‘We used to have a parliament that legislated for the people, I thought. That’s why I became a Member of Parliament for my home area. But now we have a parliament that inflicts laws upon the people. And, as I’ve said many times before, quoting the late great Tony Benn – who was a left-wing politician, but a great democrat – ‘When the people are scared of the politicians, that’s tyranny. But when the politicians are scared of the people, that’s democracy.’ And we need to get back to the latter.’
ANDREW Bridgen once again saying it as it is, this time in an interview with James Roguski. For those of you who have not heard of James, he is another unsung hero of our times and, from seeing him speak for the first time, a thoroughly decent man. Like Andrew, his ego doesn’t come into it. It’s what’s going on that matters to them, not themselves. How good to see.
Roguski is a painstaking researcher and substacker who has been tracking and reporting on the World Health Organization’s pandemic treaty plans for over a year. You can see all his articles and reports here. His is the ‘go to’ site to keep abreast of their shenanigans.
This interview however focuses on the censored issue of excess deaths on which Andrew Bridgen, as readers know, has taken an all but lone stand on in parliament. He is as ever on top of his brief (no notes, no autocue) and this interview gives him a chance to bring us up to date on how he is proceeding in his quest to get excess deaths debated in that Palace of Denial. His determination, patience, his knowledge and command of parliamentary procedure and attention to detail are all impressive. At the end we get a perfectly put summation of this ‘pantomime of a parliament’ and the part our MPs have played ‘in this vignette of deceit of the people’. He also alerts us to a treat in store – his bringing of Matt Hancock to court for defamation on March 1, and ends with a rallying cry we should all learn by heart.
You can watch it all here. Edited highlights follow.
JAMES ROGUSKI : This is James Roguski. Today is February 17th, 2024, and I’m here with Andrew Bridgen. I’m honoured to get into a discussion with him about excess deaths, not just in the United Kingdom, but around the world. And, when I looked back in my archives, back in April of 2023, I published an article, you know, prompted by the efforts that you were putting forth about all the details of the excess deaths in the United Kingdom. Andrew, when did you first start talking about this? And, you know, why do you think it is that nobody seems to want to listen to, you know, data and that data, you know, is our lives that are being lost around the world? When did you first start talking about this? And what do we need to do to get people to pay attention?
ANDREW BRIDGEN: Well, I first started talking about it over a year ago. And I applied in the UK Parliament as a sitting MP for an adjournment debate of 30 minutes, where I get to speak, and a minister gets to respond at the end of business on one of the sitting days. And I put in 26 weeks for that debate. Every time it came back unsuccessful in shuffle. I think your viewers, subscribers, they’ll see why I don’t bother playing the lottery – I’m just unlucky. And that took us round to September last year from January ’23. In the end, I produced a video last . . . a little mini documentary called Thalidomide – The True Story and, pointed out that the thalidomide scandal in Europe, the drug was withdrawn for safety concerns in 1961, but it was 1972 until the word thalidomide could be mentioned in the chamber of the House of Commons, some 12 years . . . 11 years later. I also found a ruling from the Strasbourg court where three judges sitting on the thalidomide case, in their judgement, ruled that Speakers of the House of Commons had deliberately suppressed all questions and debate on the thalidomide scandal for 11 years. And I sent that to the current Speaker of the House of Commons, Lindsay Hoyle. Mysteriously, within a week, a date was found for my adjournment debate. I got given the date of 20th October. I spoke to a pretty much empty chamber, but the public gallery was absolutely rammed, and 150 people couldn’t get in to watch that debate. And even through the bullet-proof glass, you heard the whole public gallery cheering. And I’ve never, ever heard that in our chamber before.
Following that, I had a presentation by world experts, who many of you will have heard of, so people like Robert Malone, Pierre Kory, Ryan Cole, Professor Angus Dalgleish, Steve Kirsch, came over to London to our Parliament, and we had a committee room. And I managed to get about 20-odd MPs to come and listen for a couple of hours to the evidence. Following that, they signed a petition backing me for a debate on excess deaths, and we were given – I think it was 16th of January 2024 – we got a 90-minute debate on excess deaths. My opening speech was 33 minutes presenting the case. I took five interventions, but that cut back speeches for backbenchers, other contributions, to three minutes, which is completely inappropriate.
We then returned to the committee for backbench business debates and demanded a three-hour debate in the chamber, in the main chamber, where an issue of this importance and this much concern to our constituents deserves to be. And 24 MPs have now signed to support demands for that debate. But despite having 50 per cent more support than I need to get the debate, almost a month after presenting all the forms to get the debate, no date has been listed for a hugely important debate. And I suspect it’s going to be pushed back after Easter now. They’re already making those sorts of noises. So, debate on excess deaths is being suppressed around the world. It’s being suppressed in, supposedly, the mother of all parliaments. And this is nothing new.
ROGUSKI: Has anyone given you a reason why they don’t want to deal with this discussion?
BRIDGEN: They haven’t. Apart from the fact that before I was thrown out of the Conservative Party for raising it, I had an hour and a half meeting with a party grandee, who at this stage will remain nameless. I explained all my concerns in January ’23 about the vaccine harms and NG163, which was, it would appear, could mean – could well be the euthanasia of – or euthanising of elderly, vulnerable out of hospital, to make way for the first wave of expected covid patients, back in 2020. And at the end of that meeting, the party representative said to me, ‘Andrew, there is currently no political appetite for your views on the vaccines. There may well be in 20 years time and you’re probably going to be proven right then. But in the meantime, you need to bear in mind that you’re taking on the most powerful vested interest in the world with all the personal risk for you which that will entail.’ And I said, ‘Well, I think this meeting’s over. I’m not going to be threatened.’
Bear in mind, at the time, the government were coming to vaccinate – asking authorisation to vaccinate children down to the age of six months. I’d spoken out on that issue on 13th December 2022. And although I was criticised and compared to some sort of conspiracy theorist, the interesting thing is that the government in the UK never did authorise those vaccines, the experimental vaccines, for children of that age group in the UK. So I’d already spoken out. Then I spoke out on, I think, March 17th, 2023, about the safety and efficacy of the booster programme. And I quoted only the government’s own UK Health Security Agency figures for the number needed to vaccinate. And, from memory, the healthy 40 to 49-year cohort, you had to vaccinate 994,000 to keep one person out of hospital. And with an adverse event – serious adverse event following vaccination of, on average, 1 in 800 – you would be putting over 1,100 people at risk of death or serious injury to keep one person out of hospital, with Covid-19. Well, that is neither a good spend of money or – well, it’s the science of madness.
And again, my debate was very sparsely attended, not reported in the media, but within two or three weeks, the government then restricted the booster programme to the over-75s and immunosuppressed. And quite honestly, James, they should certainly not be taking these experimental jabs. But that’s what the government’s response was, despite criticising me in the chamber and saying that the vaccines are safe and effective.
I (also) ambushed the Prime Minister (just) two weeks ago, Rishi Sunak, at Prime Minister’s Questions and again asked him to correct his statement that the experimental vaccines for Covid-19 were safe and effective. And he said that, unequivocally, they are safe. He didn’t say they were effective. And why anyone – even if they were safe, which they’re not – why anyone would want to take an ineffective experimental treatment is beyond me.
ROGUSKI: Well, you used the phrase that is a trigger word for me, so I want to give you the floor, but I’m going to have to go off on a little bit of a rant, because the phrase ‘safe and effective’ does not have any legal meaning. So whenever I hear someone say that, I know immediately they’re lying. What they’re supposed to say is, they’re supposed to say, ‘Well, here are the studies that we’ve found. Here are the potential benefits, and here are the potential risks, broken down by certain demographics.’ And so someone might be elderly. Someone might be, you know, a six-week-old baby. Someone might be pregnant. It’s not a one-word answer. And you’re exactly right. The word ‘effective’ can be negative. And so what happened in the studies – you don’t really even need to look at the data, you could read the clinical trial design and understand that it was flawed from the beginning. And the way they collected the data and what they looked for, you know, it was sad that a year and a half in, it became known that they didn’t test to see if it stopped transmission. Well, you can read that from the design of the study. So my analogy for what people should think about whenever they hear someone use the term ‘safe and effective’ is if you’re familiar with the idea of Russian roulette. You have a revolver with six chambers. You put a bullet in one, that’s 84 per cent safe. But that one bullet is very effective at killing people. Now, we’re not dodging bullets, but we’re dodging needles and unknown substances in those needles that, you know, the data is showing are associated with excess deaths. And so, I’ll give you back the floor.
BRIDGEN: I’m sometimes criticised in the press as being an anti-vaxxer. Well, James, I took two shots of AstraZeneca, and after the second shot, they really hurt me. Really hurt me. I had lots of immuno problems, allergies, which I’m still suffering from now. My body came out in hives. At 58, suddenly I began acutely suffering from hay fever. I speak to lots of people who also had the jabs suffering very similar(problems). If they had a bit of eczema they’re now covered in it. Psoriasis, they’re covered in it. And I’m absolutely convinced none of this has ever gone on the Yellow Card system over here. So it’s massively, massively underreported. They are not effective anyway. I caught Covid-19 before I was ever jabbed, so I would have actually had immunity. And I caught it afterwards – I got a dose of Omicron after I’d been jabbed. Once bitten, twice shy – or twice bitten, twice shy. I’m certainly not having any more of these experiments.
Evidence has come out now – I’ve seen the evidence, and I’ve reported it to the Prime Minister and the Department of Health in the UK last July – that the Pfizer vaccine that was approved was not the vaccine that was rolled out around the world. There was effectively a bait and switch operation. And that is easily demonstrated by the fact in the UK, when the mass vaccine rollout started, on day two of the mass vaccination, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency changed the guidelines and told everyone they’d got to stay at the vaccine centre for 15 minutes, and that was because of the risk of anaphylactic shock. They weren’t expecting anaphylactic shock. What’s clear is that the 22,000 doses that were tested in the Pfizer trials, that vaccine, that genetic material, was manufactured expensively and slowly, through a PCR machine. Whereas the vaccine that was rolled out around the world, was produced in Escherichia coli, and it’s the impurities in those vaccines from the Escherichia coli, because you’ve got the risk of all the genetic material from the Escherichia coli, which will also get wrapped up in lipid nanoparticles and be injected into your body. That’s why the adverse events that we’re seeing are being reported in the VAERS system in the US and the Yellow Card system in the UK, and their relationship to the adverse events reported in the Pfizer trial. And I’m told, by scientists who are analysing all the data, all major vaccine manufacturers did exactly the same. That they got approval for a vaccine and then did a bait and switch and gave the people something else. So effectively, the vaccines that we were given were completely untested. What could possibly go wrong?
ROGUSKI: You know, I am of the belief that I have a faith in the common men and women of the UK, of the United States, of the world. I give myself over to you as a volunteer to do what I can to help organise a push back against this ongoing, quite frankly, slaughter. What is it that someone such as myself could do to help you stop this insanity?
BRIDGEN: Well, I think we need to get the message out there that everyone – because this is a global problem, wherever the vaccine has been rolled out – and it’s interesting, I spoke in Stavanger in Norway at a conference, I think it was last May, and I met a professor from the University of Western Norway Institute of Science and Technology and he’d produced a paper where it analysed the excess deaths in countries – certainly, the European countries – and the vaccine uptake. The correlation was so tight that they came to a conclusion that for every 1 per cent of your population vaccinated in 2021, there was a corresponding 0.1 per cent increase in mortality in 2022. And I asked him, ‘Are you going to get this peer-reviewed?’ And he laughed at me and said, ‘You must be joking,’ he said, ‘my maths is completely correct, but anyone who peer-reviews this will get defunded, and so they’re not going to do it.’
That’s the state we’ve got to, where the science has been bought and it’s not only on the issue of vaccines, clearly, the level of intimidation. But ultimately, there’s a lot of elections in the UK, around the world and in the US in the next 12 months. People have got to lobby very hard, get their friends, their relatives, anyone who’s concerned, to lobby their elected representatives. And they’ve got to be talking and debating – not just in my parliament but in other parliaments around the world – on this issue of excess deaths. I don’t know if you saw what happened in Australia. Some very brave senators stood up and put a motion forward in the upper house of the Australian Parliament to have a debate on excess deaths. Instead, they had a debate on whether they should have a debate on excess deaths. And the majority of senators voted they shouldn’t have a debate on excess deaths. So I mean, that is a travesty of an open and transparent democracy and a suppression, clearly, a huge suppression of debate.
ROGUSKI: If I may ask you, are you standing as an independent?
ANDREW BRIDGEN: I am, yes, I’m going to stand as an independent. I’m not standing for the Conservative Party. They expelled me permanently for speaking out. Accused me of anti-Semitism, for quoting, for retweeting a tweet from a Jewish scientist from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. That’s pretty spurious, I would say.
ROGUSKI: I’m familiar with the absurdity that you endured.
BRIDGEN: I’ve actually got Matt Hancock in court on 1st March, because he tweeted about it and didn’t have privilege on that outside the chamber, and I’m taking him for defamation. He’s trying to strike out my application, and we’ll be in the Royal Courts of Justice on 1st March, and I’m very hopeful that justice will begin to be done. If you’re in the UK and you want to donate to my re-election campaign, that would be helpful. I’ve got a new website coming out, probably in a week’s time. And if you want to come and volunteer to come and help deliver some leaflets, that would be much appreciated as well.
Ultimately, I’m just one elected Member of Parliament . . . the chamber of the House of Commons is not going to come to the rescue of the people of my country or the world. It’s far too committed and corrupted. We used to have a parliament that legislated for the people, I thought. That’s why I became a Member of Parliament for my home area. But now we have a parliament that inflicts laws upon the people. And, as I’ve said many times before, quoting the late great Tony Benn – who was a left-wing politician, but a great democrat – ‘When the people are scared of the politicians, that’s tyranny. But when the politicians are scared of the people, that’s democracy.’ And we need to get back to the latter.
If the politicians aren’t scared of the people in an election year, then they’re never going to be scared. But all I’ll say is, in my parliament, there’s so many people, Members of Parliament, are standing down. And I can’t help but feel, James, they’ve played their part in that pantomime of a parliament that we have. They’ve played their part in this vignette of deceit of the people. And now they want to leave the stage before we get to the end, because they know that’s the death scene. We know where they are, and there won’t be anywhere to hide when this breaks – and it will break. And I would say that, you know, this . . . this is the biggest medical scandal in world history. The death toll will run to millions. And people are going to have to be held to account. The penalties are going to have to be very, very severe, to regain any form of trust in science, our medical institutions and our democracy. It’s a crime against humanity.
ROGUSKI: Any final words to the people of the UK and to the people of the world as to what we all can do to help you [unclear] the word?
ANDREW BRIDGEN: You are being threatened. Our democracy is being threatened on all fronts. We’ve got to deal with the excess deaths. The vaccines need to be withdrawn while we have a full inquiry as to who’s responsible. Our democracy is under threat from the WHO, these two instruments. It’s the biggest power grab in history by an unelected, unaccountable, non-taxpaying, diplomatically immune from prosecution. There’s absolutely no way of putting the WHO in court to rectify anything they can do. There’s no laws that allow you to do that. And for our democracies to consider handing the powers that they’re asking for under these two instruments to this body, which is mired in scandal, is tantamount to treason, as far as I can see.
It would be a betrayal of the trust placed in us as elected representatives. I will never vote for any of that. And people need to be aware that would change the relationship between the citizen and the state irrevocably. We can’t allow this to happen. This is a worldwide problem. And every nation needs to resist. I would say, ‘Just say no.’
The globalists behind all of this, they need the compliance of the masses, and the masses really don’t understand their power. The biggest thing you can say – it’s a small word – but if enough of us say ‘NO,’ it’s going to have a huge volume. And finally, I’d say that when this is over, James – and it . . . I promise you it will be over – we will have a chance to build a better society. Something better than we had before.
