If you have nothing to hide...
The Debate on Trends in Excess Deaths in Westminster Hall: Tuesday 16th January 2024
Another day, another debate on excess deaths in Parliament. Another journey to London, this time made far more expensive by the necessity to travel with commuters in order to have a chance of getting a seat in the very small room set aside for the debate in Westminster Hall. Another futile attempt to interest my MP in the small matter of the inexorable rise in excess deaths across the UK and one more automated email reply to add to my ever growing collection from Mr. Zeichner. Another day's pay lost; but not for him. Perhaps I should bill him for acting as a subcontractor on his behalf. It's beginning to feel that way. Maybe I should be offered the chance to speak at the next debate since Daniel doesn't seem to want to do the job. Certainly, there has to be a 'next one' as this debate is not over, not by a long shot.
On the plus side, there were more MP's present than attended the last debate in October. I counted 26 in all, although it was quite hard to see from where I was sitting, as a few were obscured by their colleagues. There were not many more than that though, if I did miss some. Certainly not more than 30. An improvement, but still a woeful number out of the 650 who could have showed up. Perhaps they all decided Davos was a location more conducive to their well being at this time of year. Apparently all MP's got an invitation from the World Economic Forum to attend the jamboree in Switzerland from the 15th to the 19th January. Not surprisingly, Mr. Bridgen rejected his invitation, but I do wonder where Mr Starmer decided to go this week. He has quite clearly stated his preference for Davos over Westminster in the past, so maybe he took Klaus Schwab up on the offer. Maybe that's where Mr Zeichner went too, after deciding it would be a more productive use of his time.
On the minus side, holding such an important debate in such a small room instead of the main chamber of the House of Commons, and then limiting the time available to one and a half hours instead of three, was clearly ridiculously stupid. At least that is the kindest interpretation I can put on the decision to do this. A more cynical one would be that this was yet another attempt to shut down discussion of the whole issue by severely limiting the numbers who could attend, whether the public or their erstwhile representatives. Coming in the aftermath of the news that the vaccine module of the farcical Covid inquiry currently chomping its way through millions of pounds of taxpayers' money has been postponed until at least after the next election, and probably indefinitely, it would really not surprise me if this was the case.
Covid inquiry postpones vaccine investigation
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-67935037
Then there was also the minor issue of the unwanted and unusual audience participation that occurred last October. I can imagine there was a strong desire amongst those with power in Parliament to avoid a repeat performance. Limiting the number of members of the public to just 20 will have done much to ensure we behaved ourselves. It was certainly made clear to us before we entered that any interruption of any description from us would lead to our immediate ejection. As Mr Bridgen said in his opening speech, there were enough signatures on the petition that led to this debate to get the full three hours in the main chamber. He viewed it as an insult that this didn't happen, and I agree with him.
Mr. Bridgen spoke for about half an hour, and laid out his case well. The whole debate can be seen here:
https://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/664b688c-cf82-4280-8d3d-8a2169c78d11
It was very hard to resist the urge to applaud him as he finished, and I could see I was not the only one who had a struggle with that. The points he raised were never really properly addressed by those who opposed him, chiefly Mr. George Howarth, Labour MP for Knowsley and the Opposition spokeswoman, Abena Oppong Asare, MP for Erith and Thamesmead. It seems Mr. Howarth, who bears such a strong resemblance to Roland Rat that should he ever lose his seat I'm sure he could embark on a new career as that sock puppet's stunt double, was one of the few MPs who had attended the event hosted by Mr. Bridgen on the 4th December last year. At that event, numerous well qualified and credentialed experts from the UK and the US were invited to speak about what the data showed concerning the harms done by the Covid vaccination programme.
How the event on the 4th December was promoted:
Malone, McCullough, Kory, Cole, Martin, Kirsch, Yeadon, Dalgleish Join Bridgen In U.K. Parliament
"Tomorrow, I'm hosting a historic meeting in Parliament at which doctors and analysts will give expert testimony on the pandemic and its consequences.
All MPs & Lords have been formally invited. Ask your MP to attend using the template below
http://SaveOurSovereignty.co.uk
https://twitter.com/ABridgen/status/1731246890853773719
Mr Howarth's considered view regarding this particular event was that he had been treated to evidence that was polemical, not scientific, by people he referred to as “in inverted commas, experts”. So called experts. Mr Howarth may not know it, but Dr McCullough is one of the world's leading cardiologists, Professor Dalgleish of St. George's Hospital, University of London is a leading figure in the treatment of cancer and Dr Malone holds the patents for the mRNA biotechnology platforms that were used for the Covid “vaccines”. If those credentials aren't good enough for him, one wonders what exactly would do. A message from God perhaps.
“Professor Angus Dalgleish studied medicine at University College London where he obtained an MBBS and a BSc in Anatomy. He is a Fellow of The Royal College of Physicians of the UK and Australia, Royal College of Pathologists and The Academy of Medical Scientists. … he was appointed to the Foundation Chair in Oncology at St. George’s University of London in 1991.”
https://cancercentrelondon.co.uk/consultant/professor-angus-dalgleish/
Instead, Mr. Howarth brought up Dr. Andrew Wakefield, who as far as I am aware was not present on the 4th December, and spoke about misinformation regarding the MMR vaccines. In my view it was a blatant attempt at distraction from the issue at hand. He also preferred to rely on information from the ONS, the same ONS that Mr Bridgen had pointed out last October was using doubtful methodology, as determined by its own regulator. The third backbench MP to speak was Neale Hanvey, MP for Kircaldy and Cowdenbeath, one time member of the SNP but now leader of the Alba party in the Commons. He is someone who has been involved in the management and delivery of clinical trials for decades, so has some idea how serious the situation is. His concern also demonstrates that this is an issue that cuts across party lines, or at least it should. He quite rightly pushed back against the assertion that the people presenting their evidence on the 4th December were not really experts in their field, and were in fact spreaders of misinformation who had all been debunked. Mr Howarth's intervention, asking him if he had actually checked their backgrounds was laughable, since Mr Howarth clearly hadn't taken his own advice.
Most of the back bench MPs used part of their allotted three minutes of speaking time to express their concerns regarding excess deaths, but they did not really seem to address the things Mr. Bridgen had said directly. There seemed to be a general agreement that the NHS should never again be subverted by one disease, and there also seemed to be general agreement that a full debate in the main chamber was needed when Miriam Cates MP raised this issue. A few MPs from all sides of the political spectrum indicated they thought the Covid inquiry is not fit for purpose, and is avoiding precisely those questions that need to be addressed the most, focussing instead on who said what on Whatsapp to whom. Listening to them I had the impression most felt lockdowns were not a policy that should ever again be implemented. It was all very heartening on the face of it, but I wonder just how much say any of them will really have when push comes to shove. Should they still be in Parliament if, or when, such a time comes again, I fear they will suffer a very rude awakening regarding the actual limits of their power.
The clear exception to this view of lockdowns and the Covid Inquiry seemed to be Ms Abena Oppong Asare. I have seen some accuse her of hijacking the proceedings in order to promote the Labour party, as she spoke for a full ten minutes, and in essence it was little more than a party political broadcast on their behalf. However, according to the way the system operates in Westminster, this was actually her right as the Opposition representative. What was of concern was that she refused all interventions from MPs who wished to ask her questions regarding the points she was making. After three such refusals, one raised a point of order, which seemed to be the only way to get her to shut up for even a bit, and pointed out that since she had ten minutes to speak, as opposed to the three minutes each allotted to the back benchers, she had more than enough time to allow their questions and to respond to them.
This plea slid off her as if she were made of Teflon, and she remained impervious to further attempts by back benchers to raise questions. It actually became quite comical by the end. However, I got the impression she was doing this in order to firstly waste time and secondly, because she simply did not know anything about the topic she had been assigned to talk about, so did not want to be asked any questions, which is not quite such a laughing matter. She spoke like an automaton, sounding like she was reading a script prepared for her by someone else, a script that she was not particularly familiar with. I thought she was trying to close down debate as much as possible rather than engage in it. Either that or she was trying to bore us to death. Perhaps her speaking style could be added to the ever growing list of causes of 'dying suddenly'.
Ms Oppong Asare said linking the rise in excess deaths to the “vaccine” was misinformation, and claimed the primary cause was actually Covid. Dr. Aseem Malhotra was sitting in the row in front of me, and I saw him shake his head at this. Obviously that was just because he is a charlatan with fake credentials who doesn't know anything about medicine; not in the way Ms Oppong Asare does. I don't know about anyone else, but I always look to the Labour front bench when it comes to seeking advice regarding my health. Those guys really know what they are talking about. Laughably, she said support for the Covid inquiry was important so that the lessons could be learned, which she thought critical, so mistakes made in the past would not be made again. All very laudable, but she spent her ten minutes outlining precisely why her party in government will repeat every single one of those mistakes ad nauseam, until none of us are left standing.
Andrew Bridgen, Dr Clare Craig and Dr Aseem Malhotra in Westminster Hall
The Labour party in 2020 failed to do its job as HM Opposition in my view. The only “opposition” they posed to the greatest theft of UK citizens' civil liberties and money (where do you think all that dosh for furlough and useless PPE etc. came from?) ever seen was to complain the government did not lockdown sooner, for longer and more strictly. If they'd had their way, we'd probably still be in lockdown now, and forcibly jabbed to the hilt. So I was not really surprised the Labour spokeswoman was so supportive of the Covid inquiry, since it has taken exactly the same view as the Labour party, even before any witness had ever spoken to it. What a happy coincidence for Labour. They will be “proven” to have been right all along. No wonder the vaccine module has been postponed. To be fair, the government minister who responded, Maria Caulfield, was not much better, although she did at least allow MPs to ask her questions during the course of her speech. She blamed the rise in excess deaths on flu and strep infections, and claimed lessons had been learned. Let's just say I'll believe that when I see it.
Two things Mr. Bridgen said really struck me. The first was that the impact of lockdowns on QALYs (quality-adjusted life year) was not considered in the decision making process in 2020. The government ignored QUALYs even though it's own assessment was that one million (one million!) QALYs would be lost because of lockdowns. QALYs were ignored again when it came to the roll out of the vaccination programme to children, when despite the initial refusal of the JCVI (Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation) to recommend injecting under 15's in September 2021, the roll out went ahead. Boris Johnson tried to raise this at the Covid inquiry, but Hugo Keith KC, the senior lawyer, shut him down, saying he didn't want to get into that. I bet he didn't.
“The quality-adjusted life year (QALY) is a generic measure of disease burden, including both the quality and the quantity of life lived. It is used in economic evaluation to assess the value of medical interventions. One QALY equates to one year in perfect health. QALY scores range from 1 (perfect health) to 0 (dead). QALYs can be used to inform health insurance coverage determinations, treatment decisions, to evaluate programs, and to set priorities for future programs.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality-adjusted_life_year
The second was the failure of the UKHSA (UK Health and Security Agency) to release the record level data on dosage dates and deaths to UK medical professionals. Dr Clare Craig, co chair of the HART group, has been asking for it so it can be analysed, and getting nowhere.
This data would sort out the issue once and for all.
The UKHSA admits it has it.
The MHRA, the so-called regulator that now sees its mission as a facilitator of the pharmaceutical industry according to the CEO Dr. June Raine DBE, admits that all this data has been released to Pfizer, Astra Zeneca and Moderna.
Yet the MHRA claims it cannot anonymise the data for release to the public.
The Information Commissioner's Office has told Dr Craig that it will be another 6 months at least before a case officer is assigned to look into this issue.
These organisations and companies have made vast profits at our expense and very likely caused significant harm and death to millions of people worldwide, but they get to see our health data and we don't!
Does anything about all that strike you as a little odd?
And I'm supposed to believe there is nothing to see, and nothing to hide. Everything is above board and hunky dory in Cloud Cuckoo Land. Sure it is.
Even better, Pfizer purchases a biotechnology company that specialises in cancer medicines for more than its apparent worth. I'm sure that has nothing to do with the suspected link between these “vaccines” and the sudden rise in turbo cancers, an expression I’d never heard before 2021. I'm sure Pfizer didn't see a signal in all that data the MHRA so kindly gave them, that led them to believe the market for cancer medication might become even more lucrative in the future than it currently is now.
“Merck & Co. had previously tried to buy Seagen, which is worth more than $30 billion, but the deal fell through.”
https://www.investopedia.com/pfizer-seagen-merger-7152328
“Pfizer Completes Acquisition of Seagen
Thursday, December 14, 2023
NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- Pfizer Inc. (NYSE: PFE) today announced the successful completion of its acquisition of Seagen Inc. (NASDAQ: SGEN), a global biotechnology company that discovers, develops and commercializes transformative cancer medicines. Pfizer completed its acquisition of all outstanding common stock of Seagen for $229 in cash per share, for a total enterprise value of approximately $43 billion.”
https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-detail/pfizer-completes-acquisition-seagen
Ms Caulfield said at the end of her speech that her door “is always open”. Perhaps we should take her at her word. Perhaps we should let her know that we would like to see this data released and properly analysed by those qualified to do so, in the public interest. You know, just to put our minds at rest. Because after all, I'm sure everything is above board really; so what is the problem with doing that, right? As those who don't worry about the ever encroaching surveillance of our once free country so often say: if you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear.
Maria Caulfield MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Minister for Women) and Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Minister for Mental Health and Women’s Health Strategy) can be contacted here:
https://www.mariacaulfield.co.uk/contact
Some relevant links:
https://www.hartgroup.org/news/
Is it worth vaccinating children?
It sounds cruel — but a small number of deaths would be worth it
BY TOM CHIVERS
https://unherd.com/2022/01/is-it-worth-vaccinating-children/
On the Covid Inquiry:
“This is the independent public inquiry set up to examine the UK’s response to and impact of the Covid-19 pandemic, and learn lessons for the future. The Inquiry is Chaired by Baroness Heather Hallett, a former Court of Appeal judge.
https://covid19.public-inquiry.uk/about/
“More and more, it looks as if this inquiry, set up by the Blob, staffed and run by the Blob, sees its job as blaming the politicians and excusing the Blob.”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/12/10/rishi-sunak-covid-inquiry-evidence-cover-up/
Concerning the effect of lockdowns on disease and death:
"Abstract
I explore the association between the severity of lockdown policies in the first half of 2020 and mortality rates. Using two indices from the Blavatnik Centre’s COVID-19 policy measures and comparing weekly mortality rates from 24 European countries in the first halves of 2017–2020, addressing policy endogeneity in two different ways, and taking timing into account, I find no clear association between lockdown policies and mortality development.”
https://academic.oup.com/cesifo/article/67/3/318/6199605
"Conclusions Inferences on effects of NPIs are non-robust and highly sensitive to model specification. Claimed benefits of lockdown appear grossly exaggerated.”
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.22.20160341v3
“Conclusions: While small benefits cannot be excluded, we do not find significant benefits on case growth of more restrictive NPIs. Similar reductions in case growth may be achievable with less-restrictive interventions.”