and brave woman, Dame Maria. She does not know I am about to say this: I want to pay tribute to her and all her colleagues in the national health service, who put their lives on the line to save those of many others. They deserve our admiration and thanks from their Parliament.

I have received quite a few emails from constituents on this issue. I have also had strong personal representations from Councillor Ian Ward, who ably represents Lodge ward on Rochford District Council, who feels very strongly—take my word for it, Dame Maria—about all this and has made his views very clear to me as his MP.

For the record, I am all for better sharing of information and intelligence between nations to try to prevent the spread of any future pandemic. Would that the Chinese had done more, and more quickly, to warn the rest of the world about what was coming from Wuhan. I reluctantly accepted the need for an initial lockdown, but I confess that as time wore on, I became increasingly uneasy at the effects of the lockdown, not just economically but socially, and not least the impact on people’s mental health. We are still seeing some of those effects playing out in our schools today, as my headteachers tell me when I visit local schools.

I am now concerned about the potential amendments to the International Health Regulations 2005 being brought about at the behest of the World Health Organisation, not least because the WHO will be given extremely strong powers in any future pandemic. As one constituent put it in her email:

“Almost no-one who is informed believes the…WHO performed anything other than appallingly during Covid, with disastrous results. Yet there seems to be no attempt to reform this unelected, unaccountable organisation, which British taxpayers fund in the millions. On the contrary, a drive is evident to give the totally undemocratic WHO ever more power, ever more of our money and ever less scrutiny.”

That was her opinion, but I think my constituent has a point.

I understand that on 31 May 2022, the delegates of the WHO formally adopted five new amendments to the international health regulations. I further understand that those amendments come into force under international law for all member states within 24 months—that is, by 31 May 2024—unless those member states choose proactively to opt out of them. Of the five new amendments, there is one of particular concern as it would severely compromise the ability of the public to lobby politicians to reject future amendments by reducing the time available before they might come into force. That amendment to article 59 would significantly reduce the time allowed for a country’s leadership to reject IHR amendments adopted at future World Health Assemblies from 18 months to 10 months.

[Andrew Bridgen]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Francois]

Forgive me, but the hon. Gentleman spoke at some length; perhaps he will let some of the rest of us have a go.

Up to 300 amendments to the international health regulations are being negotiated and finalised, to be voted on in May 2024 at the 77th World Health Assembly. The amendments being negotiated include: first, amendments to make WHO emergency guidance legally binding—it is currently only advisory—on member states; and secondly, amendments that would empower the WHO director general to single-handedly declare a public health emergency of international concern, giving this unelected, unaccountable individual unprecedented levels of power to dictate UK public health policy and to restrict fundamental freedoms.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Health and Secondary Care (Andrew Stephenson)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir George, and I am grateful to the British public and the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith) for raising the important issues covered in the e-petition we are considering today. I start by thanking for their contributions the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) and my hon. Friends the Members for Shipley (Philip Davies), for Devizes (Danny Kruger) and for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope), as well as my right hon. Friends the Members for Wokingham (John Redwood) and for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois). I also thank the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill) for her remarks. I am only surprised not to see our friend the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) here, although I am sure that he would be if he were able.

We have held a similar debate on this matter already. However, this debate is slightly different from the one we had in April; the matter before us is whether the House should vote on amendments to the international health regulations. That has stirred discussions both in this place and outside because it relates to two vital aspects of our governance: our sovereignty and our national interest. On both, I am pleased to offer assurances to colleagues and the public that I am satisfied that our approach to the negotiations safeguards our national interest without compromising our sovereignty. I will set out why I believe that before turning to the specific questions put by my right hon. and hon. Friends during the debate.

Why are the negotiations in our national interest? Because the international health regulations do not just exist to protect others from health threats: they directly benefit the UK and help to keep our people safe. The last decade has shown that diseases such as covid, mpox and Ebola do not respect borders. In the case of other health threats, such as the recent case of botulism in France, the IHR allowed us to swiftly engage with French officials to identify and follow up with exposed UK citizens. When Vladimir Putin committed an act of terror on our own soil, the IHR helped to slow and stop the spread in Salisbury. The IHR provide international standards for what it means in practice for each WHO member state to prepare for, detect, prevent and respond to public health events.

[Andrew Bridgen]

I thank the Minister for the speech he is making. The point he is actually making is that the IHR are currently working perfectly adequately—in which case, why do we need to amend them?

[Andrew Stephenson]

The IHR are working well. However, as a number of my hon. and right hon. Friends said in the debate, there has been lots of criticism of how they worked. As the hon. Gentleman will remember, our right hon. Friend who is no longer in this place—Boris Johnson, the former Prime Minister—was one of the leading voices in saying that we should update the IHR, because we surely need to learn lessons and move forwards.

I believe that there is mutual interest—interest for us and for other countries—in working together. One example is delivering a sensitive surveillance system providing an early warning of potential threats to inform decisions that national Governments will make during public health events and emergencies.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Stephenson]

Yes, that is exactly what consensus means. To be clear, the WHO secretariat is supporting both processes by hosting the international negotiating body and the working group on amendments to the regulations, and by supporting the chairs to prepare texts and answer questions from member states. Both negotiations, however, are member state-led processes. It is member states that are negotiating; it is not the World Health Organisation. I completely appreciate that some see this as a WHO power grab, but it is important to remember that it is a member state-led process.

We came together with other nations through the World Health Organisation to agree a process to negotiate targeted amendments to the IHR at the 75th World Health Assembly back in May 2022. By consensus, we adopted process-related amendments under article 59 of the regulations. The UK supported those amendments because they increased the timeliness of member states’ compliance with future amendments to the IHR. That will better protect us from future global health emergencies. As part of the agreed process, member states could submit proposed amendments for consideration, and to that end a working group, made up of all WHO member states, through which the amendments would be negotiated and agreed was created.

[Andrew Bridgen]

The Minister is being generous with his time. The crucial question on which the Chamber and the public would like an answer from the Minister, who is speaking on behalf of the Government who are negotiating the instruments, is whether the Minister believes that the WHO guidance—recommendations, as they were—becoming mandatory under amendments to article 1 and new article 13A of the treaty are compatible with retaining UK sovereignty.

[Andrew Stephenson]

I think that that was covered in the previous debate and has been covered by various Ministers. We have been clear from the outset of the process that we will not agree to any amendments that cede UK sovereignty. If the UK Government accept an IHR amendment that we have negotiated with our international partners, then, depending on the context of that amendment, changes to international law may be required. In those instances, the Government would prepare any draft legislation, and Parliament would vote on it in the usual way.

It is important to remember that, in and of themselves, IHR amendments and the new pandemic accord do not change the power of UK law. If required, we would ourselves change UK law through our sovereign Parliament, to reflect our international obligations under the IHR amendments. Let me be clear: in all circumstances, the sovereignty of the UK Parliament would remain unchanged and we would remain in control of any future domestic decisions on national public health measures.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Bridgen Excerpts

Tuesday 17th October 2023 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Reclaim)]

What is the Secretary of State’s view of the worrying trend of increased cardiac-related deaths in the UK and around the world since 2021, which correlates closely with the roll-out of the experimental mRNA vaccines?

[Steve Barclay]

It is always important to follow the science. That is why, at the G20, Health Ministers agreed to look at the various research being done in multiple countries, particularly on long covid but also on the lessons from that period, to ensure that research from that period is shared internationally so we can learn best practice from other countries as well as within the NHS.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Bridgen Excerpts

Tuesday 11th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Will Quince]

As my right hon. Friend will know, the UK has a strong commitment and duty to implement international law, but on this matter we have been absolutely clear. I can certainly assure her that we will not sign up to any IHR amendment or any other instrument that would compromise the UK’s ability to make domestic decisions on national measures concerning public health.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Reclaim)]

Can the Minister confirm whether the House will get a vote on the amendments to the International Health Regulations, or will we not?

Mental Health Treatment and Support

Andrew Bridgen Excerpts

Wednesday 7th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Dr Allin-Khan]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention; he is right. I will talk about the need for mental health not to exist in a silo later in my remarks. Frankly, it is the problem of every single Government Department.

One in four people experiences a problem with their mental health each year in England. One in six people experiences a mental health condition, such as anxiety or depression, each week. Three in four people with mental ill health in England receive little or no treatment for their condition. And people with the most severe mental illnesses die up to 20 years sooner than the general population. I ask the House to reflect on that for a moment. Tragically, in 2021, over 5,000 suicides were registered, up by 300 on the previous year. The Government should wear these statistics like a badge of shame.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Reclaim)]

The shadow Minister makes an accurate assessment of the size of the mental health crisis facing our nation, but her words would have more resonance if she and her party had not voted in lockstep with the Government for the disastrous lockdowns that damaged mental health, especially that of our young people. Will she apologise?

[Dr Allin-Khan]

I will take no lectures from the hon. Member, because he proudly sat as a Member of a Government who oversaw hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths. Families are still feeling the ongoing mental effects of losing loved ones because of the mishandling of the pandemic by his then Government.

My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), the Leader of the Opposition, launched Labour’s mission for health in May. He said:

“Suicide is the biggest killer of young lives in this country, the biggest killer. That statistic should haunt us, and the rate is going up. Our mission—must be and will be—to get it down.”

He is right. Across the House, we are increasingly hearing brave, moving and revealing testimonies about our own experiences and struggles. It is vital that we challenge the stigma and talk openly about mental health.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil O’Brien]

My hon. Friend, as an experienced clinician, makes an important and thoughtful point. This is exactly why we have so dramatically increased the number of social prescribers in primary care. An example in Britain is the parkrun practices initiative, which is connecting people to sporting and cultural activities that can improve mental wellbeing as well as mental health. My hon. Friend is completely right, and that is why this is a priority for us.

[Andrew Bridgen]

The suicide rate in North West Leicestershire increased by more than 300% during the lockdown. Does the Minister know what the increase was in his constituency?

[Neil O’Brien]

It is just not true there was an increase in suicides because of the lockdowns. There have been a whole series of careful studies of this and that is just not the case. I am afraid that my hon. Friend is not correct about this.

mRNA Covid-19 Booster

Andrew Bridgen Excerpts

Friday 17th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Ind)]

On 13 December last year, I was kindly granted an Adjournment debate on the potential harms that emergency use experimental mRNA covid-19 vaccines cause. It is fair to say that, that night, my life changed. During that speech, in the evidenced data that I presented to the House, which no one has effectively rebutted, I highlighted to the Minister the scale of harms that the experimental vaccines have caused and continue to cause. In giving that speech to an almost empty Chamber, on this most important of issues—quite literally life and death—two things happened to me immediately. First, I was cancelled by the mainstream media. Despite sending a data sheet in the wake of the debate, scientifically evidencing every point that I made, not one media organisation wanted to talk about the issue of serious harms or deaths occurring as a result of the mRNA vaccines.

I fully expect that the media will show the same level of disinterest in today’s debate. It is what we have come to expect from a media more interested in navel gazing at the pontifications of Britain’s foremost football pundit instead of the horror and tragedy of excess deaths taking place before their eyes. Some three months on from that speech, a scattering of reports are now just appearing in the mainstream media. Sadly the number of people affected in the UK and across the world cannot be ignored or hidden indefinitely.

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend accept that there is a bit of light on the horizon in that, this week alone, the Express has had four full pages on the subject?

[Andrew Bridgen]

My hon. Friend is a stalwart supporter of those who have been vaccine-harmed. I do hope that we can see some light at the end of the tunnel. Hopefully, this speech today will bring more light into the darkness.

In truth, I care little about being cancelled by the media, because, in the wake of that speech, something far more important has happened. I was contacted by thousands of people offering their support, and received many hundreds and hundreds of emails from all around the globe recounting to me their own stories of the harms caused in the wake of their or their loved ones’ covid vaccination.

I have been contacted by parents in my own and surrounding constituencies, thanking me for questioning why we were giving these experimental vaccinations to healthy children and young people who patently do not need them and who gain no protection from them. I was contacted by far too many relatives who had lost loved ones suddenly after having the Moderna, Pfizer or AstraZeneca experimental gene therapy treatments shot into their arms. Many of them asked in their emails why this vital issue was not being taken more seriously by many of my hon. and right hon. Friends and colleagues. That, Mr Deputy Speaker, is a question for my colleagues to answer.

Many more questioned why, as evidence continues to emerge, almost on a daily basis, the fourth estate was so remiss in its coverage. That, Mr Deputy Speaker, is a question for the lobby to answer. But every one of those who contacted me, asked me to keep up the fight and to continue to raise awareness of vaccine harms and vaccine deaths. That is the question that I am here to answer today.

Despite the media silence, there is huge, enormous and growing interest in this topic. Today, I once again ask the Minister why more is not being done, both in the United Kingdom and globally, to investigate and publicise the clear and well-documented adverse effects of covid-19 vaccines—vaccines that have made big pharma billions, and also vaccines that have resulted in completely unprecedented levels of yellow card reports. The Government’s own data in this respect is damning. It is interesting that only this week, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency announced that it will no longer be publicly reporting the yellow card updates on the reported harms of these experimental treatments. Can the Minister explain the reasoning behind that decision, especially given that the number of yellow card reports of adverse events is far higher for the experimental covid-19 vaccine than the total yellow card reports of all conventional vaccines administered for the past 50 years?

If you will grant me a little leeway, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will start by looking at data from the US state of Florida and the reported level of vaccine harms there. Prior to the covid pandemic, there were never more than 2,500 incidents per year of harms reported to the state’s surgeon general as a direct report of vaccination. In 2021, that number shot up to over 41,000 cases—a surge of more than 1,600%. Of course, some will understandably point out that the increase in cases was inevitable, as more vaccines were being administered. The answer to that, Mr Deputy Speaker, is that in the state of Florida, there was a 400% increase in vaccine administration in 2021, not 1,600%. In the state of Florida and in the rest of the world, 1,600 does not go into 400; it never has, and it never will.

The real-world data from Florida shows that the mRNA vaccines are resulting in vaccine harms disproportionate to the number of vaccines being administered when compared with all previous vaccinations. That backs up the clear warning signal from our own yellow card system in the UK. Data held by the US Government’s National Library of Medicine was used for research by Dr Joseph Fraiman that details the frequency of serious adverse events following vaccination with both Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines. For clarity, a serious adverse event is defined as anything that results in death; is life-threatening at the time of the event; or results in in-patient hospitalisation or prolongation of existing hospitalisation, persistent or significant disability or incapacity, a congenital anomaly or birth defect, or something considered to be medically important based on medical judgment.

Using that definition, the study confirms that there are 10.1 serious adverse events for every 10,000 Pfizer vaccinations administered. That means that one in every 990 people vaccinated with the Pfizer booster will have a serious adverse event. The risk with the Moderna vaccine is even greater: there are 15.1 serious adverse events for every 10,000 Moderna jabs. That means that one in 662 people vaccinated with the Moderna booster will have a serious adverse event. Combining the data for the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines or boosters, we can see that there are an average of 1,250 serious adverse events for every 1 million vaccine boosters administered—in other words, an average one in 800 chance of a serious adverse event every time someone is boosted.

Let us now move on to the UK Government data. On 25 January this year, the Department of Health and Social Care published data from a presentation given by the UK Health Security Agency to the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation. The data published split the population into groups by age, and further divided those age groups into those considered healthy and those considered at risk. The numbers needed to vaccinate for each of those subgroups were calculated to prevent first, a single hospitalisation, and secondly, a single serious hospitalisation requiring oxygen or intubation—effectively, intensive care.

The figures are stark. To prevent just one healthy adult aged between 50 and 59 from being hospitalised due to covid, the Government’s own published data states that 43,600 people had to be given an autumn booster jab. With a serious adverse event rate of one in 800, that means that in the healthy 50 to 59-year-old group, as a result of using the mRNA boosters, 55 people would die or be put into hospital with side effects to prevent one single covid case presenting in hospital. The same data shows that, for healthy younger people, the number needed to be boosted to prevent a single hospital admission with covid-19 is far higher. Some 92,500 booster jabs were required to be administered to prevent one hospitalisation due to covid in the healthy 40 to 49 age group, which would simultaneously have put 116 people at probability of death or serious adverse reaction into hospital from the jab. The healthy 30 to 39 age group required 210,400 booster jabs to prevent a single covid hospitalisation, so 263 of this group will have been into hospital or, sadly, died as a result of the booster side effects just to keep one covid case out of hospital.

However, the data gets worse because hospitalisation does not necessarily mean a serious medical intervention such as intubation or oxygen. To prevent severe hospitalisation from covid-19, the numbers needed to be boosted become astronomical. I would suggest this is the real benchmark for comparison with the risks of death or serious adverse events from the boosters themselves.

The Government’s own data shows that, in healthy adults aged 50 to 59, it was necessary to give 256,400 booster jabs to prevent just one severe hospitalisation, putting 321 people into hospital with a serious side-effect from the booster, which includes, obviously, risk of death. For healthy 40 to 49-year-olds, that number increases to 932,500 who needed to be boosted to keep one covid patient out of an intensive therapy unit, putting potentially 1,165 people into hospital with serious harms, death or disability. And for healthy 30 to 39-year-olds, no one knows the answer to the number needed to be boosted to prevent a serious hospitalisation because the Government’s own data says that there has never been such a case of this age group being put into intensive care due to the current variant of covid-19. But many, indeed on average one in 800 of this group that has been boosted, will have died, or been disabled or seriously harmed by the booster itself.

Let me focus on the most vulnerable group for which the Government data is available, the over-70s with comorbidities—the most vulnerable group in our society. According to the Government’s own data, it would be necessary to administer 800 vaccine boosters to prevent just one hospitalisation for a patient over the age of 70 in this highest risk group. That means that all the most vulnerable group in our society are doing by being boosted is swapping one risk from covid of hospitalisation for exactly the same risk from the booster itself—but of course in the process big pharma are making huge profits.

We have looked at the health implications of the vaccine programme. Now I want to look at some of the cost implications of the booster programme in the UK. Total funding of the covid-19 vaccination programme in the UK up to the end of March this year is budgeted at £8.3 billion. In February 2022, the GPonline website, championing general practice professionals, published that GPs and community pharmacies were being paid £24 per dose for administering vaccines. That figure increased to £34 per dose at dedicated vaccination centres. These costs of course do not include the cost of the experimental vaccines themselves. For ease of calculation, I will count those at £20 per dose across the board. I will be generous and use the lower of the two figures for administering the vaccine, giving a total cost of £44 per dose, but even when I do, we see, from the Government’s own data on the use of boosters, that it cost over £1.9 million to prevent just one hospitalisation among healthy 50 to 59-year-olds and over £11 million to prevent one serious hospitalisation due to covid-19 in that age group; the cost to the taxpayer of preventing a hospitalisation of one healthy 40 to 49-year-old is over £4 million; and for healthy 30 to 39-year-olds the cost of preventing just one hospitalisation is over £9 million. Of course, to prevent serious hospitalisation in these groups, the cost is far higher.

It is of course worth noting that, in setting up the vaccine programme, the Government indemnified vaccine manufacturers, which gave them total cover against all future claims of the adverse effects of their products. Given what I have already explained about the incidence of serious side effects, that cost may well be extremely significant to the taxpayer, on top of the obvious human tragedy and loss that is self-evidently happening.

The data is clear: for all healthy people and all those considered at risk under 70, the probability of being seriously harmed by covid is seriously outweighed by the risks associated with the experimental vaccines and boosters. Even for the most vulnerable group—the over-70s with health problems—the risks are absolutely identical. The Government data not only comments on the efficacy and effectiveness of the autumn booster campaign, which I have quoted from—we have already had that—but looks forward to this year’s booster campaign. Not unsurprisingly, it predicts the same level of efficacy from the same boosters put into the same arms. Surely, in the light of the data, we will not continue with this absolute madness. If we were to perpetuate it, we would be engaging in expensive state-sponsored self-harm on a national level.

In the winter of 2020, the experimental mRNA vaccines were announced to the British public as “safe and effective”. That narrative was repeated by the vaccines Minister in her response to my speech in the Chamber on 13 December. It is interesting that the NHS website today describes the experimental vaccines as “safe and important”, and describes serious side effects as “very rare”. But the truth, as we know, is somewhat different. One in 800 is not rare, especially when the public are expected to take multiple doses, exposing themselves again and again to the same risk.

The Government need to be honest about this, just as they need to be honest about the fact that the MHRA is 86% funded by big pharma. Based on the manufacturers’ own trial data, the experimental mRNA vaccines are not safe, with an average of one in 800 people taking them facing death or serious injury as a result. Based on the Government’s own data, despite the initial and repeated assurances, the experimental mRNA vaccines are not effective in preventing infection, transmission or hospitalisation from covid-19. The experimental mRNA vaccines are not necessary given the risks and benefits of the treatment, and they are costing the country a fortune and creating huge pressure on the NHS from the side effects.

Given that the data released on 25 January by the UK Health Security Agency was actually presented to the JCVI on 25 October 2022, I ask the Minister: why was the booster roll-out not halted last October in the light of the clear lack of efficacy and the evidence of risks being greater than the benefits for all age groups, except possibly the over-70s with underlying health conditions, for whom the risk was absolutely identical? Was the data presented to the JVCI passed to the MHRA? If so, when? And if not, why not?

Why was the MHRA still asking the Government to authorise the administration of experimental vaccines to children as young as six months of age in December 2022, six weeks after the booster efficacy data was received by the JCVI? If the data was not passed to the MHRA, surely the JCVI should have spoken out against the vaccination of small children last December. Members of the JCVI declared between them interests of more than £1 billion of investments in big pharma, but I am sure that that would never have influenced their judgment. Can the Minister also confirm that two thirds of all NHS staff refused last year’s autumn booster?

The simple facts are that, in the light of the Government’s own data, covid vaccinations and boosters are not effective. From the evidence of the yellow card system, they are not safe, and for the UK taxpayer, they are not value for money. Indeed, given their side effects, if they were free, we could not afford them. The only ones who really benefit from the booster roll-out are big pharma, who have a licence to print money and indemnification against the harms that their products cause. Once again, big pharma have put profits before people and, on this occasion, Governments across the globe have been their willing marketing agents.

The whole covid-19 vaccine narrative is slowly unravelling. As I believe I have demonstrated, no one should have been boosted after the efficacy data was received on 25 October last year, and, based on that data, no one should be boosted in future. Given the evidence of harms caused by the boosters, I now believe that we have the full explanation for both the continuing excess deaths that we have seen since the pandemic— 63,000 in England and Wales in the last 12 months—and the huge and unrelenting pressure of demand on the NHS: the vaccines, the boosters and their side effects.

Sadly, I am confident that I will be proved correct, but I sincerely wish that it was not so. But the longer it takes our Government to accept the truth, the more people will be harmed and die. The first step to putting right the problem is always to admit that there is a problem. The Government narrative of “safe and effective” is in tatters, as evidenced by their own data. Three months on from my original speech in this House, we have surely now sacrificed enough of our citizens on the side of ignorance and unfettered corporate greed to satisfy everyone. I therefore call on the Government to immediately stop the mRNA vaccine booster programme and initiate a full public inquiry into not only the vaccine harms but how every agency and institution set up to protect the public interest has failed so abysmally in its duties.

I look forward to the Minister’s response. I am aware that it is neither his area of responsibility nor his area of expertise. I accept that, if there are any questions that he cannot answer at the Dispatch Box today, he will respond in writing.

Urgent and Emergency Care Recovery Plan

Andrew Bridgen Excerpts

Monday 30th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Ind)]

The Secretary of State told the House that the NHS was put under pressure with a spike in influenza cases in December. Will he say where he thinks that influenza virus has been hiding for two and a half years?

[Steve Barclay]

I do not think it has been hiding. Flu seasons are not uncommon in the NHS and come round on a periodic basis, and that is why we anticipated it through the flu vaccine. On the hon. Gentleman’s wider point, it is also recognised that as a consequence of covid some resistance to flu may have been lowered, but we have had flu pressures on the NHS in past years.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Bridgen Excerpts

Tuesday 24th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Maria Caulfield]

We are seeing an increase in excess deaths in this country, but we are also seeing that in Wales, in Scotland, in Northern Ireland and across Europe. There is a range of factors. As we saw, there was an increase in December in the number of people being admitted with flu, covid and other healthcare conditions. That was seen not just in this country, but across Europe.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Ind)]

The Office for National Statistics has not issued mortality data by vaccination status since 31 May last year. Will the Minister confirm that her Department has collected that data for the rest of 2022 and inform the House when it will be published?

[Maria Caulfield]

I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman with that information. However, I must be clear that we planned for an increase in admissions this winter. That is why we got on and delivered on our plans for 7,000 extra beds, and why we brought forward our flu and covid vaccination programme and lowered the age of eligibility. There are a number of factors, and they are the same factors that have driven excess deaths across the United Kingdom and across Europe.

Covid-19 Vaccines: Safety

Andrew Bridgen Excerpts

Monday 24th October 2022 Westminster Hall

[Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn), who gave a very good defence of the vaccine programme and of the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. I respect that, but I regret his response to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope), who raised the point about medical expertise that casts some doubt on the vaccines. My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington chose to smear all opponents of the vaccine programme. Of course there are lunatics out there who make absurd and outrageous claims, but there are many reasonable and respectable people who have anxieties about the vaccine programme, particularly people who have suffered as a result of the programme and their families.

I am a member of the all-party parliamentary group on covid-19 vaccine damage, which my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch chairs. The APPG looks at vaccine injuries, and we had what I think was our first meeting last week in a Committee room in Portcullis House. I am afraid there were only a tiny handful of colleagues there, but well over a hundred members of the public attended, which is not the usual story for an APPG. I felt somewhat ashamed, on behalf of Parliament, that that was the first time that those members of the public—including families of the bereaved, who are themselves injured citizens—had had the opportunity to be in a room with members of this House, but I am very pleased that we are having this debate, and particularly pleased that there is an opportunity for members of the public to hear from the Minister on this topic.

I should say to members of the public who are watching that we have in Westminster Hall today a very good Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), who is genuinely committed to health, including public health, and she showed a real interest in this topic and in the effect of covid policies when she was a Back-Bench MP.

Although many questions about our covid response need to be answered, the UK is by no means the worst offender. We are not Canada, New Zealand or China—places where Governments think they can exterminate covid by depriving their population of the most basic civil liberties. However, I am afraid that we still have many questions to ask ourselves, and even much to be ashamed of. I put on record that in hindsight I am particularly ashamed of my vote to dismiss care workers who did not want to receive the vaccine. I very much hope that the 40,000 care workers who lost their jobs can be reinstated, and indeed compensated. A group of us—including, I think, the Minister—held out against compulsory vaccination of health workers when that was proposed by the Government last winter. I think that resistance turned the tide, to a degree, on Government policy, and we emerged from the lockdowns more quickly than we might otherwise have done, yet we still have a policy of mass vaccination, which I want to query on behalf of constituents who have written to me about it.

My query starts with a simple point. In October 2020, when preparations were being made for the vaccine roll-out, Kate Bingham, the head of the vaccines agency, said:

“There’s going to be no vaccination of people under 18. It’s an adult-only vaccine, for people over 50, focusing on health workers and care home workers and the vulnerable.”

Why was vaccination extended to the whole population? I do not think we have ever had a completely satisfactory answer to that question. I ask it again, because my concern is that extending the vaccination programme became an operation in public persuasion—an operation in which dissent was unhelpful or even immoral, and an operation that justified the suppression and even vilification of those who raised concerns.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. Unlike any other vaccine, the covid vaccine was given to people who had natural immunity because they had provably contracted the virus. Why were those people vaccinated?

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I will try to curtail my remarks to six minutes.

This is a hugely important debate and it is overdue. Those people who have questioned the efficacy or safety of the vaccines have generally been cut down and cancelled. That is why this is so important. I do not claim to be any sort of expert, but my degree a long time ago was in genetics, behaviour and biochemistry. Science works by challenge, and the science behind the vaccines has not been allowed to be challenged.

A study published in The Journal of the American Medical Association, included 7,806 children aged five or younger who were followed for an average of 91.4 days after their first Pfizer vaccination. The study showed that one in 500 children under five years of age who received a Pfizer mRNA—messenger ribonucleic acid—covid vaccine were hospitalised with a vaccine injury, and one in 200 had symptoms ongoing for weeks or months afterwards. Will the Minister outline the Government’s current policy on vaccination and boosters, and our current policy for the vaccination of children?

Half a per cent. of the children—40 out of the 7,806—had symptoms that were still ongoing and of unknown significance at the end of the trial. That was during a two to four-month follow-up period, so 0.5% of the children had an adverse effect that lasted for weeks or months. In two cases, the symptoms were confirmed to have lasted longer than 90 days. Given that evidence, perhaps the Minister could explain why we are vaccinating healthy children who are at minimal risk from covid. Surely that is in breach of the Hippocratic oath to do no harm. We are not in a situation where we can ask young people to risk their lives to protect older people. In a civilised society, that cannot be the way it works.

According to The Independent in April, more than 1,200 claims have been made to the vaccine damages payment scheme, which entitles successful applicants to £120,000, as pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope), if a causal link between vaccination and severe reaction culminating in injury or death is proven. Does the Minister recognise those figures? Sarah Moore, a lawyer who represents 95 families seeking claims, said that her clients felt “silenced and ignored”, adding that they cannot speak about vaccine harm or linked injuries without being accused of being anti-vax. What is the Minister’s view on victims being labelled as anti-vaxxers?

The Department of Health and Social Care commissions research through the National Institute for Health and Care Research. There is £1.6 million that has been allocated for a programme to understand the rare condition of blood clotting with low platelets following vaccination for covid-19. Does the Minister think that is sufficient? Is there a sufficient breadth of investigation considering all the things we are finding out about the vaccines? Where is the cost-benefit analysis by age group for the vaccines, given the risks that they carry, especially as the pharma companies are now admitting that vaccination does not impact on transmission? Did the Government know, when they mandated vaccines for care and NHS workers, that the vaccines had not been tested to find whether they prevented transmission?

The Florida department of health conducted an analysis through a self-controlled case series, which is a technique originally developed to evaluate vaccine safety. The analysis found that there is an 84% increase in the relative incidence of cardiac-related death among males aged 18 to 39 within 28 days following messenger ribonucleic acid vaccination. With a higher level of global immunity to covid-19, the benefit of vaccination is likely outweighed by that abnormally high risk of cardiac-related death among men in that age group. The recommendation now in Florida is that they do not vaccinate any male under the age of 40.

Florida’s surgeon general, Dr Joseph Ladapo, said:

“Studying the safety and efficacy of any medications, including vaccines, is an important component of public health. Far less attention has been paid to safety and the concerns of many individuals have been dismissed—these are important findings that should be communicated to Floridians.”

I suggest that such important findings should be transmitted to everyone who has had a vaccine or is contemplating a booster. I also had the pleasure of meeting Dr Aseem Malhotra at the APPG launch last week. He made a very strong case for the idea that up to 90% of adverse vaccine reactions are not even being reported.

Finally—I wish I had longer to speak—what is the Government’s analysis of the excess deaths that we are suffering in this country, across Europe and in the Americas? Even a casual glance at the data shows a strong correlation between vaccine uptake and the excess deaths in those regions. Surely we must have an investigation. Tens of thousands more people than expected are dying. This is really important, and if we do not get it right, no one will believe us, and trust in politicians, in medicine and in our medical system will be lost. [Interruption.]

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Order. I call Natalie Elphicke.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Roger. I commend the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) on moving the motion, and I thank all those who signed the petition, including 119 of my Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill constituents. I also thank Members for their thought-provoking contributions to the debate, which I am happy to attend to outline my party’s position on the safety of covid-19 vaccines.

The covid vaccine has saved millions of lives, not just here in the UK but across the world. In the first year of the vaccination programme, 19.8 million out of a potential 31.4 million covid-19 deaths were prevented worldwide, according to estimates based on excess deaths from 185 countries and territories. In Scotland alone, the vaccine saved almost 28,000 lives; that is, an estimated 86% of potential deaths were prevented in Scotland as a result of the vaccination uptake. Thousands of people in Scotland are still alive today because of the coronavirus vaccines. Dr Jim McMenamin, the director of health protection infection services at Public Health Scotland, said:

“This important study shows that thanks to high vaccine uptake among the people of Scotland, and early implementation, the COVID-19 vaccination programme is estimated to have saved more than 27 thousand lives”.

Despite that, there has been a significant increase in heart attacks and related illnesses since the covid-19 vaccinations started to be distributed in 2021. To determine whether there is any connection with the covid-19 roll-out, the Government must conduct an immediate and complete scientific investigation, and ensure that the prescribed medical interventions of their response to coronavirus are indeed safe. As we know, every vaccine used in the UK is subject to approval by the independent Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. The vaccination programme has always been guided by the expert advice of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation.

This year, the Scottish Government are looking to maximise the co-administration of boosters and flu vaccines, drawing on learning from previous winter vaccination campaigns. I myself will take my booster—on top of the three vaccinations that I have already taken—when I am called to do so. After consideration and discussion with my 14-year-old daughter, she informed me that she will also take her booster when the time comes. Everybody should be able to do so. Everybody eligible for a covid-19 vaccination in Scotland will also be invited for a flu vaccine, and can safely receive both vaccines at the same time and at the same appointment.

The clinical trials of the vaccines have shown them to be effective and acceptably safe. However, as part of its statutory functions, the MHRA continuously monitors the use of vaccines to ensure that their benefits continue to outweigh any risks. For example, during the pandemic, vaccines for pregnant women were initially suggested to be a risk, but the MHRA reassured the public then, as it does now. Its advice remains that the covid-19 vaccines are safe and effective during pregnancy and breastfeeding, and there is substantial evidence to support that advice.

[Andrew Bridgen]

The hon. Gentleman may not be aware, but contradictory evidence was issued on two separate days. One piece of advice said that pregnant and breastfeeding women could have the vaccine, and then another Government body said that that was not safe and that it did not recommend it.

[Steven Bonnar]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I am sure that, no matter which subject we discuss, there will be pros and cons, and arguments for and against. We believe in the institutions that govern our health in Scotland, and we believe that they will make the right advice available to all our constituents.

More than 11 billion jabs have been administered so far. Johns Hopkins University puts global deaths related to covid-19 at 6.5 million. Although the vast majority of vaccinations do not result in serious adverse effects, there will of course be a small number of incidents in which there are serious problems. Those must be fully investigated. We believe that vaccination is the best course of action, because the danger of injury from coronavirus significantly outweighs the chance of harm from vaccines. It is a cruel truth that some people will experience some adverse effects, including disability and death. We know that a grieving person whose partner passed away recently as a result of the AstraZeneca vaccine has now received the first payout under the UK’s compensation mechanism. We must recognise the significance of that. There are severe, legitimate claims of harm from the jag, and they must be respected and listened to. That is vital to maintain faith in the UK’s vaccine programme now and in the future. As those who claim make clear, making claims is not about being anti-vaccine. The concerns are legitimate, and we must listen and learn.

The Scottish Government have set up an independent Scottish covid-19 inquiry to provide scrutiny on the handling of the pandemic and to learn important lessons. The input of bereaved families has been fundamental in developing the Scottish inquiry’s terms of reference, and the Scottish Government are committed to engaging with them. That will be long-lasting. The terms of reference provide adequate breadth for the inquiry to consider the elements that came through strongly in stakeholder engagement. It will be up to the new chair, when appointed, to decide how to investigate the issues listed in the terms of reference. It should not be assumed that a topic or group will be excluded from consideration simply because it is not explicitly referred to.

Following consultation with all the devolved Governments, the UK inquiry’s terms of reference include a number of areas of particular interest to the devolved Governments. The Scottish Government look forward to engaging fully with the UK inquiry to identify the lessons that we all need to learn.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I, too, commend the way the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) opened the debate, and I thank him for his candid support for the vaccine programme.

At the start of September, we had a debate in this very Chamber about the covid-19 vaccine damage payment scheme. I want to begin my speech in the same way as I started my speech in that debate, by saying that the covid-19 vaccine is safe and effective and has saved countless lives. I and the entire shadow Health and Social Care team remain extraordinarily grateful to those who sacrificed countless hours to facilitate our vaccine roll-out.

We are here debating this petition because of the vaccine. Without it, we would probably still be dialling in from our homes—me in Denton, frantically trying to sort my dodgy wi-fi and battling my dog for custody of the study chair. Some 51 million people have been fully vaccinated, and more than 151 million doses have been given in the United Kingdom. Without the vaccine and the extraordinary work of scientists, volunteers and NHS staff, we would not have been able to reclaim the liberties that we were forced to forfeit over the course of the pandemic.

Members from across the House will be aware that all vaccines go through rigorous and ongoing testing procedures. The covid-19 vaccines went through several stages of clinical trials before being approved, and met strict independent standards for safety, quality and effectiveness.

[Andrew Bridgen]

Surely the hon. Gentleman is well aware of the much-publicised interview of a Pfizer representative by a committee of the European Parliament only a couple of weeks ago, when they admitted that they had done no testing whatever to see whether the vaccination prevented transmission of the virus.

[Andrew Gwynne]

Yes, I heard that. Of course, the issue is that we were protecting the lives of those people who needed the vaccine to be able to get on with their day-to-day lives. The covid vaccines did go through several stages of clinical trials before approval and, as I am sure the Minister will make clear in her response, the MHRA continues to monitor the use of the vaccines to ensure that their benefits outweigh any risks. That is an important fact.

[Andrew Gwynne]

I suspect that they wanted those assurances because of the rapidity of the roll-out. There is an ongoing process of testing the vaccines. These things are kept under review all the time by the scientists, the Government and the Department of Health and Social Care.

As the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington said, the MHRA operates the yellow card scheme to collect and monitor information on suspected safety concerns. A dedicated team of scientists review information daily to monitor the vaccine roll-out. For this reason, His Majesty’s Opposition and I do not view the ask of this petition—a public inquiry into covid-19 vaccine safety—as necessary.

Serious vaccine side effects are extremely rare, and catching covid-19 without vaccine protection remains overwhelmingly more dangerous than getting the vaccine itself. Where vaccine damage does tragically occur, it is right that individuals and their families can access the vaccine damage payment scheme, which I spoke at length about in September. We must ensure that this scheme remains fit for the future. I did raise some concerns about that in the previous Westminster Hall debate on this issue, because it is important that those who are eligible can access financial support.

The petition claims that there has been

“a significant increase in heart attacks and related health issues since the roll-out of the covid-19 vaccines began in 2021.”

I appreciate the strength of feeling of those who signed this petition, and I do want to understand more from the Minister about any investigations being undertaken by the health authorities and scientists.

[Andrew Bridgen]

Was the shadow Minister not listening to my speech? The report in Florida showed an 84% increase in deaths from cardiac arrest in men between the ages of 18 and 39.

[Andrew Gwynne]

I was indeed listening to the hon. Gentleman’s speech. He should have let me finish the sentence, because I was saying that I want to understand from the Minister what investigations are being undertaken by health authorities to ascertain whether this is actually the case, because there is conflicting information.

The hon. Gentleman talks about a study in Florida. It is important that we take into account all the information from across the globe. There is no data in this country from Office for National Statistics, the MHRA or any other public health body that actually backs that up. Therefore, it is important that all this data is kept under review and scrutinised. I think it is important that the Minister gives us assurances that that is being done.

As the Government made clear in their response to the petition, there have been rare reports of myocarditis and pericarditis. That has informed product information advice for healthcare professionals and patients, as the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) pointed out. However, it is worth reenforcing just how rare these specific adverse reactions are. Across all vaccines used in the UK, there has been a reporting rate of just 0.01% for myocarditis and pericarditis. Even where this side effect has occurred, most cases have been mild and individuals have recovered.

There is an awful lot of misinformation regarding vaccine efficacy and safety, and it is vital that any debate about vaccine safety is led by the facts. Could the Minister set out what action she will be taking to tackle vaccine misinformation and to provide accurate reassurance to those who remain hesitant? How will she get robust data out there for proper and effective public scrutiny, so that we can reinforce that efficacy?

I hear a lot in my capacity as shadow Public Health Minister about concerns relating to yellow card reports. To that I reiterate the MHRA guidance, which clearly states:

“Many suspected ADRs reported on a yellow card do not have any relation to the vaccine or medicine”.

The yellow card reporting scheme allows individuals and health professionals to report any suspected reactions or side-effects, even if the reporter is not sure that they were caused by the vaccine. It is often the case that events recorded via the yellow card scheme would have happened anyway.

I feel passionately about tackling vaccine misinformation head-on, because the truth is that we are not in a position to be complacent. In the UK, people are still dying because they have not been vaccinated, and uptake among certain communities is still far too low, but the challenge is also global. More than 20 nations across the world have first-dose vaccine rates of lower than 20%. In Burundi, just 0.2% of people have received their first dose. The United Kingdom has an important role to play in ensuring that low-income countries can access vaccines, but also in making the argument, domestically and on the world stage, that vaccines are safe and effective. That will ensure that we remain better protected not only against covid-19 and potential mutations, but against future pandemics, where trust is a key tool in protecting people and communities across the globe.

This has been an important and wide-ranging debate, and one that I am glad we were able to facilitate. We in this House may have different views on this subject, but we also have a responsibility to protect the health of the people we represent, and that means using our platforms to make it clear that covid-19 vaccines are safe and effective—something that I am sure the Minister will wholeheartedly agree with.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Dr Caroline Johnson)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) for his kind words regarding the covid vaccine programme, and for bringing this important and timely debate to the House. It is timely because we started the covid-19 boosters autumn scheme just a few weeks ago.

Before I respond to the points that have been made in the debate and try to answer all the questions posed by right hon. and hon. Members, I thank Members—particularly those on the Opposition Benches, including the hon. Members for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) and for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Steven Bonnar)—for their support for the vaccine scheme. I also thank each and every person in the country who has come forward for their jabs, as well as the tens of thousands of NHS staff and volunteers who made that happen.

My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington asked why the vaccine programme had worked so well. It worked so well because of the dedication and hard work of all who were involved in it—from the Government to the NHS, and from the volunteers to pharma. I was honoured to volunteer alongside people from my local area as young as 15 and as old as in their 80s. It was truly a community effort.

The take-up of the covid-19 vaccine has been huge, and over 151 million vaccines have been delivered in the UK, meaning that more than 90% of people aged 12 and over have received at least one dose and more than 40 million have received a booster or third dose. We have also made a great start to the autumn booster campaign. Since the start of the campaign on 5 September, more than 10 million people in England have stepped forward for their jabs.

Our safe and effective vaccines have underpinned the Government’s strategy for living with covid-19. They have allowed the economy and society to reopen, and the country’s ability to live with the virus in the future will continue to depend on deeper and broader population immunity. Critically, they have also reduced the pressure on the national health service and allowed us to start to tackle the elective care backlog.

Vaccines remain our biggest line of defence as we head into a challenging winter period. Vaccinated people are less likely to get seriously ill with covid-19 or seasonal flu, or to be admitted to hospital, and there is also evidence that they are less likely to pass the virus on to others. We know the covid vaccine has saved tens of thousands of lives—that is tens of thousands of mothers, fathers, husbands, wives, sisters, brothers, sons and daughters who are thankfully still with us.

[Andrew Bridgen]

Is the Minister aware that excess deaths run somewhere—there are two different sets of figures—between 18,000 and 25,000 this year alone?

[Dr Johnson]

I am referring to the covid vaccine, which has saved hundreds of thousands of lives. I take my hon. Friend’s point, but there is no evidence that those deaths were caused by the covid vaccine. Let me acknowledge and pass on my sympathies to the very small number of people for whom vaccines may not have worked as intended, and who may have suffered an adverse reaction from vaccines.

I turn to vaccine safety. All vaccines used in the UK covid-19 vaccine programme are safe. In the UK we have some of the highest safety standards in the world. The MHRA is globally recognised for high standards of quality, safety and medicines regulation. Each covid-19 vaccine candidate is assessed by teams of scientists and clinicians on a case-by-case basis. There are extensive checks and balances at every stage of vaccine development. It is only once each potential vaccine has met robust standards of effectiveness, safety and quality set by the MHRA that it will be approved for use.

It is also important to stress that the surveillance of vaccine safety and adverse reactions does not stop once a vaccine has been approved. The MHRA and the UK Health Security Agency constantly review a wide range of available data on the safety of vaccines, including UK and international reports of adverse reactions.