Andrew Bridgen calls on UK govt to immediately suspend all mRNA treatments in both humans and animals

“Given the evidence, I call on the Government once again to immediately suspend the use of all mRNA treatments in both humans and animals, pending the outcome of [the Covid Inquiry’s investigation into covid vaccines and theurapeutics],” Andrew Bridgen, Member of Parliament for North West Leicestershire, said during a debate in parliament yesterday.

Mr. Bridgen put forward a motion in Parliament for the Covid Inquiry to open its Module 4 on the safety and efficacy of the experimental covid-19 injections as soon as possible.

On 12 January, the UK Covid Inquiry announced that public hearings for the Inquiry’s fourth investigation into vaccines and therapeutics, Module 4, was being rescheduled.  The hearings were originally scheduled to take place in the summer of 2024.  “They will now take place at a later date,” the Inquiry’s website states. (ER: utterly incredible)

Three days later, Mr. Bridgen mentioned the Covid Inquiry’s decision during a debate, saying he felt Module 4 had been delayed as “political pressure has been placed on the inquiry” due to upcoming general elections.

Introducing the motion for the Inquiry to open Module 4 yesterday, Mr. Bridgen began:

“We are witnesses to the greatest medical scandal in this country in living memory, and possibly ever: the excess deaths in 2022 and 2023. Its causes are complex, but the novel and untested medical treatment described as a covid vaccine is a large part of the problem.”

Officials are hiding key data in this scandal. The Office for National Statistics used to release weekly data on deaths per 100,000 in vaccinated and unvaccinated populations, but it no longer does so.  “The public have the right to that data”, Mr, Bridgen said.

Serious experts have called for record-level data to be anonymised and disclosed for analysis which would settle whether experimental treatments are responsible for the increase in excess deaths.  As Mr. Bridgen noted, more extensive and detailed data has already been released to pharmaceutical companies from publicly funded bodies.  However, Professor Jenny Harries, head of the UK Health Security Agency, said that this anonymised, aggregate death by vaccination status data is “commercially sensitive” and should not be published. “The public are being denied that data, which is unacceptable,” he said.

Mr. Bridgen also mentioned that Harries had endorsed a massive change to the calculation of of the baseline population level used by the ONS to calculate excess deaths.  Due to this change, “some 20,000 premature deaths in 2023 alone are now being airbrushed away,” he said.

Mr. Bridgen spoke about the “shocking things” that happened during the covid pandemic response: the misuse of “do not resuscitate” (“DNR”) orders, treatment protocols and the basis on which deaths were attributed to covid and to vaccines:

In March 2020, the Government conducted a consultation exercise on whether people over a certain age or with certain disabilities should have “do not resuscitate” orders, known as DNRs, imposed upon them.  A document summarising the [DNR] proposals was circulated to doctors and hospitals; it was mistakenly treated as formal policy by a number of care homes and GPs up and down the country, who enacted it. At the same time, multiple hospitals introduced a policy that they would not admit patients with DNRs, because they thought that they would be overwhelmed. The result was that people died who did not need to die while nurses performed TikTok dances.

The average time to death from experiencing covid symptoms and testing positive was 18 days. It is a little-known fact that the body clears all the viruses within around seven days; what actually kills people is that some, especially the vulnerable, have an excessive immune response. Doctors have been treating that response for decades with steroids, antibiotics for secondary pneumonia infections and other standard protocols, but they did not do so this time. Even though the virus was long gone, doctors abandoned the standard clinical protocols because covid was a ‘new virus’ – which it was not. They sent people home, told them to take paracetamol until their lips turned blue, and then when those people returned to hospital, they sedated them, put them on ventilators and watched them die.

The protocol for covid-19 treatment was a binary choice between two treatment tracks. Once admitted, ill patients were either ventilated in intensive care or—if they were not fit for that level of care—given end of life medication, including midazolam and morphine … Giving midazolam and morphine to people dying of cancer is reasonable, but there is a side effect, which is that those drugs have a respiratory depressant effect. It is hard to imagine a more stupid thing to do than giving a respiratory suppressant to someone who is already struggling to breathe with the symptoms of covid-19, but that is exactly what we did.

There is a huge, stark contrast in how deaths and illnesses after vaccination have been recorded compared with those after covid. After a positive covid test, any illness and any death was attributed to the virus. After the experimental emergency vaccine was administered, no subsequent illness and no death was ever attributed to the vaccine. Those are both completely unscientific approaches, and that is why we have to look at other sources of data – excess deaths – to determine whether there is an issue.

He also addressed the use of the mantra “safe and effective.”

“The fear deliberately stoked up by the Government promoted the idea of being rescued by a saviour vaccine. The chanting of the “safe and effective” narrative began, and the phrase seemed to hypnotise the whole nation,” he said.  This was despite Pfizer, for example, admitting that it was unknown whether their “vaccines” were safe or effective.

In March 2021, Pfizer signed a contract with Brazil and South Africa which said: “the long-term effects and efficacy of the vaccine are not currently known and…adverse effects of the vaccine…are not currently known.”

Mr. Bridgen told the House of Commons that the media, the Government and other authorities had turned into big pharma’s marketing department even though Pfizer’s dubious marketing practices have been noted by the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry (“ABPI”), the UK trade association for medicines prescribed for the NHS.

“Only a few days ago, the [ABPI] rapped Pfizer on the knuckles for the sixth time, and said that its marketing practices had brought the industry into disrepute. It was asked to pay a paltry £30,000 in administrative expenses, with no fine on top,” he said.

“The person heading the ABPI at the moment is also the head of Pfizer UK. The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency has a statutory duty to carry out this work, and it has handed its responsibility to the industry. This is an outrageous conflict of interest,” he added.

Turning to the harm that the injections cause, Mr. Bridgen explained that this was built into their design.

“The so-called covid vaccines used the most pathological or harmful part of the virus—the spike protein—in its entirety. The harm is systemic because, contrary to what everyone was told, the lipid nanoparticles, encapsulating the genetic material, spread through the whole body after injection, potentially affecting all organs,” he said.  “Furthermore, it is now plentifully evident that the drug results in continued spike protein production for many months—even years, in some people.”

The deaths thus far have been predominantly cardiac, he said, but there may unfortunately be many more as the “vaccines” may induce extra cancer deaths due to immune system damage and DNA damage.

For immune system damage, Mr. Bridgen highlighted a recently published paper by Dr. Robert Tindle, retired director of the Clinical Medical Virology Centre in Brisbane. The paper describes multiple potential harms from vaccines, including harm to the immune system, which could increase the risk of cancer.

Regarding DNA damage, Mr. Bridgen explained that mRNA products risk interrupting our DNA.

“Cancer is a genetic disease disorder that arises from errors in DNA, allowing cells to grow uncontrollably. Moderna has multiple patents describing methods for reducing the risk of cancer induction from its mRNA products. That risk comes from the material interrupting the patient’s DNA. It turns out that an mRNA injection has very high quantities of DNA in it, and that massively increases the risk of disturbing a patient’s own DNA,” he said.

“Worse still, the DNA that was injected contained sequences that were hidden from the regulator. That is the SV40, or simian virus 40 promoter region, which has been linked to cancer and has been found in the Pfizer vaccines. That was no accident,” he added.

He also noted an independent study in Japan, published last week, that found links between increased cancer rates in Japan and those who took the first and subsequent booster vaccines. “Perhaps that explains why Pfizer acquired a cancer treatment company for a reported $43 billion earlier this year,” he said.

In concluding his speech, Mr Bridgen said: “The evidence is clear: these vaccines have caused deaths … At some point we will have to face up to all the evidence that is building. It was fairly convincing 18 months ago when I first spoke out, but it is unequivocal now.

“Given the evidence, I call on the Government once again to immediately suspend the use of all mRNA treatments in both humans and animals, pending the outcome of [Baroness Hallett’s Module 4] inquiry.”

To which members of the public attending the debate loudly cheered and applauded.  So much so that the Deputy Speaker warned the gallery would have to be cleared if the clapping continued.

At the end of the debate, Mr. Bridgen’s motion was agreed and the House called on the Covid Inquiry to move onto its Module 4 investigation into vaccines and therapeutics as soon as possible.

You can watch the full two-and-a-half-hour debate HERE and read a transcript in Hansard HERE.  Mr. Bridgen’s speech, which is at the beginning of the debate, is below.