Westminster Hall Debate Raises Alarming Questions about Excess Deaths and COVID-19 Vaccines

In this video, British Member of Parliament, Mr. Andrew Bridgen, gives a speech during a Westminster Hall debate on excess deaths. He raises concerns about the increasing number of deaths in England and Wales, particularly in younger age groups, and questions the role of vaccines in these deaths. Bridgen criticizes the lack of transparency and accountability in the medical establishment and calls for an urgent public inquiry. He argues that the government and media have ignored evidence and suppressed alternative viewpoints, contributing to a loss of trust in institutions. Bridgen concludes by suggesting that the current situation will be heavily criticized by future generations.

Author Icon

Our Summaries are written by our own AI Infrastructure, to save you time on your Health Journey!

How does this happen?

Key Insights:

  • Excess deaths in England and Wales have been increasing, with a deficit in deaths expected but not observed in recent years.
  • The excess deaths cannot be solely attributed to the COVID-19 virus as there are significant numbers of young people dying, and the numbers of excess deaths are higher in the younger age groups.
  • There is a concern about the lack of attention and action from the NHS in addressing and investigating the causes of these excess deaths.
  • The speaker highlights the lack of accurate data being used in assessing the situation and calls for the use of the most accurate figures.
  • The speaker emphasizes the need for an open and transparent public inquiry into the causes and handling of the pandemic, including the impact of vaccines.
  • The speaker questions the credibility and effectiveness of lockdowns, as well as the rollout of experimental vaccines, suggesting that they may be contributing to the excess deaths.
  • There is a call for the release of record-level data on vaccine dosage, dates, and deaths to allow for independent analysis and public scrutiny.
  • The speaker argues for the need to rebuild trust in health services, media, and politics through open and honest discussion and reflection.
  • The speaker mentions personal repercussions faced for voicing concerns about the vaccines and highlights the existence of a conspiracy of silence against opposing views.


A warm welcome to today’s talk on Tuesday, the 16th of January. Now, I’ve just started my analysis of the Westminster Hall debate. It just finished about half an hour ago in the British Parliament. Mr. Andrew Bridgen is giving an opening speech on excess deaths. So I’m just going to allow Mr. Bridgen to speak for himself, in its entirety. Please give him the time.

Mr. Bridgen has suffered for his stance. He’s been ostracized and criticized all over the place. He’s lost his party membership. And coincidentally, today he was offered a plush trip to Davos, which I believe is a place in Switzerland. But he didn’t. He stayed at home and represented the British people. Now, let’s give him the time. Please listen to his points. You decide if he’s following the evidence.

„Order, order! Andrew Bridgen to move the motion.“

Andrew: Thank you, Sarah. And it’s always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I would like to start by thanking the Backbench Business Committee for scheduling this debate, and to the 17 colleagues from across the house who supported this application for a debate on the trends on excess deaths, following on from my adjournment debate on the 20th of October on the same issue.

Sarah, the eyes of history are upon us. Every generation looks back in wonder at the incredible mistakes of our forebears. They will ask questions such as: How could they possibly realize how wrong they were? What on Earth happened to them? Why did they ignore the evidence for so long? Their values and every opportunity to learn from the mistakes of yesterday? What madness captures men?

From 2010 to 2019, annual death rates in England and Wales oscillated between 484,000 and 542,000. In 2020, there were 67,000 deaths, 65,000 more than the maximum 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 deficit. A significant deficit, in fact, because sadly, our most vulnerable and elderly who might have lived a while longer were taken from us early. But in 2022, there were 577,000 deaths in England and Wales. And in 2023, 581,000 deaths. A huge rise, when in fact a significant deficit would and should be expected. The deficit, and then some, has been filled not with the extremely old and the extremely vulnerable, but with others. Many, many others who were often young or in the prime of their lives.

You might want to describe the excess deaths in 2022 and 2023 to the virus, but that would be a mistake. That’s not what the death figures say. And moreover, there are far too many young people dying. Far from being below the recent rolling average, excess deaths in 2022 have been above 6% above, in fact. In 2023, when one might expect death to finally fall below the average, the excess has also been 6% above. These numbers are higher in the younger age groups. No one with integrity can fail to be troubled by these figures. What actually is going on? And that’s what we need this debate for today.

It’s a problem that affects us all. It affects every community in every constituency across the country. I would like to thank all the honorable and right honorable members who’ve attended this debate today. And I think we need to thank the public for their interest, which has stirred the interest of colleagues. And I’m very encouraged by the turnout for today’s debate, which is considerably better than we’ve seen in the past.

Not everyone in this room will be comfortable with analyzing scientific data and figures. That is not my position. I was fortunate enough to take a degree from Nottingham University in biological sciences many years ago. And I specialized in biochemistry, genetics, behavior, and virology.

It’s a very important debate he’s having. In 2022, we saw nearly as many excess deaths across the UK as during the Blitz. And in my own region of Yorkshire, every single year since the pandemic, we have had excess deaths. And I am very concerned about this. But what they’re also concerned about is almost a deafening silence from the NHS about what is causing this, why it’s happening, and what they’re doing to alleviate this.

So I thank the honorable gentleman for bringing this very important debate today. And only by talking about it can we actually get to the root cause of what the issue is, because there clearly is an issue. Well, that’s the whole point of a representative democracy. We’re here to raise the issues on behalf of our constituents and to look after their best interests at all times.

I thank the honorable gentleman for his attendance. But we had enough signatures for a three-hour debate in the main chamber. We’re actually giving a 90-minute debate in Westminster Hall, which I did mention to the chair of the backbench business committee. I felt it was a bit of an insult given the gravity of the issue we’re debating. To those who’ve lost loved ones over the last few years, and I’d also like to give way. Grateful to him for giving up, and he’s right to point out that there is considerable concern about this issue. And due to that concern, does he agree with me that we should be using the most accurate data available? And using a dataset of the age-standardized mortality rate, which takes into consideration the growing population and an aging population, of course. We should be using the most accurate figures that we’ve got, and I will later on in the speech, near the end, be talking about the data that we really want, which could settle this matter once and for all, beyond reasonable doubt.

So I thank the public for their pressure and their interest in these statistics, and I thank the people who’ve attended today in person and the thousands and thousands who will be watching on the television or online.

There is a burning question, Sarah, at the heart of this debate. It is, after excess deaths, there should be a deficit. Where is that expected deficit? When will we have it? And worse, why is the deficit not being filled but significantly exceeded? And why are the institutions whose job is to notice these matters, to record these matters, to publicize and call attention to these matters, why are they all apparently asleep at the wheel? And the second burning question, which I’ll come to, is why is no one listening to those raising the alarm?

The research and analysis of two of Britain’s most trusted doctors provide us with alarming clarity. Only this week, Sarah, the director of the Centre of Evidence-Based Medicine at the University of Oxford, Professor Carl Heneghan, reviewed the causes of excess deaths and concludes that they are predominantly related to cardiovascular disease. He told the Sunday Express newspaper, „This cannot be explained by Covid, population growth, or an aging population.“

Consultant cardiologist Dr. Aseem Malhotra, who is a world-leading expert in the causes of heart disease, also told TNT Radio yesterday that even though cardiovascular disease is multifactorial, the top of the list for, in the hierarchy of causes behind excess cardiac-related deaths, has to be the experimental Covid mRNA vaccine, until proven otherwise. And this is not speculative. I won’t give way at this point.

But let me just finish this train, and I’ll give way to the honorable gentleman. This is not speculative. But based on the highest level of data, which combines plausible biological mechanism, randomized control trials, high-quality observational data, pharmacovigilance data, autopsy data, and clinical data. And those who choose not to acknowledge these cold, hard facts, Mr. Bursar, are either unaware of the evidence, willfully blind, or lack a conscience.

I’ll give way to the honorable gentleman. I’m very grateful to the member for giving way. And I’m grateful for him shining a spotlight on this important debate about excess deaths. But I’m just keen to understand the difference between correlation and causation. Because there’s a correlation between eating ice cream and sunburn, but we don’t necessarily assume the two are together. It could be sunny weather. The same goes for this case. Is it to do with the fact it’s lockdown? Is it to do with late presentation, access to the NHS? These are the key bits to try and understand the causation and correlation to understand why these numbers are so high.

I agree with the honorable gentleman. He is a medical doctor, so he does have some knowledge clearly. But correlation is not causation. But correlation is an alarm bell, Mr. Speaker. And alarm bells are going off all over the building, but no one wants to open the door and see if there’s a fire. I believe that future generations will ridicule us for what we’ve just done in response to a seasonal airborne virus. We apparently lost our collective minds. We’ve imposed a brand new type of quarantine on a healthy population. In breach of all previous public health advice, in breach of our own carefully crafted expert pandemic plan, in breach of the sensible and experienced advice from many professionals. Those naysayers are being vindicated one by one, inevitably so as the suppressed, shaming, real-world evidence finally emerges.

I’m not going to mention those who harass and discredit and ridicule the dissenters. They loudly paraded their egotistical virtue on social media, in the press, and on television. I know exactly what harassment feels like. And we inflicted social distancing, masking, and school closures on healthy children at no risk from the virus. We did this to protect adults at the expense of our children and their social and mental health. People raised alarms, Sarah, but nobody listened.

A society that consciously and knowingly sacrifices perfectly healthy children for adults is sick in itself. Our time, this time, will not be an era that’s looked on well by future generations. That is going to be our legacy. And I call on this House and those in authority to write this grievous wrong, and write it quickly. With unbearable cruelty, we isolated even those who would gladly have made the individual choice to see their grandchildren. And worst of all, we bypassed all the procedures, all the protocols, and all the science to inflict on a healthy population a brand new and untested product that had never before been used outside clinical trials, never mind approved.

There was no long-term safety data. The safety analysis in the trials was eight weeks, and then the control group was vaccinated. No age stratification for recipients of an experimental medication for an illness with an average mortality age of 82. No liability under any circumstances for the manufacturers of these experimental treatments. Furthermore, there were good reasons based on the science known at the time why these products might be harmful.

Ridiculous. Future generations may come to loathe us. We will forever be the poster boys and girls of a society that collectively lost its mind and lost its moral compass. They will hang this millstone around our necks for eternity. And what’s the flaw in this human nature that latches on to things and destroys all before it?

It’s been dubbed by some as the madness of crowds or a kind of mass formation psychosis. The sort of thing that allowed China to commit population armageddon with the one-child policy for decades. The sort of thing that allowed us to have millions of cattle slaughtered during the apparent foot-and-mouth outbreak, where we were persuaded not by the science, but by the plausible patter of provable idiots like Professor Neil Ferguson, yes, the very same.

His advice led to the bankruptcy, the amissness, and the utter despair of countless farmers forced to destroy their own livelihoods in a futile attempt to prevent the spread of an airborne virus, a virus that had already managed to pass in the air all the way from France to the Isle of Wight. So how many times must the so-called experts be caught literally with their pants down as their models fail yet again? How long must we be subjected to debunked dill being dumped in our political discourse? How long must decision-makers deal with discredited modeling and moribund and captured institutions? And why will no one listen to reason when they’ve been proven wrong so many times? And there are plenty of other examples in medicine, from bloodletting with leeches to pointless lobotomies to not washing hands between the morgue and the labor ward. Doctors and scientists are far from immune to groupthink, and the current batch are living proof.

I’ll give way on that point to the honorable gentlemen. And this will not be the first, or I suspect the last government in history not to follow the evidence when it comes to difficulty. But when governments make mistakes and protect themselves and don’t look at the evidence, we as a democratic society should expect there to be an inquiry that establishes what has happened, what should have happened, and what should happen in the future. Does the honorable gentleman agree with me that the inquiry that we have set up is failing in its task in doing that job? And it is assuming that lockdown was right from the beginning.

I thank the right honorable gentleman for that intervention, and I agree with him wholeheartedly. This is not a political issue. This is a public health issue that should affect every constituency in the house. I think we know that the so-called CO inquiry has already set itself out the answers it wants to get to. It has all the appearances of a whitewash. And it was deeply disappointing this week when they announced that the module to do with the safety and efficacy of the vaccines has been put off indefinitely, certainly until after the next general election, which is extremely disappointing. And another instance I could talk about is that I contacted every public and media body I could think of in 2014 to tell them again and again that the sub-postmasters were innocent. But no one listened. And I knew that sub-postmasters in my constituency were completely honest. Anybody who knew these pillars of society knew it. The innocent were falsely accused of dishonesty over the Horizon scandal. And they were relentlessly pursued by a merciless, mendacious, and malicious bureaucracy. And it’s the coldness that shocks most, Sarah. The imperious arrogance, the mercilessness that captures institutions and cowards in authority when a single narrative closes our collective minds. To nuance, to experience, to the inconvenient truths. No one listened to the sub-postmasters. No one cared. No one in power moved a muscle to help. But now, all of a sudden, one media program has shifted the narrative to reveal that the experts were wrong, that our institutions were wrong, that those in authority were wrong, and that an infallible computer system was, in fact, fallible. Even our justice system got it tragically wrong with thousands of court hearings and judges making wrong judgments. Will the post office lessons be learned regarding the Covid insanity?

So who’s actually dying now? Well, it’s not the old and frail as it was with Covid. In fact, the deaths from dementia, a key benchmark of older deaths, have been in deficit ever since Covid. And we would expect after a period of high mortality, especially for cardiovascular deaths, there’s been an 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-year-old age group has had it worse. And I’ll declare an interest. They have been stricken with 12% more deaths than usual in 2022, 133% in 2023. And at least five out of six of those deaths this year have nothing to do with Covid whatsoever.

My constituent, Stephen Miller, was a healthy IT engineer in his 40s. He had two doses of AstraZeneca jabs in the summer of 2021, and he was ill very shortly afterwards. His side effects were so bad that he lost his job. And in November 2021, he was rushed into the hospital. He now has cardiomyopathy and ventricular failure, with a maximum of five years to live, taking him to 2026, unless he has a heart transplant. And when I saw him last, he had a resting heart rate of 145 beats per minute. He subsequently has lost his partner and access to his child, and is at risk of losing his house. He now has a diagnosis from Glenfield Hospital in Leicester of vaccine-induced cardiomyopathy. And I will help him try and get the compensation. But he’s just one example of one of my constituents who’s probably going to have 30 years of his life stolen off him. His child will lose his father. How is £120,000 of compensation possibly adequate for that?

And, honorable friend, I certainly will. I’m most grateful to my honorable friend for introducing this debate so coherently. But would he be able to explain why Module 4 of the Public Inquiry into the safety of these vaccines has been arbitrarily postponed from next July? Surely, the case he mentions highlights the need for an urgent inquiry into this.

My honorable friend is absolutely right to raise that issue. Why would they put any investigation at the public inquiry, which I think is costing some hundreds of millions of pounds and should be therefore in the public interest, put that debate back indefinitely? I fear there has been political pressure placed on the inquiry. Clearly, there is a lot of political capital in the run-up to the next election that has been placed on the fact that the government, and with support from the opposition parties, did the right thing in our pandemic response, including the rollout of the vaccines. I think the very fact that they’ve done this indicates that there is something to hide, and it should make the public extremely suspicious. And I’ll be coming onto that shortly.

For two years, we turned society upside down so as not to „kill Granny.“ Now that Mom and Dad are dying, it appears that no one cares. This is Alice in Wonderland thinking. People in their 50s and 60s, I declare an interest again, normally have many more years of active contribution and deeply fulfilling lives left to live. And these are the people being hit the hardest.

Furthermore, the raw number of lives lost is not the only measure we can look at. We have better methods. The most famous method is known as Quality-Adjusted Life Years. Those who understand public health generally refer to these as QALYs. QALYs measure healthy years of life lost under the most sensible metric for properly assessing the impacts of deaths on lost life, on families, and on society. QALYs were ignored at the outset. They were ignored in July 2020 when the government’s own assessment was that lockdowns would reduce QALYs by about a million years in the UK. They were ignored when deciding to inject the young with experimental vaccines, despite the refusal of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunization to recommend jabbing under 15s in September 2021. Even at the Co-Inquiry, when the Prime Minister tried to raise the issue of Quality-Adjusted Life Years, he was shouted down by Hugo Keith, the lead lawyer at the Co-Inquiry. He then revealed his unbelievable, unforgivable negligence and ignorance by saying, „I don’t want to get into life-quality life assurance models.“ This, I repeat, is the most senior lawyer at the so-called Co-Inquiry.

So when I say future generations all ridicule is not hard to see reasons why. The pandemic, which some of our best academics from around the globe questioned from the outset in published and peer-reviewed papers, is over. The crisis has passed, yet still, vested interests continue to drown out intelligent, reasoned, expert discourse. Not knowing what QALY means is one thing, but parading his ignorance with arrogant disdain ought to disqualify Mr. Keith from any further part in that inquiry. And sadly, his condescending disdain for open inquiry epitomizes what many of us have encountered time and time again when raising these issues.

We’ve seen a smorgasbord of fanciful excuses proffered for the rise in heart attacks. Chris Whitty laughably claimed that it was a reduction in statin prescriptions, even though prescribing levels were exactly the same. And it would take years or even decades for changes on that issue to take effect and be seen in population mortality data. The media had tried to persuade us that people eating eggs or the wrong kind of breakfast or climate change is to blame. So people are sick of being patronized with these lies.

Some have claimed that the excess deaths are due to Covid. The literature is littered with studies claiming that Covid causes heart disease. Almost all include Covid cases from spring 2020. It was almost impossible to be tested and become an official case unless you were sick and in a hospital. So proving that sick people get heart disease more than healthy people does not mean that Covid causes heart disease. Indeed, the claims can be easily debunked. Cardiac deaths have seen a steep rise in both Australia and Singapore, as well as the UK. And these countries did not have any significant Covid until 2022. But they did roll out the jabs exactly the same time as we did in the UK. Correlation does not prove causation.

We’ve already heard it in this debate, but correlation with and without Covid can rule out causation. The excess cardiac deaths were certainly not caused by Covid. Some have claimed that the excess deaths were caused by lockdowns. Well, it’s well known that psychological stress increases the risk of heart disease. The government subjected people to a massive propaganda campaign of fear, well-documented by Laura Dodsworth in her book „State of Fear.“ We were cut off from our usual support networks for many weeks. We saw immense financial pressures. Such policies could contribute to heart disease in a minor way.

However, the sharpest rise came later, entirely coincident with the jab rollouts. So we have a clear temporal link between increased deaths and vaccination. And someone would claim that the excess can’t be down to the jabs because Sweden has not had as many excess deaths as elsewhere, despite having a very similar number of doses per million of the experimental vaccines. But it’s important to understand that heart disease is a cumulative risk. In the UK, we already have a serious problem with heart disease before the pandemic, and it’s just gotten much worse following the vaccine rollout. By contrast, Sweden has the longest healthy life expectancy in Europe. It’s no wonder that they are a statistical outlier on excess deaths.

Now, if you’re under 50 and you live in Sweden, the chances of dying from heart disease were already half that of a resident of the UK of the same age. Some have admitted to the problem but claimed it was worth it. Science journalist Tom Chivers even said regarding jabbing children, „It sounds cruel, but a small number of deaths would be worth it.“ As I pointed out earlier, from China through to the UK, any culture willing to openly sacrifice children for adults is rotten in my view, to its very core. And look what’s happening now. Again, we’re seeing a peak in COVID hospitalizations, as we should be, from a coronavirus in January. The number of people infected and the number of intensive care admissions was about the same every six months before and after the vaccinations. The number of COVID intensive care admissions in the January to June of 2020 wave was about the same as the July to December 2020 COVID wave and remains similar in the January to June 2021 COVID wave and the July to December 2021 COVID wave. The jab, therefore, had no impact whatsoever.

And those interested may wish to consult a recent paper in the Journal of Clinical Medicine that demonstrates exactly this point. And the next important factor is that Omicron is far less deadly. The reason there are fewer COVID deaths now is because Omicron’s arrival at the beginning of 2022. But viral waves will continue to come and go until almost everyone has post-infection immunity, and we’re not there yet.

It’s clear that viral waves were not impacted by lockdowns. It’s increasingly clear they were not impacted by the jabs either. People have denied that viral waves peak naturally at predictable times of the year. But how much longer can that be denied? The lockdowns did not cause deaths to decline from their peaks in April 2020 because they also peaked and fell in April 2022 and March 2023 without lockdowns. Indeed, in 2020, infections were already falling before the lockdowns were even started. The actual problem with excess death started in spring 2021 with the jab rollout. And there was a stepwise rise in ambulance calls for life-threatening emergencies at exactly the same time hospitals started to be overwhelmed. Also, for the first time, the number of people unable to work because of long-term sickness started to rise. Even Mayday calls from aircraft rose. Are we meant to think that this is all a coincidence? When are we actually?

We know that these injections cause a range of serious adverse events, especially cardiac events. Now, the excess deaths are the tip of this very ugly iceberg. And we haven’t even mentioned the world-shaking scandal of jabbing people who’d already had COVID, which, at a stroke, almost entirely demolishes the credibility of our public health policies. At this period, we completely ignored natural immunity. That one fact ought to be a red flag of gigantic proportions. But no one’s listening. And I haven’t got 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, it was an adverse event of one in 35,000 that harmed. And that was then pulled off the market. The COVID jab is still being pushed, and it’s seriously harming people, inevitably at a rate much higher 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.

Thalidomide, syphilis treatment, all these infamous, earth-shattering medical scandals are dwarfed by the iceberg under the water that is the medical scandal we’re currently living through, the experimental COVID-19 so-called vaccines. And it took 11 years after the drug was withdrawn in 1961 for the Thalidomide scandal to be first raised in Parliament. 11 years after the Thalidomide scandal before the word Thalidomide could even be mentioned in the chamber of the House of Commons. Well, Sarah, I’m not going to let that happen this time. That’s why I fought so hard to raise this issue in Parliament at a cost to my reputation, my career, and the financial security of my family.

The public inquiry should be urgently looking at this issue. Instead, they’re wasting taxpayers‘ money assessing over WhatsApp messages while people are dying. As if that isn’t bad enough, as I’ve already shared with you, we learned this week that the vaccine module has been postponed indefinitely for no good reason. It’s as if the inquiry is so desperate not to find fault that they can’t even look at what’s happened with the vaccines. We need transparency.

Dr. Clare Craig, co-founder of the HART group, has been doggedly pursuing the UK Health Security Agency for their record-level data on dosage, dates, and deaths for a year. This is the data that could sort out this issue once and for all. They admit they’ve got it. The MHRA admits that all this data has been released to Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Moderna. Yet they claim they cannot anonymize it for public release. To the public, a failure to release this data makes it look like there is definitely something to hide.

A recent poll in the USA shows that more than half of the public think the vaccines are responsible for a significant number of deaths. If there was nothing to hide, they would certainly release this data for analysis, anonymized, to stop the absurd of legitimate concern. The latest response from the Information Commissioner’s Office is that Dr. Clare Craig has to wait another six months at least before a case officer will be assigned to this issue. This is not acceptable, Sarah. They’ve released our health data to Big Pharma, but they won’t release it to us.

The record-level data must be released. Is it really too much to ask the British public be given the same level of access to the relevant data given to Big Pharma companies, those actually responsible for this debacle? Corporations that carefully secured immunity from all legal liability or, in this country, indemnity from the government before dangerously and negligently experimenting on the health of our nation and the world?

We’re witnesses to the greatest medical scandal in living memory. The consequential fallout in trust, public opinion, and public confidence is only just beginning. Continued attempts to shut down debate, flatten dissent, and obstruct independent analysis can only delay the eventual collective shame. It’s going to be a reckoning, and we’re going to have to try and rebuild trust in our health services, in our media, and in our politics. And we haven’t even started on that journey.

So, Sarah, before I was expelled from the Conservative Party for voicing my concerns over these experimental vaccines and the harms I believe they caused, I met with a senior member of the party who, after listening to my concerns about the vaccines and NG163, the Midamorphine Scandal, told me quite calmly, „Andrew, there is currently no political appetite for your views on the vaccines. There may well be in 20 years‘ time, and you’re probably going to be proven right. But in the meantime, you need to bear in mind you’re taking on the most powerful vested interest in the world with all the personal risk for you that that will entail.“

So, Sarah, I refuse to bow to that threat. And as they say, the rest is history. People have alleged that I’m spouting conspiracy theories. Well, I think it is a conspiracy. It’s a conspiracy against the science. It‘ a conspiracy of silence. And, Sarah, it’s a conspiracy against the people. And I will have none of it.

Wow. Well, clearly, a lot more to come on that. I’m not going to comment on individual points now. We are going to be analyzing this in some detail. And we will be thinking about the responses from some of the other members of Parliament present. But for now, we’ll just put this out there. This is live on the day. So for now, thank you very much, Mr. Andrew Bridgen, Member of Parliament in the United Kingdom.