Are mRNA Vaccines Safe?

Andrew Bridgen MP making a speech on the dangers of mRNA vaccines to a suspiciously empty house. Bridgen was expelled from the Tory Party afterwards.

Are the mRNA vaccines governments across the world encouraged, and in some cases forced, their people to take during and after covid pandemic safe? Well, the WHO, the government and the medical establishment says they are. If you google the question, you will find that the BBC, Reuters and the myriad of on-line ‘fact checkers’ all are absolutely convinced that they are safe. Nevertheless, not everybody is persuaded, and some say that far from being safe they are potentially lethal and responsible for elevated excess deaths across the world.

Experienced doctors and health experts such as Dr Aseem Malhotra and Prof Carl Henegan have raised concerns about these experimental vaccines - and were roundly vilified and smeared for their pains. Many, largely government funded, experts have appeared to say that their views were mistaken, even dangerous. But these rebuttals are mostly mere assertion and light on facts, unlike the detailed arguments they try to rebut. Unlike Malhotra and Heneghan however, their detractors are given frequent airings on the MSM.

Tory MP Andrew Bridgen has also tried to raise questions about mRNA vaccine safety in parliament. He but was not only ignored and denigrated, but also thrown out of the Tory Party ostensibly for saying that that an Israeli cardiologist told him it covid vaccines constituted “the biggest crime against humanity since the Holocaust”.

But by the beginning of March even conformist Westminster MPs were starting to question covid vaccine safety. Seven signed Bridgen’s letter of 2nd March 2024 (to Prof. Ian Diamond, CEO of the UK Statistics Authority) demanding that the government release data proving its assertion that there is no evidence to link excess deaths with the covid vaccines. A handful more - out of 650 – have also written to Health Secretary Victoria Atkins citing “growing public and professional concerns” at the UK’s high number of excess deaths since 2020. All bit late, some might think, but maybe the prospect of an election has woken them up.

You probably haven’t heard of guardian of the nation’s health Miss Atkins, daughter of a Sir and a Lady, Tory MP and Mayor respectively. But she is well qualified for her role, having served as Minister for Prisons and Probation and then Afghan Resettlement. More relevantly still, she has also worked as a barrister specialising in fraud – very handy for Tory MPs these days.

Leaving aside the many other questions about the handling of the covid pandemic, its major components were lockdown and vaccines, the former touted as a necessity until vaccines arrived. And lockdown was based on two factors: computer modelling and excess deaths. The less said about modelling the better, but surely excess deaths are excess deaths, and accurate data must be available. But funny things have happened to covid death data, with excess deaths seemingly being inflated before lockdown but deflated afterwards as concern grows about the possibility that the continuing high excess death rate is caused by the covid vaccines.

Government data on covid is usually accepted uncritically by the MSM, but it does have its critics. Prof. Norman Fenton, mathematician and computer scientist and Professor of Risk Information Management at Queen Mary University of London, basically called the official covid and excess death data complete rubbish. As he pointed out, the terrifying estimate of 40 million covid deaths by the dangerous Prof Ferguson was used to scare us into accepting lockdown. Government data on covid deaths is almost as flawed. At the height of the pandemic the government claimed over 137,000 covid deaths. Much later, and only because of Freedom of Information requests, it turned out that only about 6,000 of these recorded covid as the only cause of death - four and a half percent of the total. Only three of those dying were under 20. This flawed data was, nevertheless, used to justify the closing of our schools.

Now a few honest MPs, hoping to be re-elected, are asking for data that will either confirm or disprove the government’s assertion that covid vaccines are safe. Predictably the government has hitherto refused to make its data public but, incredible as it may seem, it has already released it to pharmaceutical companies! A reasonable person might well find this odd, if not alarming and downright sinister.

As Mr Bridgen says in his letter, the data parameters chosen by the UK Statistics Authority are insufficient to prove vaccine safety one way or the other. The UK Statistics Regulator agrees and has said “Our view is that the Deaths by Vaccination Status does not provide information on vaccine effectiveness or vaccine safety and should not be used in this way.” In the way, that is, the government has and is using it.

In their letter to the Health Secretary, MPs have also demanded that the government produces the data that it relies upon in asserting that there is no evidence linking excess deaths to the vaccines for Covid-19. They also state their belief that that the data that can prove whether the mRNA vaccines are safe or dangerous has been released to pharmaceutical companies but not put into the public domain.

The government has long been accused of inflating the number of deaths caused by covid during the pandemic, and now has changed its methodology. However, the new method is ‘weighted’ to account for our growing population and its higher average age. Many however, are suspicious about this new method. Prof. Heneghan has called it downright dodgy.

He points out that, using the new methodology “The ONS’s estimates of excess deaths at the height of the pandemic were therefore likely to have been higher than they should have been, helping to drive the fear and panic that led to the UK being plunged into a series of deeply restrictive lockdowns.” He goes on to point out that under the new regime the difference in total deaths between 2020 and 2023 is 27,629, yet the difference in excess deaths is more than double, at 65,418, so something is surely wrong somewhere.

Also decidedly dodgy is that while the ONS says that the differences between the old figures and those generated by the new methodology are “generally” accounted for by trends in population size and ageing, in 2022-23 by far the biggest contributors to the changed figures are lumped together under the category of “other changes”. These ‘other changes’ are not specified. Not good enough, is it?

Heneghan has pointed out that other estimates for excess deaths since the vaccine campaign and for 2023 are substantially higher than those produced by the government’s new method, raising suspicion further. Heneghan says that the data really shows that, since the pandemic, deaths have remained high in all three of the ensuing years – above 650,000 annually across the UK compared with just over 550,000 in 2011, a difference unexplainable by changes to the size, age or gender of the population.

It is clear therefore that something is wrong and that there have been many more deaths than expected since the pandemic.

Dr Malhotra and the British Heart Foundation (BHF) have reported on the abnormally high number deaths resulting from heart disease. The BHF has reported that “as of June 2023, there have been nearly 100,000 excess deaths in England involving ischaemic heart disease or other cardiovascular diseases”. The number of premature deaths from heart disease has, therefore, soared to a 14-year high in the wake of Covid and the mRNA vaccination program.

Yet the Government obviously has no appetite for investigating the causes of high excessive deaths, having said repeatedly that it has “no plans” to commission an investigation. Instead, it hides behind fig leaves such as “high flu prevalence” and a backlog in the NHS, ignoring the fact that countries with sensible, competent health systems and fewer cases of flu but comparable vaccination rates also have high excess death rates.