Covid-19: Response and Excess Deaths

Bridgen argues that vaccine safety and efficacy were overstated by the government and media. He cites Pfizer's contract with Brazil/South Africa stating adverse effects are not known, and raises concerns about midazolam's role in treatment guidelines causing respiratory issues for patients. He also mentions a rise in emergency ambulance calls post-vaccine roll-out, suggesting potential links to vaccine side effects.

No, no, we will have to clear the Gallery if clapping continues; I will order it, if necessary.

Chope reiterated his request that the Government take effective action to ensure proper compensation for those negatively affected by covid-19 vaccines. He highlighted that there are over 9,000 claims and nearly half have not been resolved within a reasonable timeframe. Chope also discussed the postponement of module 4 in the public inquiry and the issue with Evusheld availability for immunocompromised individuals.

Hollobone agreed that the slowness of decision-making regarding therapeutics stands in contrast to the rapid decisions taken on vaccines initially, emphasising the difficulties faced by immunosuppressed individuals.

Hobhouse acknowledged that there is always a balance between benefits and risks but suggested that the judgment was made in favour of vaccine distribution due to the overwhelming benefit. She also pointed out that absolute certainty regarding a link between vaccines and excess deaths needs further proof.

Mullan agreed with Hobhouse, emphasising that medical interventions inherently carry risks but ultimately save more lives than they take, illustrating this with antibiotics causing anaphylactic reactions.

Kruger questioned the Government's position on excess deaths and suggested that acknowledging a risk from vaccines could help explain these deaths. He pointed out that while the benefits may outweigh risks, there is an inherent risk associated with vaccines.

Bridgen explained the link between vaccine-induced spike protein production and blood clots leading to heart attacks, strokes, or pulmonary embolisms. He argued for recognition of this risk.

Warned the House about clapping in the Gallery and threatened to clear it if it happens again.

Clarified the difference between prophylaxis and anaphylaxis, arguing that the vaccine's side effects are systemic and chronic rather than acute allergic reactions.

Provided an analogy of ibuprofen to highlight long-term risks associated with medication generally considered safe, questioning the scientific understanding presented by some speakers.

Suggested that there might be more correlation than causation in reported vaccine side effects and called for further research to determine the truth behind these claims.

Stringer emphasised that the pandemic response was politicized, leading to a failure in addressing both economic damage and public health concerns. He criticised the lack of parliamentary oversight during lockdowns and the media's uncritical approach towards government policies. Additionally, he expressed doubt about the Hallett inquiry's value due to its potential costs and lengthy duration.

Metcalfe defended the initial response to the pandemic, arguing that it was necessary at the time to protect hospitals from being overwhelmed by respiratory patients. He acknowledged potential mistakes in hindsight but maintained that rapid action was essential.

Bridgen questioned the effectiveness of inquiries, citing the Post Office Horizon inquiry as an example where justice seemed elusive. He suggested that sub-postmasters might consider private prosecutions due to dissatisfaction with official inquiries.

Mullan defended the reliability of death certificates, stating that clinicians make informed judgments on causes of death. He refuted claims of a conspiracy among doctors in misreporting deaths.

Pays tribute to all Members who have spoken, acknowledges leadership and work done by various colleagues, disagrees with the suggestion that some fishy business was going on in how the ONS calculates excess deaths. He highlights significant evidence of other factors contributing to excess deaths, particularly concerning heart health. Discusses concerns about the regulatory system overseeing medical treatments and vaccines, highlighting deficiencies in the MHRA's operation. Questions whether indemnities against civil action still apply if it transpires that companies misled the Government and public. Raises questions about the inquiry's focus and calls for more evidence on vaccine safety and efficacy.

Discussed the need for a reasoned and mature approach to issues involving gender identity development services, raised concerns about correlation versus causation in relation to vaccine effects, expressed disappointment over the delay of module 4 of an inquiry, and emphasised the importance of maintaining consistent methodology in assessing excess deaths.

Addressed concerns about the timeline of vaccine trials by explaining that while typical trials take a long time to recruit patients, the recent vaccine trial achieved similar results in a shorter timeframe due to rapid recruitment. He also acknowledged the time pressure involved in producing a vaccine quickly to mitigate economic impacts.

Congratulates the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire on securing the debate, thanks Members who contributed, defines 'excess deaths' as a key statistic tracked by Governments of all political persuasions, emphasises that vaccines played a massive role in overcoming worst fears of covid-19 and returning to normality, acknowledges side effects but calls for investigations without scaring people away from boosters, supports the right of clinically vulnerable communities to access drugs like Evusheld and Evusheld 2 so they can regain freedoms, stresses the need to fight back against figures on excess deaths through informed measures about health and wellbeing, advocates an NHS rooted in communities with new technologies for diagnosis and treatment, and emphasises that the covid-19 vaccine is the best way of protecting oneself and loved ones from a terrible virus.

Acknowledges the importance of a measured debate on vaccines and pandemic management, recognises that excess deaths occurred before and during the pandemic but have been reducing. Highlights the government's efforts to address issues such as flu vaccine delays, cardiovascular disease deaths, and the rollout of digital health checks and workplace cardiovascular checks. Emphasises the need for evidence from the inquiry regarding future pandemics and the importance of the covid vaccination in lowering mortality rates. Mentions the ongoing assessment of Evusheld’s effectiveness against omicron variant. Acknowledges no vaccine is completely risk-free, but expresses confidence in monitoring systems like the MHRA's yellow card system. Discusses the vaccine damage payment scheme and research into future types of vaccines.

Andrew Bridgen emphasised that the current stance on vaccine safety is causing significant harm and deaths. He called for transparency from the Government in releasing data to address these concerns thoroughly.