After his tremendous speech in Parliament last Tuesday, Member of Parliament Andrew Bridgen was asked to provide a list of references that he relied on to write his “vaccine harms debate speech.” He has uploaded a resource list on his website HERE. “This is the same list that was sent to journalists and so-called ‘fact checking’ websites,” Mr. Bridgen said.
He has since been suspended from attending Parliament. But this hasn’t stopped him from speaking out. This week he has given interviews with Irreverend and, a few days later, James Delingpole. In this article, we refer to the first interview. You can watch Mr. Bridgen’s interview with Delingpole HERE.
Propaganda Media Coverage
Mr. Bridgen’s speech is on both Parliament TV and YouTube. And, despite Mr. Bridgen sending them a press pack, corporate media have gaslighted it except for an article the next day in the Express and Scottish Daily Express.
Of course, Full Fact has written a blog. “Yellow Card reporting rate estimates shouldn’t be applied to Covid-19 vaccines,” they wrote. Why? Because “it is estimated that only 10% of serious reactions and between 2 and 4% of non-serious reactions are reported,” Full Fact said without so much as a hint of recognising the irony in their reasoning.
Another argument Full Fact attempted to make was that absolute risk reduction and relative risk reduction are two different things – a point Mr. Bridgen had already highlighted in his speech. On another point, simply because Full Fact’s bloggers weren’t able to replicate statistics Mr. Bridgen used from a study regarding children under 5, the blogger determines Mr. Bridgen’s statistics can’t be true.
The final point Full Fact made beggars belief. The conscientious bloggers overlooked the part in Mr. Bridgen’s speech regarding the conflicts of interest and corruption in the UK’s regulatory bodies and boldly argued Mr. Briggen must be wrong because “mRNA Covid-19 vaccines have been approved as safe and effective.” You couldn’t make it up!