LONDON (LifeSiteNews) — British MP Andrew Bridgen made a case in the U.K. Parliament that the experimental COVID-19 vaccines are the main cause of excess deaths occurring worldwide since 2021.
The U.K. Parliament held its first-ever debate on the current excess death crisis on October 20. The event was organized by Bridgen, who said that he had tried for nine months to set up the debate but had been refused 20 times before he finally received approval.
When Bridgen opened his speech, loud cheers from the crowd gathered at the Parliament’s public gallery could be heard. As expected, due to the controversial topic of the debate, only a few MPs showed up, and the 650-seat chamber was left mostly empty.
“We’ve experienced more excess deaths since July 21 [than] in the whole of 2020,” the former member of the Conservative Party said. “Unlike the pandemic, however, these deaths are not disproportionately of the old. In other words, the excessive deaths are striking down people in the prime of life.”
“But no one seems to care. I fear history will not judge this house kindly.”
“Numerous countries are currently gripped in a period of unexpected mortality, and no one wants to talk about it,” Bridgen stated.
He addressed the negative role of the mainstream media, stating that “the media have let the British public down badly.”
The British MP also criticized the U.K.’s Office for National Statistics (ONS) for presenting death statistics in a distorted way and failing to provide important information.
“Most of the important numbers have been kept hidden,” he stated. “Other data has been oddly presented in a distorted way, and concerned people seeking to highlight important findings and ask questions have found themselves inexplicably under attack.”
Evidence that COVID shots caused excess deaths
Bridgen presented several pieces of evidence that show an unexpectedly high death rate among all age groups since the rollout of the COVID-19 vaccines.
He cited the sharp increase in deaths in 15- to 19-year-old males in the U.K. during the second half of 2021 as a potential clue pointing toward the COVID shots’ deadly impact.
“The evidence is unequivocal,” he asserted. “There was a clear stepwise increase in mortality following the vaccine rollout. There was a reprieve in the winter of 2021/22 because there were fewer than expected respiratory deaths, but otherwise the excess has been incessantly at this high level.”
“Ambulance data for England provides another clue,” he continued. “Ambulance calls for life-threatening emergencies were run at a steady 2,000 calls per day until the vaccine rollout. From then, it rose to 2,500 daily, and calls have stayed at this level since.”
“Claims for personal independence payments for people who’ve developed a disability and cannot work rocketed with the vaccine rollout, and it’s continued to rise ever since,” Bridgen noted. “The same was seen in the USA; [it] also started with a vaccine rollout that not with COVID.”
“A study to determine the vaccination status of a sample of such claimants would be relatively quick and inexpensive to perform, yet nobody seems interested in ascertaining this vital information.”
The British MP further pointed to the alarming increase in heart disease since the COVID jab rollout.
“Studies from the Netherlands, Germany, and the whole world each showed that the highest mortality after vaccination was seen in the most heavily vaccinated regions. So, we need to ask: What are people dying of? Since 2022, there has been an 11 percent excess in ischemic heart disease deaths and a 16 percent excess in heart failure deaths. In the meantime, cancer deaths [are] only one percent above expected levels, which is further evidence this is not simply some other factor that affects deaths across the board, such as failing to account for an aging population or a failing NHS [National Health Service].”
“The surveillance systems designed to spot a safety problem have all flashed red, but no one is looking,” he said.
On the alleged effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines
Bridgen also countered the mainstream narrative that the side effects of COVID-19 injections were worth the risk because so many lives were saved.
He said that the idea the COVID shots prevented millions of deaths is “based on modeling carried out on the basis of flawed assumptions.”
“For example, claims of higher mortality in less vaccinated regions in the United States took no account of the fact that this was the case before the vaccines were rolled out,” he said.
Bridgen argued that even if you take the data from the safety studies of the vaccine manufacturers at face value, “we’re harming one in 800 people [who suffer from a serious side effect] to supposedly save one in 20,000.”
“This is madness,” he said.
COVID-19 vaccines not ‘safe and effective’
“These excess deaths are not due to an aging population because there are fewer deaths in the diseases of old age,” Bridgen argued. “These deaths are not an effect of COVID because they’ve happened in places where COVID had not reached, and they’re not due to low Statin prescriptions or undertreated hypertension as Chris Whitty would suggest because prescriptions did not change, and any effect would have taken many years and been very small.”
“The prime suspect must be something that was introduced to the population as a whole, something novel. The prime hypothesis must be the experimental COVID-19 vaccines.”
“The experimental COVID-19 vaccines are not safe, and they’re not effective,” Bridgen concluded.
Response by a government official
In a short reply, a junior government official representing the British Health Ministry acknowledged that there had been excess deaths, but she disagreed with Bridgen’s analysis.
Interestingly, she put part of the blame on the draconian lockdowns that the government ordered because they caused people to miss “routine Health Services over a two-year period.” Thus, there was “increased morbidity and mortality as a result of that.”
She also named a heavy flu season in 2022 as a potential reason for the excess mortality.
“There is conflicting data on this, and I’m not necessarily disagreeing with him,” she said. “But I think we need to have a robust conversation on this and not assume that one side necessarily has all the answers.”