Parliament Square, on an unseasonably warm late October afternoon, three of us were on the ‘Guest List’ to attend the Parliamentary debate on holding a public inquiry into COVID-19 vaccine safety. Many others had been queuing for the last of the 18 seats available in the Public Gallery but for a moment were told of some kind of ‘incident on the estate’ and that Parliament had been locked down. I pressed for more details on this and that problem instantly vanished with now the security officers just having a ‘feeling that there were the wrong kind of people in the queue.’ It is possible that they had heard that a lot of those lobbying outside Parliament were saying they would try to attend the debate.
We certainly had not encouraged this as we knew the debating chamber to be used had very limited public viewing spaces. In the end, one of my colleagues, Anthony Webber, was asked by security to pick just eight people who would be allowed to enter, which was an unenviable task bearing in mind there were up to two hundred people hoping to gain entry.
By the time we had cleared security, just after the start of the debate, Conservative MP and Petitions Committee member Elliot Colburn (pictured above) was already throwing his toys out of the pram. As the petitioner, I had been told, and expected, that as the Petitions Committee member allocated to the task of presenting the petition, he would at least present a summary of the main points of my case before launching into his own opinions.
“A waste of taxpayers money!” he exclaimed. ”Climate change denial, moon landing denial and so on, I am inclined to ignore it completely.”
I wondered if ‘Holocaust Denial’ could also have been on his list. The practice of bringing such irrelevant issues into the discussion is known as ‘mis-association’, a proactive stance of putting out obvious idiocy commingled with ideas they want to suppress to try to discredit the whole.
“I saw a group of anti-vax protesters outside the House today, holding up signs saying, “Vaccines kill,” and, “Would you not believe that pharmaceutical companies kill? “
“The lady doth protest too much, methinks.” This was my impression from Colburn. All I had asked for was an inquiry into COVID-19 vaccine safety, as might be the case with any other new technology being unleashed upon the mass population. At no point, unlike many well respected health professionals and scientists, had I called for the immediate suspension of the COVID-19 vaccination program. Colburn’s outbursts came across as a kneejerk reaction to any criticism of any Government policy. Of course he’s entitled to his opinions, but as the member of the Petitions Committee chosen to read the ‘Prayer of the petition’ and move the motion of the petition as representative of those in favour of it, it was an abuse of his position and it broke Parliamentary guidelines to taint the whole debate in this manner.
His behaviour begs two questions. Firstly, how can he say this when the U.K. Government does acknowledge that there have been fatalities directly attributed to COVID-19 vaccines. Later on in the debate, Dr. Caroline Johnson, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care, stated:
(Let me) pass on my sympathies to the very small number of people for whom vaccines may not have worked as intended.
“May not have worked as intended,” meaning it killed some people. COVID-19 vaccines do indeed kill, occasionally, according to official Government statistics. How many and how often is up for debate; this is what I had hoped would be debated in Parliament, and later investigated in a Public Inquiry.
Secondly, what exactly is an ‘anti-vaxxer’? This is important to define because Colburn has attempted to use this as a derogatory term that by association implies people who subscribe only to the fringe of established scientific doctrine.
Arguably the majority of U.K. residents, those who consented to the first two injections but declined a booster shot, are also ‘anti-vaxxers’. In fact, anyone who did not agree to or go ahead with each and every single inoculation in the recommended schedule for themselves or their children to a certain degree could be described, as an ‘anti-vaxxer’.
It only took a few minutes to write the petition. The wording, with my consent, was tweaked by the Petitions Committee only in terms of grammar, so when the petition went live in December 2021 it was a text that had been vetted and published online by Parliament on their own website.
It was intended to ask the reader, Parliament and the British Government: How safe and how effective really are the new COVID-19 vaccines? My call for a public inquiry into this does not specifically suggest nor explicitly state that there definitely are actual issues, rather it is there to establish knowledge close to the truth for the benefit of the vaccinated and unvaccinated alike. Of course, deciding that a novel and untested medical treatment is ‘innocent until proven guilty’ is not the manner ever used previously to introduce its use in the mass population, especially something that is injected into the body and designed to interfere with the bodies’ fundamental chromosomal processes.
Having said all this, inside the chamber things in general went better than I expected. Maybe that is more of a reflection on my expectations than anything else, but I feel that to have had a number of MPs publicly speak and put on record legitimate concerns about increased deaths, serious illness, stillbirths and falling birth rates for which the COVID-19 vaccines have as yet not been ruled out as the cause, is no small achievement. An extract from the video of this debate, published online by Dr. John Campbell, has subsequently received over 1.3 million views.
The whole debate and transcript is available for viewing online.
I hadn’t expected it to get this far. 107,121 signatures was a significant achievement bearing in mind the petition was ‘no-platformed’ in the mainstream media. 100,000 signatures were needed to qualify for consideration of a Parliamentary debate being given, which eventually did go ahead, withstanding one postponement due to the unusual occurrence of a State Funeral, the death of a monarch being even more rare than the so called ‘rare’ adverse events from COVID-19 vaccines.
The signatures had stalled at around the 60,000 mark very near to the end of the six month period. These signatories were most likely a majority of unvaccinated people that were speculating on the possibility of risk. At this stage, I know that the National Alliance for Freedom and a number of freedom groups gave the petition a major push. In addition, at the 11th hour, a number of groups supporting the COVID-19 vaccine injured and bereaved also picked up the petition, many of which were clearly not ‘anti-vaxxers’, and in a matter of just over a week, almost 50,000 more signatures were gathered from both the vaccinated and unvaccinated alike.
The Government had responded to my petition when it hit the 10,000 signature mark. My colleague Mike Baker and I put together a robust, fully referenced response to the Government’s response, which received praise from and was published by Norman Fenton, Professor of Risk Information Management at Queen Mary University of London.
This response was sent to all 650 Members of Parliament and sent three times to Elliot Colburn. I have never received any reply from him. At no point during the debate did he refer to any of the crucial points in that analysis, this response being the main strength of my argument in favour of a public inquiry. Clearly he was against such an inquiry ever happening and so he chose to omit presenting information from the petitioner that was pertinent to the issue.
His position, which he confirmed to me in person straight after the debate, is essentially that he’s perfectly happy to have a discussion about the safety of COVID-19 vaccines as long as he is only doing so with people that already believe that said vaccines are 100% ‘safe and effective’.
Any colour so long as it’s black.
In his weak defence, having promoted the COVID-19 vaccine to his constituents, perhaps he thinks he has little choice but to defend their use until any evidence that comes out against them is overwhelming. Under the current levels of censorship and bias of the regulatory agencies, this won’t happen overnight. So what channel exists for the petitioner to voice his argument for a Public Inquiry if his allocated spokesperson is against his cause and refuses to represent it? In a court of law that would be totally unacceptable. The Parliamentary Petitions process is presented as some sort of important part of our ‘democracy’ that allows a mass of citizens to effect political change.
This could be seen as an illusion but that would not be entirely true. The relatively new process of being able to start a parliamentary petition has a number of positives. Firstly, it gives citizens a voice to be given to Parliament, especially when local MPs will not help. Secondly, the Government has to reply with petitions over 10,000 signatures. Thirdly, when petitions reach 100,000 signatures, they normally achieve a parliamentary debate.
A number of MPs thanked us for successfully getting the petition debated, as it was the first time Parliament debated the important issue of COVID-19 vaccine safety. Although the Government has said that it will not set up what was asked for, a public inquiry into COVID-19 vaccine safety, this could be another issue where the Government is forced to do a U-turn.
At the end of the debate it was voted that Parliament had indeed debated the subject at hand. The procedure with these debates is they always ‘note’ the debate and there is nothing which makes the Government have to comply with anything.
The key positive is that my petition opened the forbidden door into debating COVID-19 vaccine safety. The Government will never succeed in closing this door again. More new evidence is coming in as every week passes and sooner or later this issue may well bubble up to levels that will require a political response that cannot be a whitewash. We earnestly await and continue to campaign until it does. We will ensure that truth, openness, transparency and justice prevail.
Axel McFarlane co-authored with Anthony Webber.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
I’ve stayed unvaccinated and will remain so
I’ve seen nothing over the last three years to convince me it’s a good thing! I’m going to stay an unmodified human being.
Shove your genetically modified vaccine up your a..e
Stay away from flu jabs too. mRNA flu jabs (and others too) are on the way.
Me too, I’ve had vaccines for everything all my life and never been against them – except this. The trouble is though, to continue to call these ‘vaccines’ is to join their malignant entirely self-serving political game. These are nothing of the sort – and they know it.
Thanks for all your hard work. The more they try to smear you, the more you know you are hitting home.
Another great example of the illusion of democracy.
Our system is simply no match for the forces that actually govern the world.
Andrew Bridgen isn’t my MP. But I emailed him to thank him for speaking out in Parliament about the harms these “vaccines”are doing and the corruption in the Pharmaceutical’s funding of the Health Bureaucracies which are supposed to protect the public but actually serve Big Pharma.
In my own little world, more people are recognising that the Covid narrative was (at the very least) overblown and several friends who had the first 2/3 jabs are not having any more since they are now aware that (a) they don’t work and (b) they are causing significant harm in some people.
Fresh from Tess Lawrie’s substack, this very interesting and well-referenced letter from somebody stating why they won’t be getting the jab. It’s really remarkable, having read through it, that it was written in 2020 but everything it states has come to pass, or at least come to light since then. For instance, it was known since the start that these jabs never stopped transmission but this was a truth that must be covered up in order to get a needle into as many arms as possible.
“On Tuesday evening, Andrew Bridgen MP stood in the House of Commons, presented sound evidence demonstrating that Covid injections are neither safe nor effective, and called for the Covid vaccination program to cease. I hope his plea is heard.
So many of us have duly presented such evidence to those with the power to influence policy. I recently received this remarkable paper, based on correspondence by someone who is related to a number of members of the UK’s House of Lords. In it, the relation explains, point by salient point, why she will not be getting vaccinated… yet.
To say this person did her research is an understatement. Every point is duly referenced, and every point reason enough to say no to vaccination. It must have taken many hours and much consideration to compose, and its rigour would put many scientists and researchers to shame.”
https://drtesslawrie.substack.com/p/paper-for-a-parliamentary-peer-so
Re “…it was known since the start that these jabs never stopped transmission…”
Were ‘leaky vaccines’ deliberately spread round the world?
See for example my email to Boris Johnson, 7 April 2022: https://vaccinationispolitical.files.wordpress.com/2022/04/were-leaky-vaccines-deliberately-spread-round-the-world_-considering-the-monkey-trial.pdf
That is a great letter. Did you ever get a reply? The thing is now that we know what we know about just how long these things have been in the pipeline, they’ve been worked on for years, it’s all one very large and elaborate military-grade operation with DARPA being at the forefront of the development of these bioweapons, the behind the scenes shifting of laws and regulations over many years in order to protect all concerned due to this pseudo-crisis and pretext of an emergency that was unleashed on us, the malicious intent is plain for anyone with functioning eyes and an inquiring mind to see. The gene-therapies were never intended to neutralise a virus or protect in any way. Even the half-arsed trials were a joke. If the intention were to help individuals that were truly at risk from a virus then they wouldn’t have deprived people of proven safe early treatments for the 9 months before these shots were available, but we all know that suppressing the usage for those was so they could get the EUA for their novel gene-therapies, so people needed to be sacrificed as collateral damage in the meantime. Proper psychopathic, from start to finish.
Hi Mogwai, no I didn’t get a response…surprise…
But the email has been circulated, ‘it’s on the record’.
On an associated issue, ‘informed consent’ could be a key card in the house of cards…who actually gave valid informed consent before these needles penetrated their arm?
I suggest no-one gave informed consent…because the community has been told a tissue of fear-mongering lies about Covid.
The actual people injecting the needles need to think about this, and their ethical obligation to obtain informed consent…
Thanks for the link Mogs. The letter is enough to shame many a doctor and scientist. I have bookmarked it.
“The procedure with these debates is they always ‘note’ the debate and there is nothing which makes the Government have to comply with anything“. My MP, after receiving my email asking him what actions he was going to take after hearing the ‘debate’, also responded that he “noted my points”. I replied, pointing out that ‘note’ was not in keeping with ‘action’ and was it therefore reasonable to assume he planned no actions? His response: “by noted, I mean I have perused the points you made in your initial email regarding the Covid-19 vaccines and will bear these in mind during my future engagements with colleagues”. In other words, he would do nothing. Proof, as if it were ever needed, that our representatives have chosen not to serve, but to act as lords of a manor on which we are trespassing. They have complete and total disdain for the people, and anybody that thinks this corrupt political system will hold itself accountable in any meaningful way whatsoever is living in Cloud Cuckoo Land.
Or, it’s all smoke and mirrors and these representatives of ours actually have no power, decide nothing and are in effect simply there to provide the illusion that ordinary people have a say in how the state deploys its power.
I highly recommend the interview of Tucker Carlson on the Tulsi Gabbard show. Gabbard was a US senator for 8 years. It’s an interesting interview in and of itself, but the openness with which they discuss how self serving elected representatives are and how completely powerless they are against the bureaucratic establishment is simply astounding.
It’s also fascinating to see how a very public figure like Carlson has essentially been on the same journey that many of us here have followed, going from a supporter and believer in our system to a complete and utter sceptic, wide-eyed about how rotten and corrupt the entire edifice is.
The interview is on YouTube. It’s excellent.
Sounds interesting, I’ll take a look. Cheers.
I watched a recent episode of UK Column News which included an interview with a senior cardiologist who said he personall knew of several members of parliament, and several colleagues in the medical profession, who had privately admitted to him they would never risk getting a booster. Government and MPs know what is going on but prefer to let people suffer rather than speak out.
Correction: The interview was on the Mark Dolan programme on GB News
I wrote to my MP, Andrew Murrison, an MD, calling attention to Andrew Bridgen’s speech, mentioning things like the 86% funding of the MHRA by big pharma and the negative efficacy of the mRNA jabs, ending with the question, “As a doctor, you must be aware of what is slowly emerging about these vaccines, are you not?” I have not yet had a reply, but it’s a bit too soon for me to conclude that he won’t reply. I am still hopeful that he will.
On a personal note, this week I had a pre-op assessment at a hospital where I will undergo a cochlear ex-plant/re-implant operation on 4th January. To my surprise, I was told that my ECG was “abnormal”, in contrast with the previous one done in November 2019 at the same hospital. There are only two things that have happened to me medically in the intervening period: (1) I have started taking high-dosage Vitamin D, self-prescribed and (2) I received two Astra Zenica Covid jabs and one Pfizer booster. Should I be worried? For sure!
I have now received a reply from Dr Murrison MP, as follows:
Thank you. Covid vaccination has saved thousands of lives and I have personally admiinstered hundreds of them. I do not agree with Mr Bridgen whose views on this are far mainstream.
Best wishes
Andrew
I’m glad he’s not my doctor. Did he provide evidence for his statement that COVID vaccination has saved thousands of lives?
No. That is his complete reply. Should I ask him for evidence?
Note his personal involvement in administering the jabs. I expect that makes it more difficult to admit that the jabs are neither safe nor effective if you also have to admit that you were an agent of potential medical harm, especially if you’re an MD.
I don’t know, it’s up to you. To be fair to him, he seems to have given you a personal reply expressing what he really thinks. I haven’t heard back from mine and when I do, I’m expecting a template answer crafted by party HQ. But you never know.
Yes, I think you’re correct about his personal involvement making it more difficult for him to contemplate that the injections are harmful.
Mr Bridgen views may be far from mainstream, but that doesn’t make him wrong. Also, I don’t think his views are far from mainstream public opinion judging by the millions of people who are now rejecting additional injections.
Thanks for all that, from one of the relatively early signatories for the petition. It was good to observe the debate that took place, and review the Hansard script of it all.
With regard to Colburn, it appears to have been a case of being “selective with the truth”, and as you say, it would not stand up in court when questioned by a competent barrister. With any luck, it will be raised again and again – maybe in the forthcoming Inquiry (in which they will no doubt attempt to follow the same pattern, i.e. being selective), but we’ll see.
The fundamental question is…
Why was there ever a ‘vaccine solution’ for Covid-19?
It was known from the beginning that the virus/disease wasn’t a serious threat to most people.
So how on earth did we end up with the INSANE plan to jab the entire global population?!
This is what must be tracked back now…
For instance, to put things in perspective, in the eleven months to December 2020, globally 1.64 million deaths were attributed to Covid-19. This is in a global population probably around 7.9 billion at the time, with 56 million deaths expected in a year…because people die…
This relatively small number of deaths associated with Covid does not justify the global Covid jab rollout that kicked off in the UK.
Most of the deaths ‘with’ or ‘of’ Covid are likely to be in elderly people with comorbidities.
So again, how did we end up with everyone being caught in the Covid jab net, including babies in the frame?
How did this happen…?
Also see my BMJ rapid response published on 18 December 2020: Liberal democracies being turned upside down to ‘protect health services’
Indeed. Purely on a cost basis, if you wanted to spend extra money on healthcare you’d have got fantastic results from the trillions that have been wasted on covid pursuing any number of treatments and policies to enhance health, if you calculated it properly using QALYS rather than some absurd, dangerous notion of “saving lives” at all costs – which was heavy on the cost part, and actually negative on the “saving lives” side – whatever “saving lives” means (pretty much nothing actually).
The C1984 was the excuse for the clot shots. The C1984 was preparation for a maim and kill exercise.
Regrettably I fear you may well be right.
It’s mind-boggling when you think of the billions squandered on dodgy jabs, testing, PPE, surveillance etc.
Taxpayers’ money being stolen to enslave them via the manufactured ‘Covid crisis’, and the highly lucrative Covid industry, which has emerged…out of thin air…
So whose pockets benefited from this theft?
Also on lockdowns – furlough and other assistance, lost economic activity, tax revenue etc.
Thank you very much Axel for your tireless commitment to this most important issue
What exactly is an “Anti-Vaxxer”?
Am I one? My response to anyone who accuses me of being an ‘anti-vaxxer’ is, quite simply to ask what Vaccine they have had that I haven’t? Unless it was something pretty exotic, I doubt they could name one. My parents saw to it, like most parentd of that era, that as a child I got all the usual vaccines, Polio, MMR TB, Tetanus etc. The only one the accuser could call me out on, would probably be the Vax that isn’t actually a vaccine. I would also add that even were I strongly opposed to any ‘traditional’ vaccine, that wouldn’t make me ‘anti-vaccine’, but pro personal choice, and to please explain the wrong in that…
A good piece, but let’s put it in context.
Look for UK Parliament > Hansard > Commons: 15 November 2022 > Westminster Hall > Fracking: Local Consent
Volume 722: debated on Tuesday 15 November 2022
This details the response to another recent petition (and I believe, another petition for the status quo) [e-petition 608745, End the ban on fracking, and e-petition 614611, Keep The Fracking Ban.]
This was heard by The Petitions Committee. I also have somewhere, the Petitions Committee’s treatment of a petition raising very serious questions about the BBC’s huge bias in so many areas, bearing in mind that their income is based on mandatory taxation (the License Fee).
In every case, the Petitions Committee, not only spouted the usual, evidence free, eggregious and bare faced lies, but took care to avoid discussing the petition that had been sent to Parliament. In the case of the BBC “debate” they spent more time saying how much they had enjoyed “Gentleman Jack” than they did even considering BBC Bias. The Fracking debate was more concerned about (totally preposterous) statements of the cheapness and reliability of wind, that considering the merits (or demerits) of a ban of fracking.
Here, the vaccine safety issue was never considered but rather discussed from the evidence-free basis that the safety and effectiveness of Covid Vaccines was just as clear as if it had been confirmed by God writing as much across the sky, in letters of fire.
Thus the total incompetence and malice of this Committee, existing only to emphasise their absolute contempt for those who elect them and the corruption of Democracy.
Impeachment is far too good for these swine, not that there is much chance of that.
I’ve never to my knowledge ever met/know anyone who is “anti-vaccine”. Those who are cautious about injecting a substance, the manufacturers of which declared doesn’t have robust safety-case, would very reasonably be called sensible, especially when said manufacturers only sell it if granted immunity from litigation.