Covid-19: Response and Excess Deaths

Debate between Andrew Bridgen and Christopher Chope

Thursday 18th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. It is important that the hon. Gentleman answers the first intervention before taking a second.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. That is very wise advice.

I take the hon. Lady’s point, but the Government were reluctant to concede, at the beginning, that there might be risks associated with all this. Now, we have seen that some people have been adversely affected and, in certain circumstances, have even lost loved ones. We would expect the Government to look after people who have been adversely affected, which was the whole ethos of the vaccine damage payment scheme when it was set up. The Government are falling down on their responsibilities on that and, as a result, that is adding to vaccine hesitancy. The proportion of people who are accepting invitations from the health service to have yet another booster is plummeting, because increasingly people realise that in their particular circumstances the risks may outweigh any possible benefit.

[Andrew Bridgen]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. The Chamber asks for a link. We know that the excess deaths are predominantly in cardiac arrests, heart problems and strokes. We know that the vaccine works supposedly by inducing human cells to produce spike protein, to be attacked by our own immune system and create the immune response. We know that the vaccine does not stay in the arm. It travels all over the body through the blood supply. Blood vessels are lined by endothelial cells. The mRNA goes into them and makes them creates a spike. They are attacked by the immune system. That explodes into the blood supply and that is a blood clot. If it goes to the heart, you have a heart attack; if it goes to the brain or the lungs, you have a stroke or a pulmonary embolism. That is the link. [Interruption.]

Heart and Circulatory Diseases: Premature Deaths

Debate between Andrew Bridgen and Christopher Chope

Thursday 22nd February 2024 Commons Chamber

[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.

Excess Death Trends

Debate between Andrew Bridgen and Christopher Chope

Tuesday 16th January 2024 Westminster Hall

[Andrew Bridgen]

I agree wholeheartedly. This is not a political issue; it is a public health issue that affects every constituency. The so-called covid inquiry has already set out the answers it wants to get. It has all the appearance of a whitewash. It was deeply disappointing that it announced this week that the module on the safety and efficacy of the vaccines has been put off indefinitely—certainly until after the general election, which is extremely disappointing.

I contacted every public and media body I could think of in 2014 to tell them again and again that the sub-postmasters were innocent, but no one listened. I knew the sub-postmasters in my constituency were completely honest; anybody who knew those pillars of society knew it. The innocent were falsely accused of dishonesty over the Horizon scandal and were relentlessly pursued by a merciless, mendacious and malicious bureaucracy. It is the coldness that shocks most—the imperious arrogance and the mercilessness that capture institutions and cowards in authority when a single narrative closes our collective minds to nuance, to experience and to the inconvenient truths. No one listened to the sub-postmasters; no one cared. No one in power moved a muscle to help, but now, all of a sudden, one media programme has shifted the narrative to reveal that the experts were wrong, our institutions were wrong, those in authority were wrong and an infallible computer system was, in fact, fallible. Even our justice system got it so tragically wrong, with thousands of court hearings and judges making wrong judgments. Will the Post Office lessons be learned regarding the covid insanity?

Who is actually dying now? It is not the old and frail, as it was with covid; in fact, deaths from dementia, a key benchmark of elderly deaths, have been in deficit ever since covid, as we would expect after a period of high mortality. Instead, particularly for cardiovascular deaths, there has been incessant week-on-week excess mortality for months and months in the young and middle-aged. Every age group is affected, but the 50 to 64 age group has had it worst—I declare an interest. They were struck with 12% more deaths than usual in 2022 and 13% more in 2023, and at least five in six of those deaths this year had nothing to do with covid whatever.

My constituent, Steven Miller, was a healthy IT engineer in his 40s. He had two doses of AstraZeneca jabs in the summer of 2021 and was ill shortly afterwards. His side effects were so bad that he lost his job, and in November 2021 he was rushed into hospital. He now has cardio- myopathy and ventricular failure with a maximum of five years to live, taking him to 2026, unless he has a heart transplant. When I saw him last, he had a resting heart rate of 145 beats per minute. He has subsequently lost his partner and access to his child, and he is at risk of losing his house. He now has a diagnosis from Glenfield Hospital in Leicester of vaccine-induced cardio- myopathy, and I want to help him to try to get his compensation. However, he is just one example among my constituents who will probably have 30 years of his life stolen from him. His child will lose his father. How is £120,000 of compensation possibly adequate for that?

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for introducing the debate so coherently. Can he explain why module 4 of the public inquiry into the safety of the vaccines has been arbitrarily postponed from next July? Surely the case that he mentioned highlights the need for urgent inquiry.

[Andrew Bridgen]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise that issue. Why would they put back any investigation in the public inquiry, which I think costs some hundreds of millions of pounds and therefore should be in the public interest, indefinitely? I fear that political pressure has been placed on the inquiry. Clearly, a lot of political capital in the run-up to the next election has been placed on the fact that the Government, with support from the Opposition parties, did the right thing in our pandemic response, including the roll-out of the vaccines. The very fact that they have done that indicates that there is something to hide, and it should make the public extremely suspicious. I will come on to that shortly.

For two years we have turned society upside down so as not to “kill granny”. Now that mum and dad are dying, it appears that no one cares. This is “Alice in Wonderland” thinking. People in their 50s and 60s— I declare an interest again—would normally, I hope, have many more years of active contribution and deeply fulfilling lives left to live, and they are the people being hit hardest.

Furthermore, the raw number of lives lost is not the only measure that we can look at. We have better methods, and the most famous is known as quality-adjusted life years—those who understand public health generally refer to them as QALYs. They measure healthy years of life lost and are the most sensible metric for properly assessing the impacts of deaths and lost life on families and society. QALYs were ignored at the outset. They were ignored in July 2020 when the Government’s own assessment was that lockdowns would reduce QALYs by about 1 million years in the UK—I repeat, 1 million years. They were ignored when deciding to inject the young with experimental vaccines despite the refusal of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation to recommend jabbing under-15s in September 2021.

Even at the covid inquiry when the Prime Minister tried to raise the issue of quality-adjusted life years, he was shouted down by Hugo Keith KC, the lead lawyer at the inquiry. He then revealed his unbelievable, unforgivable negligence and ignorance by saying:

“I don’t want to get into quality life assurance models.”

This, I repeat, is the most senior lawyer at the so-called covid inquiry, so when I say that future generations will ridicule us, it is not hard to see reasons why. The pandemic—a term that some of our best academics from around the globe questioned from the outset in published and peer-reviewed papers—is over. The crisis has passed. Yet still, empty vessels continue to drown out intelligent, reasoned, expert discourse. Not knowing what QALY means is one thing, but parading his ignorance with arrogant disdain ought to disqualify Mr Keith from any further part in that inquiry. Sadly, his condescending disdain for open inquiry epitomises what many of us have encountered time and time again when raising these issues.

A smorgasbord of fanciful excuses has been proffered for the rise in heart attacks. Sir Chris Whitty laughably claimed that it was from a reduction in statin prescriptions, even though prescribing levels were exactly the same, and it would take years or even decades for changes on that issue to take effect and be seen in population mortality data. The media have tried to persuade us—persuade the people—that eating eggs or the wrong kind of breakfast or climate change is to blame. People are sick of being patronised with these lies. Some have claimed that the excess deaths are due to covid. The literature is littered with studies claiming that covid causes heart disease. Almost all include covid cases from spring 2020, when it was almost impossible for someone to be tested and become an official case unless they were sick and in hospital. Proving that sick people get heart disease more than healthy people does not mean that covid causes heart disease. Indeed, the claims can be easily debunked. There has been a steep rise in cardiac deaths in both Australia and Singapore, as well as the UK. Those countries did not have any significant covid until 2022, but they did roll out the jabs at exactly the same time as we did in the UK. Correlation does not prove causation—we have already heard that in this debate—but correlation with and without covid can rule out causation. The excess cardiac deaths were certainly not caused by covid.

Some have claimed that the excess deaths were caused by lockdowns. It is well known that psychological stress increases the risk of heart disease. The Government subjected people to a massive propaganda campaign of fear—well documented by Laura Dodsworth in her book, “A State of Fear”. We were cut off from our usual support networks. For many, there were immense financial pressures. Such policies could contribute to heart disease in a minor way. However, the sharpest rise came later, entirely coincident with the jab roll-out, so we have a clear temporal link between increased deaths and vaccination.

Some have claimed that the excess cannot be down to the jabs, because Sweden has not had as many excess deaths as elsewhere despite having a very similar number of doses, per million, of the experimental vaccines, but it is important to understand that heart disease is a cumulative risk. In the UK, we already had a serious problem with heart disease before the pandemic, and it has got much worse following the vaccine roll-out. By contrast, Sweden has the longest healthy life expectancy in Europe. It is no wonder that it is a statistical outlier on excess deaths now. If someone is under 50 and lives in Sweden, their chances of dying from heart disease were already half that of a resident of the UK of the same age.

Some have admitted to the problem but claimed it was worth it. Science journalist Tom Chivers even said regarding jabbing children: “It sounds cruel—but a small number of deaths would be worth it”. As I pointed out earlier, from China through to the UK, any culture willing to openly sacrifice children for adults is rotten, in my view, to its very core.

Look at what is happening now. Yet again we are seeing a peak in covid hospitalisations, as we should be expecting from a coronavirus in January. The number of people infected and the number of intensive care admissions were about the same every six months before and after the vaccinations. The number of covid intensive care admissions in the January to June 2020 wave was about the same as the number in the July to December 2020 covid wave, and the figure remained similar in the January to June 2021 and July to December 2021 covid waves. The jab therefore had no impact whatsoever. Those interested may wish to consult a recent paper in the Journal of Clinical Medicine that demonstrates exactly this point.

The next important factor is that omicron is far less deadly. The reason why there are fewer covid deaths now is because of omicron’s arrival at the beginning of 2022, but viral waves will continue to come and go until almost everyone has post-infection immunity. We are not there yet.

It is clear that viral waves were not impacted by lockdowns, and it is increasingly clear that they were not impacted by the jabs either. People have denied that viral waves peak naturally at predictable times of year, but how much longer can that be denied? The lockdowns did not cause deaths to decline from their peak in April 2020, because they also peaked and fell in April 2022 and March 2023 without lockdowns. Indeed, in 2020 infections were already falling before the lockdowns were even started.

The problem with excess deaths started in spring 2021 with the jab roll-out, and there was a stepwise rise in ambulance calls for life-threatening emergencies at exactly the same time. Hospitals started to be overwhelmed for the first time, and the number of people unable to work because of long-term sickness started to rise. Even the number of mayday calls from aircraft rose. Are we meant to think that this was all a coincidence, when we know that these injections cause a range of serious adverse events, especially cardiac events?

The excess deaths are the tip of a very ugly iceberg, and we have not even mentioned the world-shaking scandal of jabbing people who had already had covid, which, at a stroke, almost entirely demolishes the credibility of our public health policies during this period. We completely ignored natural immunity. That one fact ought to be a red flag of gigantic proportions, but no one is listening. I do not have time to discuss the fact that the jab was not pulled when it became clear that an incredible one in 800 doses administered led to serious adverse events and consequences. The rotavirus vaccine was pulled entirely after causing an adverse event rate of one in 10,000. For the 2009 swine flu vaccine, one in 35,000 was harmed, and it was then pulled from the market. The covid jab is still being pushed and it is seriously harming people, inevitably at a much higher rate than one in 800, because most people are being exposed to multiple doses of the vaccine, with the same adverse event risk at each dose.

Thalidomide, syphilis treatment and all the other infamous, appalling and shattering medical scandals are dwarfed by the iceberg under the water that is the medical scandal we are currently living through: the experimental, so-called vaccines for covid-19. It took 11 years after the drug was withdrawn in 1961 for the thalidomide scandal to be first raised in Parliament—11 years before the word “thalidomide” could even be mentioned in the Chamber of the House of Commons. I am not going to let that happen this time, which is why I fought so hard to raise this issue in Parliament, at a cost to my reputation, my career and the financial security of my family.

The public inquiry should urgently be looking at this issue. Instead, it is wasting taxpayers’ money on obsessing over WhatsApp messages while people are dying. As if that is not bad enough, we learned this week that the vaccine module has been postponed indefinitely, for no good reason. It is as if the inquiry is so desperate not to find fault that it cannot even look at what has happened with the vaccines. We need transparency.

Dr Clare Craig, co-chair of the Health Advisory and Recovery Team, has been doggedly pursuing the UK Health Security Agency for its record-level data on dosage, dates and deaths for a year. That data could sort out this issue once and for all. The UKHSA admits that it has it. The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency admits that all this data has been released to Pfizer, AstraZeneca and Moderna, yet claims that it cannot anonymise it for release to the public. A failure to release the data makes it look like there is definitely something to hide.

A recent poll in the USA shows that more than half of the public thinks the vaccines are responsible for a significant number of deaths. If there was nothing to hide, the anonymised data would certainly be released for analysis to stop the upswell of legitimate concern. The latest response from the Information Commissioner’s Office is that Dr Clare Craig has to wait at least another six months before a case officer will be assigned to this issue. That is not acceptable. They have released our health data to big pharma, but they will not release it to us. The record-level data must be released. Is it really too much to ask that the British public be given the same level of access to the relevant data given to big pharma companies actually responsible for the debacle? Those are corporations that carefully secured immunity from all legal liability—or, in this country, indemnity—from the Government before dangerously and negligibly experimenting on the health of our nation and the world. We are witnesses to the greatest medical scandal in living memory. The consequential fallout in trust, public opinion and public confidence is only just beginning. Continued attempts to shut down debate, flatten dissent and obstruct independent analysis can only delay the eventual collective shame. There will be a reckoning and we will have to try and rebuild trust in our health services, our media and our politics. We have not even started on that journey.

Before I was expelled from the Conservative party for voicing my concerns over the experimental vaccines and the harms I believe they caused, I met a senior member of the party who, after listening to my concerns about the vaccines and NG163—the midazolam and morphine scandal—told me quite calmly, “Andrew, there is currently no political appetite for your views on the vaccines. There may well be in 20 years’ time and you will probably be proven right, but in the meantime, you need to bear in mind that you are taking on the most powerful vested interest in the world, with all the personal risk for you that that will entail.”

I refused to bow to that threat and as they say, the rest is history. People have alleged that I am spouting conspiracy theories. I think it is a conspiracy; a conspiracy against the science, a conspiracy of silence and a conspiracy against the people—and I will have none of it.

Green Belt (Protection) Bill

Debate between Andrew Bridgen and Christopher Chope

Friday 20th October 2023 Commons Chamber

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I think that what the Leader of the Opposition was proposing is a complete nightmare. It will destroy at a stroke all that land, which, as I have said, is protecting the environment of people who live in cities. Why should people who live in cities and towns be prevented from being able to venture outside them to enjoy open air and countryside?

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

Although we have no green belt in Leicestershire, the most loved piece of green open space in the county is the green wedge north of Coalville, which separates Coalville from the villages of Swannington, Thringstone, Coleorton and Whitwick. Will the hon. Gentleman’s Bill protect those spaces as well?

[Sir Christopher Chope]

It is called the Green Belt (Protection) Bill, so I am not sure that protecting areas outside of the green belt will come into its scope, to answer the hon. Gentleman’s question directly. Would I in spirit support protecting the sorts of spaces he describes? The answer is very much that I would. The essence of this Bill is just to concentrate on those areas of the country that already have green belt that is subject to pressure from some parts of my own party—and particularly now, it seems, from the Opposition—to have it de-designated. That is why clause 2 states:

“No local authority in England shall de-designate any land…unless…it has ensured that alternative land within its local authority area has been designated as Green Belt land in substitution for the land to be designated”.

That would remove any incentive for local authorities to grant planning permission on one piece of green-belt land, because they would know that they would have to replace it with another bit of green-belt land. That is why this is such an important Bill.

Pandemic Prevention, Preparedness and Response: International Agreement

Debate between Andrew Bridgen and Christopher Chope

Monday 17th April 2023 Westminster Hall

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Esther McVey), who does such important work with her APPG. At a recent meeting, we were privileged to be able to listen to Toby Green and Thomas Fazi, the joint authors of “The Covid Consensus”. I know that some of the material she used in her remarks comes from the fantastic work that those two individuals have put forward.

I will start with a question: why are our Government supporting changes to the treaty based on article 19? Article 19 is the compulsion—mandatory—whereas article 21 gives the opportunity to opt in and out. Why would we wish to impose a commitment that we cannot get out of under article 19? When my right hon. Friend the Minister responds, I ask her to embrace the idea, which has already been discussed in the intergovernmental negotiating body—although article 19 is the most comprehensive provision of the WHO constitution under which the instrument could be adopted—that the body is open to confirming whether article 21 could also be an appropriate way of making progress on the treaty.

Article 21 relates to the World Health Assembly’s powers to adopt regulations on a range of technical, health-related matters. Regulations under article 21 would come into force for all member states, except where members reject or make reservations within a specified notice period. In other words, it would be relatively more relaxed than article 19, which would effectively mean this was a mandatory treaty with no option but to comply.

If we think that the only way to deal with pandemics is for all countries across the globe to unite, let us remind ourselves that, if we had our time again, many of us would have said that the Swedes got it right. In a sense, they were the outliers at the time. Under some international mandatory ruling, they would not have been allowed to experiment in the way that they did—to follow their instincts for liberty, freedom and science-based evidence before restricting people from going about their normal business. Why would we want to have a treaty that gave no flexibility to individual countries to decide what was best in their particular circumstances in any given situation? I hope that we can get an answer from the Government on that and about why they are going hell for leather to try to adopt a mandatory treaty.

The extent of concern about this issue has taken many people by surprise. It is symptomatic of people’s loss of trust in Governments and, in particular, in some of the health Departments of Governments. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton mentioned in passing that the WHO itself did a complete volte-face. They were supposedly the experts, and they brought forward a document relating to preparedness for a pandemic in November 2019. That document made no reference whatever to many of the measures that were subsequently adopted by the WHO and by Governments across the world. My right hon. Friend referred to the fact that there was no mention even of the word “lockdown”—let alone of the idea that confining people to barracks and preventing them from going about their daily lives would be good for health outcomes. We now know that that has been pretty bad news for people, particularly the younger generation, for whom covid-19 was less of a direct threat to health. As a result of the lockdown measures, younger people have suffered disproportionately and will continue to suffer as they live the rest of their lives. Why should we want to trust the WHO absolutely?

[Andrew Bridgen]

My hon. Friend is a stalwart for those who have been vaccine harmed and vaccine bereaved, and he is making a great contribution. Does he agree that the WHO has let us all down very badly with its unilateral decision not to investigate where the virus originated? If we could find the labs in which it was developed, and if we could find those who authorised it and funded it and bring them criminally to account, that would surely be the best way of dissuading anyone from again carrying out this sort of action, which has caused so much harm around the world.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, which is a question that I was going to pose and seek to answer. One of the issues is that China has a lot to cover up. If it is not covering it up, why is it not allowing people to investigate exactly what happened at Wuhan? Why is it not co-operating with the World Health Organisation? The answer is that, in a sense, the World Health Organisation is now subservient to China.

Those of us in this House who have long expressed concerns about undue Chinese influence over our lives, and over the freedom of western civilisation, need to take stock and ask ourselves who is in charge of this World Health Organisation. Some people have referred to him by what I think is one of his Christian names, Tedros Adhanom; I will refer to him by his surname, which is Ghebreyesus. He is a former Ethiopian Minister of Health. He was previously a senior figure in the Tigray People’s Liberation Front. Some people here today may remember that many senior members of the Tigray People’s Liberation Front were also members of the Marxist-Leninist League of Tigray. Mr Ghebreyesus won support from Beijing in order to become the director general of the WHO, and China has quite a large control, through him, of the WHO. Margaret Chan, a former WHO director general, said in 2012 that the WHO budget is driven by donor interests. Let us be quite open about it: the Bill Gates Foundation, big pharma and big tech are supplying a lot of the resource to the WHO. They are not covering that up; they are proud of it—indeed, they make a big thing of the fact that more than half of the WHO’s expenditure is now on vaccine programmes rather than other ways of alleviating malnutrition and health problems across the globe.

Has this man—the current director general—got connections with the Bill Gates Foundation and the big funders of the WHO? Yes, he has. He was formerly a member of two of the Gates boards, Gavi and the Global Fund, so he is himself very much in with Gates—with the donors. How can he be trusted to be independent when he owes his continuing position to those donors and also to the support of the Chinese republic?

We may say, “Well, so what? Let the WHO carry on as it has been for many years. It could be an advisory body. Nobody has to listen to it, and we can take it or leave it.” But unfortunately, the developing influence of the WHO is that it now wishes to impose its standards on the whole world. That is why people have become became alerted and signed this petition in very large numbers. They do not wish this country to give up its control over its ability to manage its own affairs when faced with an epidemic or a pandemic. They certainly do not want some body like the WHO, which is wedded to the Chinese version of authoritarian capitalism—authoritarian capitalists—telling people what they can and cannot do: saying that people cannot go about their normal business, live their lives as individuals or, as an old person, meet their relatives, and all the rest.

I am pleased to say that in so far as we were able to, I voted against all those restrictions on freedom. I continue to believe that we made big mistakes in how we addressed the pandemic through lockdowns that were not scientifically based and in respect of which there were no proper cost-benefit analyses. But leave that on one side. The WHO is controlled by people who we would not wish to be in control of our lives. That is why both the United States and our Government are trying to break out of some of the Chinese Government’s controlling influences. But what are we doing about this situation? Why in these circumstances would a rational Government—I still believe that the Government I support are rational—engage in giving an enormous amount of power over our lives to the Chinese and Chinese-influenced and dominated organisations? That seems to be sheer lunacy to me. I hope that in responding to this debate my right hon. Friend will be able to agree on that point. One does not have to do anything other than point out the connections between the director general of the Gates Foundation, the Chinese Government and so on to get people to say, “Gosh. I’m a bit concerned about that.” In our daily lives, we judge companies and organisations on the basis of the people running them. If one looks at the people running the WHO, we should quite rightly ask some serious questions about their behaviour.

A lot more could be said about this treaty, but I am going to finish my remarks by asking the Government to change their approach and listen to the people. This petition was signed by a large number of people. It is not the sort of petition that is presented to someone with a, “Will you sign that?” because in order to sign this petition, people need to apply their mind and get a pretty good understanding of the subject matter. In that respect, although the numbers are well above the minimum threshold to get a debate in this House, the quality of the petition and the arguments within it mean that it is one of the most serious petitions that we have had to debate.

[Andrew Bridgen]

Without wishing to be accused of being a conspiracy theorist, can I just spin a scenario to my hon. Friend? Imagine a nightmare situation in which the House ignored the two new instruments from the WHO, and then some time in the next 12 months before they are ratified in May 2024 there happens to be another release from a lab—another pandemic—and then both Houses of Parliament were given no time to debate the two instruments before ratification. Should we not avoid that nightmare situation by having that debate now?

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I agree with my hon. Friend, as I almost always do. Prevention is better than cure. Why would we want to give up control over all these issues by signing up to this treaty?

I have here a quote from Richard Horton, the editor-in-chief of The Lancet. He said:

“The allegation that WHO shared responsibility for the pandemic by adopting a policy of appeasement towards China has proven impossible to refute.”

There we have it. The editor-in-chief of no less than The Lancet says that we need to be extremely suspicious of what is going on and what may happen. That is a good credential for the Government to adopt in saying, “We are not going to adopt this WHO treaty under article 19; we are going to examine it more carefully, be much more circumspect, and retain the ability of our own country and our own people to decide these important issues for ourselves.”

Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979

Debate between Andrew Bridgen and Christopher Chope

Friday 24th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

I welcome to the Front Bench the Minister who will respond to the debate, with whom I had a meeting earlier today. During the course of that meeting, she kindly agreed to come to an early meeting of the all-party parliamentary group on covid-19 vaccine damage, which I have the privilege of chairing. At that meeting we will have representatives of victims of vaccine damage. However, as I emphasised to my hon. Friend, we will not have people there who are actively engaged in litigation, because that would be inappropriate.

This debate is about the application of the Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979 to those who have been bereaved or suffered adverse reactions to covid-19 vaccines. The Act was extended to apply to such vaccines before they were rolled out, but it is now abundantly clear that the Act is totally inadequate for addressing the needs of most of those who have been adversely affected.

On Wednesday this week, the Prime Minister told my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright):

“We are taking steps to reform vaccine damage payment schemes, by modernising the operations and providing more timely outcomes”.—[Official Report, 22 March 2023; Vol. 730, c. 330.]

The Prime Minister did not answer or even refer to my right hon. and learned Friend’s requests that the Government should change the £120,000 maximum payment for those seriously injured and end the denial of any payment to those disabled by less than 60%. That was despite the Prime Minister having received notice of my right hon. and learned Friend’s question, and the fact that both he and I had raised the same points with the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care weeks ago.

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

I commend my hon. Friend for his work on this issue. Has he had time to consider the paper produced this week by the Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, which found a strongly significant correlation between covid-19 vaccine uptake in 2021 and excess deaths in the first nine months of 2022 across the European Union and the European economic area? In fact, the correlation was so strong that it could be stated that for every 1% increase in vaccination rates in 2021, there was a 0.1% increase in mortality in 2022.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I did notice that document, because it was drawn to my attention by my hon. Friend. May I suggest to him that he tries to engage the good offices of our right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), who is the Chair of the Science and Technology Committee? I am delighted to see him in his place this afternoon, because I know that this issue is close to his heart as well.

The Minister confirmed to me earlier that the Government’s answer to both those questions that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam put to the Prime Minister is no. It is rather sad that that is so, and it is regrettable that the Prime Minister did not put that on the record himself.

This month, we have already discussed in this House the scandal surrounding the supply of contaminated blood and the false imprisonment of postmasters as a result of the Horizon system. In both cases, after long resistance, the Government were eventually forced into accepting compensation schemes. If they are interested in tackling the developing scandal over covid-19 vaccine damage victims, they can and must act now.

I fear, however, that the Government have no will so to do, because they are still in denial about the whole issue. Why do I use that expression? I do so because at a meeting on 21 April last year, I asked the then vaccines Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Maggie Throup), whether she accepted that some people had died as a direct result of having received the covid-19 vaccination. She declined to answer the question at the meeting and said that she would write to me. She did not do so, so I then had to put down a parliamentary written question—UIN 2325. She ducked that question.

I will therefore ask the same question again to the Minister today, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield), bearing in mind that we now know that more than 50 coroners’ verdicts have confirmed that people have died as a direct result of covid-19 vaccines, and that her Department has been making awards under the 1979 Act to families who have been bereaved on the basis that their loved ones died as a direct result. Will the Government therefore unequivocally say today that they do accept that some people have died as a direct result of having received a covid-19 vaccination?

Was it not bizarre that all the Prime Minister could say on Wednesday, when told about Jamie Scott spending four weeks in a coma and remaining seriously disabled as a result of a covid vaccine, was:

“I am very sorry to hear about the case”?

Then, in an extraordinary non sequitur, the Prime Minister added:

“In the extremely rare case of a potential injury from a vaccine covered by the scheme, a one-off payment can be awarded.”—[Official Report, 22 March 2023; Vol. 730, c. 330.]

However, Jamie Scott’s injury is not a potential injury, but a real and substantial one. Nor was it caused by any old vaccine; it was caused by a new experimental covid vaccine.

Sadly, Jamie Scott’s case is not unique. I have received hundreds of distressing letters and emails from both victims and bereaved relatives, who are desperate for the Government and the NHS to listen. Several are from my own constituency. I will quote briefly from one letter, received on 18 March, from a 24-year-old, previously employed in a good job in financial services. He had a Pfizer vaccine booster in February 2022 and says:

“Within days of the dose, I started experiencing nasty symptoms that resembled those of an autoimmune disease. The symptoms include nausea, headaches, skin rashes and other immune issues. Despite numerous Doctors visits, blood tests, X-rays and medicinal prescriptions, Doctors have been unable to help ease symptoms at all. Symptoms have worsened with time and I have been unable to work over the past seven months or so. I have been unable to receive any disability benefits and have been left to use my entire life savings to fund my food and bills.”

An expert rheumatologist has now confirmed the link between my constituent’s symptoms and the Pfizer vaccine. My constituent asks me—and I, in turn, ask the Minister—will the Government admit that there are cases where these vaccines have caused reactions in people? Will they promise to provide further support and research funding for how these conditions can be managed and, hopefully, resolved?

My constituent is but one of so many who have suffered, and continue to suffer, because they did the right thing, on the advice of the Government, and received their jabs. The Express, the first mainstream newspaper to start giving the issue some publicity, began its crusade for justice for jab victims with four pages in one of its editions last week. On 15 March, its leading article, entitled “Injection of faith needed”, spoke for many when it said: “We must take care of the small number of people who suffered side effects as a result of their jabs. Innocent people who have suffered terribly must not be denied the damages they deserve. This is a matter of justice.”

The current situation is that over 4,000 claims have been made under the 1979 Act. Over the past five months, new claims have been running at the rate of 250 per month. Some 2,800 claims remain outstanding, and only a surprisingly and disturbingly small number have so far been successful. I shall now try to shame the Government into action by contrasting their head-in-the-sand approach to vaccine damage victims with what is happening in Germany.

On 12 March, Professor Dr Karl Lauterbach, Germany’s Federal Minister for Health, gave a disarmingly candid interview to the Germany TV news channel ZDF. The Minister is a scientist and physician of note, and had previously been professor of health economics and epidemiology at the University of Cologne and at Harvard. As the adviser to then Chancellor Angela Merkel at the beginning of the covid pandemic, he took a very hard line and publicly said on numerous occasions that the vaccines must be taken and that they were “without side effects”. He has now admitted in that interview that what he said about them being “without side effects” was a gross exaggeration. That is disarmingly frank, is it not?

He conceded that one in 10,000 of those vaccinated against covid-19 in Germany had experienced severe adverse effects. He described these “unfortunate cases” as heartbreaking, confirming that some of the severe disablements will be permanent. He added, “It’s really tragic”. The Minister said that Germany does not yet have drugs for treatment and that care entitlements are defined very narrowly, but he recognised the need to get faster at recognising vaccine injuries as the understanding of adverse events increases. He promised significant extra resources and said that he was in discussions with German Treasury Ministers to address issues around post-vaccine syndrome.

Sadly, our own Government do not even recognise post-vaccine syndrome. I have asked them whether they would report on what has been happening in University Hospital Marburg in Germany, where much work is being done on the diagnosis and treatment of post-vaccination syndrome. I suggested that it might be useful for them to have some discussions with the hospital. In answer to a parliamentary written question on 16 November—UIN 88798—I was told that there are

“no current plans to do so.”

I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to reconsider that position, because it is important that we should get into alignment with Germany, whose health system is much more successful than our own. Germany has moved from wanting to get everybody vaccinated, although that was all done “voluntarily”, to recognising now that it must do its best to look after those for whom the vaccine was bad news.

What has happened over the past two years in Germany is that more than 300,000 cases of vaccine side-effects have accumulated in the Ministry’s own system, and more and more people are lodging compensation claims against the state, which, based on the contracts that Germany signed with the EU manufacturers, is liable for any vaccine-related damage. Meanwhile, the subject of vaccine injuries has begun to be openly discussed in the German mainstream media. Let us hope that we will see a bit of that developing in our own country, because one of the frustrations of the victims of these vaccines is that there seems to be much reluctance in the mainstream media to engage on this issue.

Now we have a situation in which the German Federal Minister of Health is saying, “let’s see if we can get some help from the pharmaceutical companies to voluntarily help compensate those harmed by the vaccines.” He then goes on to say that that is because the profits have been “exorbitant”. Just a year ago, he had said that the pharmaceutical companies would not get rich on the vaccines, but it is one of the privileges of Ministers across the world to be able to eat their words when the facts change.

In my submission, the Government here need to completely change their approach and become much more realistic, accommodating and, dare one say it, compassionate towards those who did the right thing by the public interest and accepted the vaccines.

May I ask my hon. Friend a whole series of questions? It will not be possible for people to follow all of the questions I want to ask, because I do not have time to read out all of them. Are the Government aware of the 2017 case in the Court of Appeal where the Court said that, for VDPS purposes, loss of faculties had no real relationship to the kind of injuries set out in schedule 2 of the relevant statute relating to calculating the percentage of disablement? Schedule 2 calculates physical disability—for example, an amputation below the knee could be calculated at 60%. The Court decision was that that should not be some kind of straitjacket, but it seems that it is being used as a kind of straitjacket in the assessment of covid vaccine claims.

Will the Minister confirm that the Government are following the decision made by the Court of Appeal? Will she also reconsider the amount of the £120,000 payment? Its value has been eroded by inflation since 2007. Can she explain why there are still no plans to align the disablement threshold for the VDPS with that in the England infected blood support scheme, under which it is possible to get £100,000 without any evidence of disability? There does not seem to be any alignment between that scheme and the VDPS.

The Government said that within 56 days of receiving any prevention of future deaths report from a coroner, they would report back on it. The only such report made to the Government relating to this issue was delivered on 13 October. Will my hon. Friend explain why there has still not been a response? In the light of what is happening in Germany, will she agree to set up specialist clinics to look at post-vaccine situations? How many people are now working on vaccine claims, and does she see any prospect of the enormous backlog being reduced quickly?

There are lots of questions there, but they are only a small sample of those that I have. I look forward to members of the APPG raising further questions with the Minister when she comes to our meeting.

mRNA Covid-19 Booster

Debate between Andrew Bridgen and Christopher Chope

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.

Planning (Opencast Mining Separation Zones) Bill

Debate between Andrew Bridgen and Christopher Chope

Friday 11th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Bridgen]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s support.

The Bill would offer protection to communities not only in North West Leicestershire but in dozens of constituencies in former coalfields throughout the country, hopefully including in Northern Ireland. A study carried out by the Minorca open-cast protest group showed that 29 open-cast sites in England are being worked now, have received planning permission, or are in the planning pipeline. It also found that development could take place in the near future on a further 34 sites scattered across the counties of Derbyshire, Yorkshire, Durham, Northumberland, Cumbria, Greater Manchester, Shropshire, Staffordshire, Warwickshire, Nottinghamshire and, of course, my own county of Leicestershire. Figures from the Coal Authority that were produced in March 2010 show that whereas buffer zone-protected Scotland and Wales had known reserves of open-cast mined coal of 75 million tonnes and 147 million tonnes respectively, unprotected England has 516 million tonnes of reserves, much of which lies within 500 metres of residential settlements.

Since the Bill was announced, I have received messages of support from groups and individuals throughout the country whose lives have been affected by the blight of open-cast mining. An application has been made for an open-cast mine in the north-east, and a member of the public who lives near the proposed site contacted me about the

“black cloud of a planning application to mine a site which is alarmingly close to some of the houses in our local area. Some houses will be within 58 metres of the site, some 140 metres, while the majority affected would be within 300 metres as proposed by the scoping report.”

The Minorca site in my constituency is only 100 metres away from residential settlements. It has the potential to have a devastating effect on the quality of my constituents’ lives, and I am sure that many hon. Members in the Chamber will have heard appeals for help from communities facing the prospect of open-cast mining happening effectively in their backyards.

The stark reality of the situation was brought home to me when I read the following account of the impact of open-cast mining:

“They have just started an open cast mine in the field behind my mother’s house in Shropshire. In weeks we expect her view of fields and The Wrekin to be replaced by a 9 metre high mound of earth 6 metres from her property. She is 84 years old and until the Shropshire Star did an article on her, the opencast company had not even bothered to visit her or contact her.

She has limited mobility and is therefore housebound. With an open cast mine and then a land fill site she will no longer be able to open her windows or sit in her garden. What a way to spend the final years of your life. She would now like to move but this is now impossible. Nobody would buy it and the opencast company is not interested even though they own the property on either side of her.”

The Bill would also have a positive impact on planning policy. I have received support for it from a planner, who commented:

“'I became aware of your private members bill that would introduce a 500m buffer zone between open cast mining and residents, when giving planning advice on the redevelopment of redundant buildings in the grounds of a grade II listed property which is currently negatively impacted upon by the potential for open cast mining within the immediate vicinity.

Despite my advice and that of the council being that it would be highly unlikely that consent would granted for open cast mining within the grounds of a grade II* listed property, the lack of certainty given by the existing policy framework is causing the would be developer considerable concern and jeopardising the investment and job creation that would result from the sale and redevelopment of the buildings”.

So it is not only open-cast mining but the mere threat of it that hinders the economic development of coalfield areas. That case clearly illustrates the need for the certainty that a defined buffer zone would provide—a need also illustrated by a case in Wales. As the environmental correspondent for The Guardian wrote on his blog, before the buffer zone

“was introduced in Wales, I saw how the lives of people in Merthyr Tydfil were being ruined by the mine on their doorsteps. The green hillside they had looked out on, where they walked their dogs and where their children played, is being turned into a hole—the Ffos-y-Fran pit—200 metres deep and three kilometres wide. The edge of the pit is just 36 metres from the nearest homes. Their peace is shattered by the sound of blasting and digging and the daily journeys of hundreds of monster trucks; their homes are harder to sell; their view has been ruptured. Why should anyone have to put up with this?”

Well, the Governments of Wales and Scotland decided that no one should have to put up with it, and imposed a 500-metre buffer zone, but in England, despite vocal campaigns, there is still no minimum distance between open-cast coal mines and people’s homes—a clear case of discrimination.

There is an argument that the anomaly of England being deprived of a buffer zone of the kind that Scotland and Wales enjoy is a breach of English people’s human rights. That was an argument put forward by a group of residents who fought hard to try to prevent the opening of the Huntington lane site in Telford. They argued that when the UK signed the Human Rights Act 1998, it signed as the United Kingdom in its entirety, not as three separate entities, and that was enshrined in law in 2000. However, the planning application was approved under the previous Government by the then Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government after a public inquiry.

A detailed health impact assessment was demanded by Telford’s local public health director, but was subsequently disregarded by the inspector and the previous Government, despite the fact that that seminal document was believed to be the only such assessment undertaken before the opening of an open-cast mine. The Secretary of State’s closing comments in the decision paper sent from the Planning Inspectorate were:

“The Secretary of State has had regard to The Friends of the Ercall’s view that a breach of Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights arises because of differences between the planning guidance which applies in England compared to that which applies in Scotland and that which applies in Wales (IR417 and IR570). The Secretary of State has considered this matter but he takes the view that differences in policy do not, in themselves, amount to discrimination. He is satisfied that, having assessed the appeal scheme against relevant national and local policies, he has given proper consideration to all relevant issues.”

Of course, one reason why that has become a major issue is that in the past 10 years a large majority of open-cast applications in England have been approved by the Secretary of State, in spite of opposition from parish, district and county councils. Hon. Members will note that the Localism Bill specifically excludes mineral policy; there will be no protection for local communities through the Localism Bill.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful case. Does he agree that with a buffer zone it would be easier for local people to accept some of those developments because they would know that they were protected?

[Andrew Bridgen]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comment, which is absolutely right. I shall bring it out further in my arguments.

It has been argued that the open-cast industry has relied on what could be described as “hired gun” expert witnesses, to gain permission that mineral planning authorities have neither the expertise nor the resources—money, mostly—to contradict. Those hired guns regurgitate the same rhetoric at every application and inquiry, following Government guidance that actually tells them what to say. The fact that mineral policy will not be covered by the Localism Bill makes a buffer zone even more essential.

Since 2005, owing to extreme industry lobbying and the argument based on need—industry need, not national need—being introduced as part of the planning guidance, “independent” planning inspectors have chosen to take the word of these “experts”. That subverts the empirical evidence of communities who have seen more open-casting than the inspector, expert witnesses and most members of the contemporary open-cast industry.

Each application that is passed weakens the position of local residents through the precedent set in planning case law, despite the fact that the supposed primary guidance, MPG3 (1999), which states that local authorities and local people are in the best position to assess the acceptability of an application, remains on the books. It seldom works. Under the last Government, the last 14 appeals on open-cast sites were all passed in the face of vocal local opposition. That gives the Secretary of State, who should be the last line of defence for local people, the perfect excuse to say, “I have to go with the experts.”

The position has become so bad that most local authorities simply wave through applications in England, whereas 10 years ago they would have been fought tooth and nail after being judged utterly unacceptable by local residents.