Andrew Bridgen Bravely Confronts Excess Death Statistics in UK Hearing

The UK Parliament debated excess death trends on Tuesday, Jan 16. Andrew Bridgen, a member of the British Parliament with a degree in biological sciences, led the discussion and described the alarming numbers of excess deaths in Britain since the beginning of the pandemic. Other parliament members pushed back on the notion that the mRNA vaccines could have caused the trend but offered no reasonable alternatives to describe the continued increase in excess deaths. A couple of the parliament members suggested COVID-19, cardiovascular problems, and potentially lockdown protocols could contribute to the statistic. 

Bridgen explained the concerning excess death numbers. He said, “From 2010 to 2019, annual death rates in England and Wales oscillated between 484,000 and 542,000. In 2020, there were 607,000 deaths, which is 65,000 more than the maximum figure in 2018. In 2021, there were 586,000 deaths, which is 44,000 more than the 2018 figure. After such a rise, there should be a significant deficit. In fact, our most vulnerable and elderly, who might have lived a while longer, were sadly taken from us early. In 2022, there were 577,000 deaths in England and Wales, and in 2023 there were 581,000. That is a huge rise when a significant deficit would, and should, have been expected. The deficit has been filled not with the extremely old and vulnerable but has been filled—and then some—with many, many others who are often young or in the prime of their lives.”

There is no basis for the claim that COVID-19 is the cause of continued excess mortality in 2023, two years after the vaccine rollout. If there were data to support that claim, it would certainly indicate the vaccines were not the least bit effective in preventing death, much less hospitalization. The media has walked back initial claims that the vaccines would prevent transmission by saying the purpose of the vaccine program was to minimize severe outcomes from COVID-19 infection. If the claim were true, that would lead to several other necessary inquiries, such as, why did the medical establishment push for mandates for an ineffective product?

Bridgen, in his presentation, stated, “Worst of all, we bypassed the procedures, protocols and science to inflict on a healthy population a brand new and untested product that had never before been used outside clinical trials, nevermind approved. There was no long-term safety data. The safety analysis in the trials was eight weeks, and then the control group was vaccinated. There was no age stratification for recipients of an experimental medication for an illness with an average mortality age of 82. There was no liability under any circumstances for the manufacturers of those experimental treatments. Furthermore, based on the science known at the time, there were good reasons for thinking that those products might be harmful.”

Bridgen brings up an important point that is often overlooked in this discussion. The average age of mortality for COVID-19 infection is 82 years old, which is higher than the life expectancy of 80.9 in the UK and 77.28 in the USA. If the intent was not to stop transmission, then why was the vaccine pushed onto all age groups? Young, healthy individuals were encouraged or shamed into taking the vaccine for the good of everyone else. A vaccine that doesn’t prevent transmission can only protect the individual taking the vaccine. Asking children to take an experimental medical intervention to protect against a virus that inflicts virtually no harm to their age group and health status is maddening. 

Some members of parliament tried to explain the excess deaths as being part of an aging population or just a continued trend of the COVID-19 virus causing severe outcomes. Bridgen has the statistics and info to debunk this theory. He said, “Who is actually dying now? It is not the old and frail, as it was with COVID; in fact, deaths from dementia, a key benchmark of elderly deaths, have been in deficit ever since COVID, as we would expect after a period of high mortality. Instead, particularly for cardiovascular deaths, there has been incessant week-on-week excess mortality for months and months in the young and middle-aged. Every age group is affected, but the 50 to 64 age group has had it worst—I declare an interest. They were struck with 12% more deaths than usual in 2022 and 13% more in 2023, and at least five in six of those deaths this year had nothing to do with COVID whatsoever.”

The COVID-19 virus death rate for individuals under 50 is less than five-hundredths of a percent, according to a HighWire graphic from the first year of the pandemic – when the severity of outcomes was at the highest rate. When excess deaths are spread across all age groups, it cannot be explained by the COVID-19 virus. Meanwhile, in the USA, a recent Wall Street Journal article headline read, “Cancer is Striking More Young People, and Doctors are Alarmed and Baffled.”

The data in the article focused only on pre-pandemic cancer rates. As Tracy Beanz and Michelle Edwards pointed out in an article for The HighWire, this is an attempt to create a different discussion and narrative surrounding increasing cancer rates. Despite that, the rates of cancer have been growing even more rapidly since the rollout of the mRNA vaccines. Beanz and Edwards also point out that Dr. Cercek, from the WSJ article, has been paid $22,000 in general payments and $1.5 million in research funding. This kind of money prevents a researcher from scrutinizing the hand that feeds and incentivizes support regardless of the truth.

One of the parliamentary members who pushed back on the mRNA vaccines having any relationship with excess deaths is Maria Caulfield, the Under-Secretary for the Department of Health and Social Care. She stated, “There are also excess deaths from cardiovascular diseases; that was pointed out during the debate. The figure is 6% higher than expected in England, with almost 13,500 excess deaths attributed to cardiovascular disease. The lockdown did have an impact on that. We know that people were not getting their cholesterol tested or their blood pressure checked and were still smoking. Antihypertensives and statins were not being prescribed.” 

A public FOIA request asked the DHSC for the evidence the agency used to promote vaccinations. The response only stated, “DHSC does not hold the information you requested.” Another public FOIA request asked for evidence that supports Caulfield’s claims about the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine. The response indicated that the “appropriate limit for the DHSC is set at £600, which represents the cost of one person spending 24 working hours determining whether we hold the information.” The agency determined that the cost of retrieving and reviewing these documents (if they have them) would exceed the limit. Therefore, they did not fulfill the request. 

Interestingly, the health agency states that one person requires 24 hours of work to determine if they have the information to back up the claims that the vaccine is safe and effective. This is essentially the equivalent of the CDC for the UK. The CDC cites studies that rely upon the first week of v-safe data. By court order, the CDC is now required to release the full V-safe data that includes the “free-text” information on side effects from individuals who took the vaccine. This data will also include more than the one week the CDC used in their studies to indicate that mRNA shots are safe and effective. 

Maria Caulfield can find other explanations for the excess mortality and takes issue with any allegations of the vaccine causing these extra deaths. Among Caulfield’s financial interest disclosures is a £10,000 donation from Jonathan Ball who works for Pfizer in the UK. That may provide some explanation for her protest. 

Bridgen provided a detailed review of the data before the other parliament members provided their rebukes. Bridgen stated “It is clear that viral waves were not impacted by lockdowns, and it is increasingly clear that they were not impacted by the jabs either. People have denied that viral waves peak naturally at predictable times of year, but how much longer can that be denied? The lockdowns did not cause deaths to decline from their peak in April 2020 because they also peaked and fell in April 2022 and March 2023 without lockdowns. Indeed, 2020 infections were already falling before the lockdowns were even started.”

He also stated that the Omicron strain was far less deadly, so the notion that COVID-19 was still causing excess deaths in 2022 and 2023 is misguided. He went on to say that the vaccines should have been pulled off the market given the information they are aware of and the level of death and adverse effects. He stated, “I do not have time to discuss the fact that the jab was not pulled when it became clear that an incredible one in 800 doses administered led to serious adverse events and consequences. The rotavirus vaccine was pulled entirely after causing an adverse event rate of one in 10,000. For the 2009 swine flu vaccine, one in 35,000 was harmed, and it was then pulled from the market. The COVID jab is still being pushed and it is seriously harming people, inevitably at a much higher rate than one in 800, because most people are being exposed to multiple doses of the vaccine, with the same adverse event risk at each dose.”

Meanwhile, several parliament members alluded that cardiovascular death is not attributable to the COVID-19 vaccines. Caulfield did provide some theories related to lockdowns, but that doesn’t explain the current trend that extends through 2023. The American Heart Association reported an increase in cardiovascular disease from COVID-19 in 2020, the first year of the pandemic. This is not proof that COVID-19 has caused excess cardiovascular deaths to this day. On the contrary, the same side effects people receive from the virus have been reported as side effects from the vaccine. Despite this, there is a flawed meta-analysis that concluded there is no link between COVID-19 vaccinations and all-cause mortality despite finding a statistically significant increase in cardiac-related deaths. This was published by Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics, owned by Ronald Ellis, a biotech and biopharma consultant. 

While the UK is debating the causes of excess mortality, CNN has published a new report. Within the report, they state, “The new American Cancer Society report projects that there will be about 2 million new cancer cases in the United States this year, equivalent to more than 5,000 diagnoses each day. It’s also projected that there will be about 600,000 cancer deaths in 2024.” The CNN headline states that doctors are “searching for answers.” There is not a single mention of the mass experimental vaccination event of 2021 as a potential cause. The public can only hope the baffled doctors and scientists keep searching long enough to really consider the most likely cause of excess mortality and cancer diagnoses.