Truth Bombs in UK Parliament Vaccine Debate
Dr John Campbell’s commentary on the UK Parliament vaccine debate (and transcript)
- Official UK Government debate in full (YouTube)
- Official UK government report on the debate
I beg to move that this House has considered e-petition 602171, relating to the safety of covid-19 vaccines. On behalf of the Petitions Committee, I will read out the prayer of the petition, which states:
“There has been a significant increase in heart attacks and related health issues since the rollout of the Covid-19 vaccines…This needs immediate and full scientific investigation to establish if there is any possible link with the Covid-19 vaccination rollout.
It is the duty of the Government to ensure that the prescribed medical interventions of its response to Coronavirus are safe. We believe that the recent and increasing volume of data relating to cardiovascular problems since the Covid-19 vaccine rollout began is…enough…to warrant a full Public Inquiry.”
The petition has amassed over 107,000 signatures, including signatories from my own Carshalton and Wallington constituency. I put on record my gratitude to the Petitions Committee Clerks and the team behind the scenes for organising today’s debate, and particularly to the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency—the MHRA —which recently briefed me on its vaccine safety surveillance strategy.
Throughout my speech, I will be pointing out why I do not think that the Government should launching a public inquiry into vaccine safety; it would be a waste of taxpayers’ money, and I do not think it is necessary for reasons that I will go through, throughout the course of my speech.
The rest of his speech is “brought to you by Pfizer” – talks about how much he adores Pharmaceutical companies, eats tyranny for breakfast, and how much he wants to be rewarded by evil for such an awesome “vaccination campaign” that ruined the lives of the entire world bar a few corporate elites, but apparently not in his blind-folded eyes. (paraphrased by a girl who is really furious with the rest of his speech that John didn’t include in the video)
(Are you talking about the MHRA that’s 86% funded by the pharmaceutical industry? “that’s not going to influence them of course” ~ John)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend (Elliot Colburn), who gave a very good defence of the vaccine programme and of the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. I respect that, but I regret his response to my hon. Friend (Sir Christopher Chope), who raised the point about medical expertise that casts some doubt on the vaccines.
My hon. Friend (Elliot Colburn), chose to smear all opponents of the vaccine programme. Of course there are lunatics out there who make absurd and outrageous claims, but I do suggest there are many reasonable and respectable people who have anxieties about the vaccine programme, particularly people who have suffered as a result of the programme and their families.
I am a member of the all-party parliamentary group on covid-19 vaccine damage, which my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch chairs. The APPG looks at vaccine injuries, and we had what I think was our first meeting last week in a Committee room in Portcullis House. I am afraid there were only a tiny handful of colleagues there, but well over a hundred members of the public attended, which is not the usual story for an APPG.
I felt somewhat ashamed, on behalf of Parliament, that that was the first time that those members of the public—including families of the bereaved, who are themselves injured citizens—had had the opportunity to be in a room with members of this House, but I am very pleased that we are having this debate, and particularly pleased that there is an opportunity for members of the public to hear from the Minister on this topic.
I should say to members of the public who are watching that we have in Westminster Hall today a very good Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), who is genuinely committed to health, including public health, and she showed a real interest in this topic and in the effect of covid policies when she was a Back-Bench MP.
Although many questions about our covid response need to be answered, the UK is by no means the worst offender. We are not Canada, New Zealand or China—places where Governments think they can exterminate covid by depriving their population of the most basic civil liberties.
However, I am afraid that we still have many questions to ask ourselves, and even much to be ashamed of. I put on record that in hindsight I am particularly ashamed of my vote to dismiss care workers who did not want to receive the vaccine. I very much hope that the 40,000 care workers who lost their jobs can be reinstated, and indeed compensated.
A group of us—including, I think, the Minister—held out against compulsory vaccination of health workers when that was proposed by the Government last winter. I think that resistance turned the tide, to a degree, on Government policy, and we emerged from the lockdowns more quickly than we might otherwise have done, yet we still have a policy of mass vaccination, which I want to query on behalf of constituents who have written to me about it.
My query starts with a simple point. In October 2020, when preparations were being made for the vaccine roll-out, Kate Bingham, the head of the vaccines agency, said:
“There’s going to be no vaccination of people under 18. It’s an adult-only vaccine, for people over 50, focusing on health workers and care home workers and the vulnerable.”
Why was vaccination extended to the whole population? I do not think we have ever had a completely satisfactory answer to that question. I ask it again, because my concern is that extending the vaccination programme became an operation in public persuasion—an operation in which dissent was unhelpful or even immoral, and an operation that justified the suppression and even vilification of those who raised concerns.
Unlike any other vaccine, the covid vaccine was given to people who had natural immunity because they’d actually contracted – provably contracted the virus so they would’ve had natural immunity. Why were those people vaccinated?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The best vaccine against covid is covid, and many people were indeed naturally immune and i think there are questions to be asked about the effects of vaccination on the immune system.
Now I do understand why. My hon. friend made an understandable point about the importance of resisting misinformation. As I mentioned, there are certainly many crazy theories out there to which we need not give credence to. If we are talking about a programme of vaccinating the population, it is important that the public is persuaded to do what the Government want them to do, so I understand why the Government should have a public health information campaign along those lines, but it is an essential principle of medical ethics that people must be able to give informed consent before any treatment, and I worry that consent was fully informed in all cases.
Throughout, there has been misinformation. I would not say that was deliberate; it was possibly accidental “in favour of the vaccine”. We can tell that with hindsight. Perhaps the most egregious and the doctor that my hon. friend mentioned earlier presented this to the APPG last week, Dr Malhotra, was the claim that the vaccine is 95% effective, and what that figure simply means, is relative risk, instead of the actual or absolute reduction in risk to an individual. The absolute risk reduction is really less than 1%.
There was also the widespread claim that the vaccine stops transmission, so people should take the jab to protect other people. We were all told that; we all believed that for many months. Last month, we heard from Pfizer that its vaccine was never tested to see whether it would stop transmission. And yet, we had the notorious claim by Professor Chris Whitty that even though the vaccine brought no benefit to children, children should be vaccinated to protect wider society. I am all for thinking about society, not the individual, but that, again, feels like a profound break with medical ethics. A lot of people are asking what the vaccine does to children and young people, and Professor Whitty is right that the benefit to healthy children seems to be essentially nil.
There are genuine questions to be asked. I have not verified these questions; I merely ask them on behalf of my constituents. How do we explain the increase in the rates of myocarditis, heart attacks and excess deaths among young people? Indeed, across the general population, it is plausible, though not definitive, that the vaccine is responsible for more harms than we know about.
As I said in my intervention, we know from the yellow card scheme that up to one in 200 hundred people vaccinated report an adverse reaction. That is bad enough in itself, but we also know that adverse effects are significantly under-reported through the yellow card scheme. Based on the MHRA’s own research, there may be as many as 10 times more serious adverse reactions than the yellow card system shows.
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is important for the Minister to explain how people who say they have experienced damage from the vaccine can have themselves heard? Not just by the yellow card scheme, not just the module in the public inquiry, and people can apply for vaccine damage compensation, but there needs to be more meaningful ways in which people can engage with their experiences of damage.
I am grateful to the hon. Lady—I absolutely agree. This is a very important moment in which the Minister can hear from Members speaking on behalf of their constituents. I encourage far greater engagement with citizens who have suffered from vaccine damage, or even lost loved ones to it.
There may be innocent explanations for the rather terrifying facts I have mentioned; I very much hope there are. If these are conspiracy theories, we need them to be comprehensively and courteously debunked.
To close, I have four questions for the Minister. First, will she review the vaccination of children? Children have strong naturally acquired immunity, and the chance of death from covid for a healthy child is one in 2 million. I believe we should follow other countries, like Denmark, and stop vaccinating children altogether, but I invite the Minister to review that aspect of the policy.
Second, will the Minister make representations in Government, and with Baroness Hallett, that the terms of reference for her inquiry should be broadened to explicitly include the efficacy and safety of the vaccines? and I hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington said is absolutely right: the inquiry does include reference to the vaccination programme and its effects. He may well be right that that is sufficient, and that the review will properly consider the topics that we are discussing today. I hope that is the case, but I think that it needs to be made more explicit; and I invite the Minister to comment.
Sir Christopher Chope
I actually wrote to Baroness Hallett, asking her to ensure that it was specifically in the terms of reference that it should cover the issue of safety and impact of vaccines. And as a result, not just of my representations, but representations from others, the terms of reference were amended to make it quite clear that vaccines, and their impact and the potential damage done by them are included within the terms of reference.
Thank you for that clarification. It concerns me, to hear that it took his representations to ensure that the effects of the vaccines will be considered by the inquiry, and I suggest the need to go further and talk about efficacy and safety, not just the impacts. I think we need to be explicit about what questions we want answers to. These issues need to be directly covered.
Now this inquiry I think, I think we do need the public inquiry to consider because the compromised nature of medical regulation in our country. I mentioned earlier, that the MHRA is funded by the pharmaceutical companies who produce the drugs and vaccines that it regulates. and there might be some universe in which that makes sense, but I don’t think this is that universe. I don’t think it’s right.
Thirdly, we need to do a lot more for the injured and bereaved. I agree with all the recommendations of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch, and we will hear from him shortly on what needs to be done to raise the threshold for compensation for the injured, and the speed of payouts. I agree with him that we need clinics for people with adverse reactions, just as we do for people with long covid.
Finally, we need to change the power imbalance. I am sorry, on behalf of Parliament, that this is the first proper debate that we have had on this subject. I regret that victims and families have had to struggle so hard to get engagement of the system. I hope that the Minister meets with some of the people here, and other representatives of families affected by the vaccines, for a proper exchange of information and ideas, and I hope that she will request that Dame June Raine of the MHRA meets them, rather than, I’m afraid to say, ignoring letters for months.
A new Government take over this week. I hope that the Minister, who was appointed only recently, will stay in post, and that we can start a new chapter in the story of covid. No more remote power telling people what to do. Let us put truth and justice back into public life, and restore trust in the experts on whom we rely.
Risk benefit analysis
- Official UK Government debate in full (YouTube)
- Official UK government report on the debate
Sir Christopher Chope
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I am, as was mentioned, the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on covid-19 vaccine damage. The group is now up and running. We had an enormously well-supported meeting in Portcullis House last Thursday. I agree with the legitimate concerns of the 100,000-plus people who signed the petition, and share their belief that the recent data relating to cardiovascular problems, which is increasing in volume, is of enough concern to warrant an inquiry on safety. As I have said, the big Hallett inquiry on covid-19 will cover a lot of this ground, but it will not report for many years. In the meantime, people are being encouraged to have more and more boosters, and they understandably want to know the impact of those boosters on their health and the risks and rewards.
As well as being chairman of the APPG, I have taken an interest in the subject for about a year, and produced a private Member’s Bill on the subject, and I hope to produce another, which will have its Second Reading next month. Coroners up and down the country have found in their reports that deaths have been caused directly by covid 19 vaccines. I have spoken to some of the bereaved; indeed, I spoke to the gentleman referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden)—the gentleman who attended our meeting on Thursday, and whose wife was a journalist in Newcastle. I have seen with my own eyes the suffering of people who are bereaved or still suffering adverse reactions.
I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn), in introducing the debate, did not have much to say about the people who we know have suffered death or serious injury as a result of the vaccines. My hon. Friend showed himself to be rather the victim of producer capture—the producer in this case being the MHRA. He does not seem to have allowed his researches to go further than the MHRA. Has he, for example, looked at what has been happening in Germany? The Paul Ehrlich Institute is the German regulator responsible for vaccine safety. On 20 July, the institute confirmed that one in 5,000 people was seriously affected after a vaccination. That also reflected a finding that it published earlier in the year, in which the institute tried to raise the alert that one in 5,000 vaccinated people experienced a serious side effect, such as heart muscle inflammation. It said that, statistically, every 10th person must expect a severe consequence from having a course of three or four vaccines. The institute uses the World Health Organisation definition of a “serious adverse event”, meaning one that results in hospitalisation or is life-threatening or life-changing. After a course of four doses, the risk of a report to its system of a serious adverse effect is one in 1,250. That is serious information coming from the regulator of a country that is highly respected for the quality of its healthcare.
Is it not interesting that the number of adverse reports referred to the institute is far fewer than the number of adverse reports that led to the 1976 swine flu vaccine being withdrawn? Some hon. Members may recall that, in 1976, the President of the United States, Gerald Ford, was panicked by swine flu into organising a vaccination campaign. When reports emerged of suspected adverse reactions, including heart attacks and Guillain-Barré syndrome, and there were 53 reported deaths, people began to worry about the safety of the vaccine. The Government halted that mass vaccination programme in December of that year. In that case, the Government acted on far fewer adverse events than we have talked about in this debate and decided that, given the balance of risk and reward, it was too risky to continue with the vaccination programme. Let us look at the facts and not just be beholden to the MHRA. If this were a debate about the MHRA, I would have masses of material on it.
The Government seem to be in denial about the risks of these vaccines. Only this morning, the deputy chief medical officer for England was on the radio saying that the boosters were perfectly safe and effective, but they are not perfectly safe, and there is a question about whether they are effective, but that is for another debate. The fact that they are not perfectly safe has now been admitted by the Government. Indeed, the UK Health Security Agency has issued “A guide to the COVID-19 autumn booster”—you may have seen a copy of it, Sir Roger. It requests that people get another booster from their GP. Unfortunately, the cover letter from the NHS makes no reference to any risks associated with the vaccine, but if one looks at the document included in the envelope, it talks about serious side effects. It says,
“Cases of inflammation of the heart (called myocarditis or pericarditis) have been reported very rarely after both the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines. These cases have been seen mostly in younger men and within several days of vaccination. Most of the people affected have felt better and recovered quickly following rest and simple treatments.”
It then states:
“You should seek medical advice”.
What it does not state is what happens to those people who do not recover. That is what I will concentrate on in the remainder of my remarks. Those people, if they are disabled to the extent of 60% or more, may be eligible for payments under the vaccine damage payment scheme. They might get £120,000. That scheme, however, is not fit for purpose, because its description of disability does not necessarily apply to autoimmune conditions such as those suffered as a consequence of covid-19 vaccine damage. And what about all of those people who are only 59% disabled? There is no financial help for them and, even more worryingly for many, no specific medical help.
The Government refuse to provide specialist help for these vaccine victims. Although they have set up long covid clinics, vaccine victims are being ignored. I have asked parliamentary questions about this, but I have not been able to get a satisfactory answer as to why there are no clinics for those victims of vaccine damage. As a result of the Government’s behaviour, victims are increasingly telling their loved ones, neighbours and friends about their circumstances, which is leading to a much lower rate applications for booster vaccines. That is happening because the Government cannot suppress the information that ordinary people are sharing with one another, even though there is very little on this topic in the mainstream media.
Many people now would not touch a booster with a bargepole, and I include myself among them. I am not anti-vax—I had my first two vaccines—but from all that I have seen and know about this, the increase in boosters is counterproductive for many and dangerous for some. We need to take into account what is happening on the ground. People are becoming increasingly vaccine-hesitant. Large numbers of doctors and health professionals are now calling for a complete halt to the vaccination programme because the risks outweigh the benefits.
Sir John Hayes
The thing to understand is that there is a fundamental difference between these kinds of vaccines and vaccination per se. Vaccination per se has saved millions of lives here and elsewhere, but these vaccines are qualitatively different.
Sir Christopher Chope
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. In the United States, they changed the definition of a vaccine. We have always understood a vaccine to mean someone receiving into their system something containing a small element of that which they were being vaccinated against, so that their system could react against it and protect them if they were later exposed to a large amount. But unlike those old vaccines, these vaccines do not use the raw material, so in many senses it is a misnomer to describe them as vaccines at all. That information is not really out there among the public any more than the fact that the booster vaccines have not been tested on humans at all during studies; they were tested only on mice. People are being used as victims for experimentation, and that is why they are getting worried.
Finally, Oracle Films’ film, “Safe and Effective: A Second Opinion”, is available on
YouTube (Odysee | Vimeo | Facebook | Telegram | OracleFilms.com)—I make no apology for the fact that I participate in that film—and sets out a different view on the safety of these vaccines. I am not saying we should ban all covid-19 vaccines and have a complete halt. What I am saying is that there is an urgent need for the Government to get to grips with this issue before more people are duped into having vaccines that they probably do not need, that will not do them any good and that will present risks to their health.
- TGA, FDA, EMA, MHRA: Drug Regulators For Hire (BMJ)
- EMA/FDA/MHRA Rushed Approval Of Shots W/Out Safety Data
- Vaccines Failed To Disclose Absolute Risk Reduction To Exaggerate Efficacy
- Did Pfizer Do Any Safety Studies For MRNA Injections?
- World Council For Health Calls For An Immediate Stop To The Covid-19 Experimental “Vaccines”
- UK Covid-19 Vaccine Damage Bill
- It Is Not “Safe” For Everyone
- Children Extremely Low-Risk & Unlikely To Spread (COVID-19 Studies)
- New Study Shows Pfizer & Moderna Jabs ‘Associated With Increased Risk Of Serious Adverse Events’
- Excess All-Cause Mortality (AU, NZ, UK, USA, CAN)
- New Boosters Approved That Were Tested Only On Mice (What Happened To Them?)
- Heart Damage: MRNA Vaccines (Pfizer/Moderna)
- “Placebo still gets Passport” ~ Nadhim Zahawi, Vaccine Minister UK
- Posts tagged “Dr John Campbell“
- Posts tagged “United Kingdom“
I just joined Gettr and I highly recommend it - it's the best alternative to them all so far:
Telegram Channels: Get Post Updates | Chat/Comment | Video Evidence | c19 Images/Memes