Transcript Of 'A Discussion With Andrew Bridgen & James Roguski' Regarding Why Excess Deaths After The Experimental [non]Vaccine Are Not Being Discussed & Buried.

IOJ provides solutions to the problem of excess death by PROSECUTING it as a crime because we are not going to let our officials get away with hiding the extermination of our peoples. Enough is enough

We have a very important donation drive going on right now to cover legal fees for our globally significant serious cases to stop the shots and prosecute WHO & States. Join & support IOJ NOW to help when we need you most to stop the genocide and extermination!!!

We just got the rough draft back and are VERY close to filing - lets get the law team paid!

https://rumble.com/v4e3hee-a-discussion-with-andrew-bridgen.html

Notice: The following transcript was an automatic transcription and may contain errors. Please alert us if any fixes need to be made.

SPEAKERS

James Roguski, Andrew Bridgen

James Roguski, Researcher and activist. hero of the people, thorn in the side of tyrants

James Roguski  00:04

Hey everyone. This is James Roguski. Today is February 17 2024. And I'm here with Andrew Bridgen. I'm honored to get into a discussion with him about excess deaths, not just in the United Kingdom, but around the world. And, you know, I looked back in my archives, back in April of 2023, I published an article, you know, prompted by the efforts that you were putting forth about all the details of the excess deaths in the United Kingdom. And your When did you first start talking about this? And, you know, why do you think it is that nobody seems to want to listen to data? And and that data, you know, is our lives that are being lost around the world? When did you first start talking about this and what do we need to do to get people to pay attention?

Andrew Bridgen, former MP UK Parliament, hero of the people, thorn in the side of tyrants

Andrew Bridgen  00:55

Well, first started talking about it over a year ago, and I applied in the UK Parliament as a sitting MP for an adjournment debate of 30 minutes where I get the speaker the minister gets to respond at the end of business on one of the sitting days.

Andrew Bridgen  01:11

And I put in 26 weeks for that debate. Every time it came back unsuccessful in shuffle. I think your viewers, subscribers, they'll see why I don't bother playing the lottery, I'm just unlucky. And that took us round to September last year from January 23. In the end, I produced a video last a little mini documentary called so they denied the the true story and pointed out that the thalidomide scandal in Europe in the drug was withdrawn for safety concerns in 1961. But it was 1972 until the word thalidomide could be mentioned in the chamber of the House of Commons some 12 years 11 years later. I also found a ruling from the Strasbourg Court where three judges sitting on the thalidomide case, in their judgment ruled that Speakers of the House of Commons had deliberately suppressed all questions and debate on the thalidomide scandal for 11 years. And I sent that to the current speaker of the House of Commons, Lindsay Hoyle and mysteriously within a week, a date was found for my adjournment debate. I got given the date of the 20th of October, I spoke to a pretty much empty chamber. But the public gallery was absolutely around, and 150 people couldn't get in to watch that debate. And even through the bulletproof glass, you heard the whole public gallery cheering and I've never ever heard that in our chamber before. Following that, I had a presentation by world experts who many of you will have heard of so people like Robert Malone, Pierre Cory, Ron Paul, Professor Angus Dalglish, Steve Kirsch came over to London to our parliament and we had a committee room, and I managed to get about 20 Odd MPs to come and listen for a couple of hours to the evidence. Following that they signed a petition backing me for a debate. On excess deaths, we were given things the 16th of January 2024, we got a 90 minute debate on excess deaths. My opening speech was 33 minutes presenting the case. I took five interventions, but that cut back speeches for backbenches, other contributions two three minutes, which is completely inappropriate. We then returned to the committee for backbench business debates, and demanded a three hour debate in the chamber in the main chamber where an issue of this importance and this much concern to our constituents deserves to be. And 24 MPs have now signed to support demands for that debate. But despite having 50% more support than I need to get the debate almost a month after presenting all the forms to get the debate, no data has been listed for a hugely important debate. And I suspect it's going to be pushed back after Easter now they're already making those sort of noises. So debate on excess deaths is being suppressed around the world. It's being suppressed in supposedly the mother of all Parliament's and this is nothing new.

James Roguski  04:58

What Do people need to do to get their representatives to understand that they are quite frankly culpable? You know, inaction in the face of awareness of a problem is not acceptable. It's criminal. And, you know, with like you mentioned, you know, thalidomide and many other medications. You know, one, contamination of, you know, food, you know, if there's a bacterial problem in food, it gets pulled off the market almost immediately, you typically err on the side of caution. And it seems to be that there, there must be some reason I've learned that people do things that they feel are logical to them, because they have some other issue that is guiding them. You may not know what it is, that is guiding them. But it causes them to ignore facts, you know, that you're presenting. What possible reasons, has anyone given you a reason why they don't want to deal with this discussion.

Andrew Bridgen  06:16

They haven't. And apart from the fact that before I was thrown out of the Conservative Party for raising it, I had an hour and a half meeting with a party grandi, who at this stage will remain nameless. I explained all my concerns in January 23, about the vaccine harms. And ng ones, six three, which was, it would appear could well be the euthanasia of euthanizing of elderly vulnerable, out of hospital to make way for the first wave of expected COVID patients back in 2020. And at the end of that meeting, the party representative said to me, Andrew, there is currently no political appetite for your views on the vaccines, they may well be in 20 years time, and you're probably going to be proven right then. But in the meantime, you need to bear in mind that you're taking all the most powerful vested interest in the world, with all the personal risk for you which that will entail and that I said, I think this meeting is over, I'm not going to be threatened. And bear in mind at the time, the government we're coming to vaccinate, asking authorization to vaccinate children down to the age of six months. I'd spoken out on that issue on the 13th for December 2022. And although I was criticized and compared to some sort of conspiracy theorist, the interesting thing is that the government in the UK never did authorize those vaccines, experimental vaccines for the children of that age group in the UK. So I'd already spoken out then I spoke out on I think, march 17 2023, about the safety and efficacy of the booster program. And I quoted only the government's own UK health security agency figures for the number needed to vaccinate and from memory the healthy 2040 to 49 year cohort, you have to vaccinate 994,000 to keep one person out of hospital and with a adverse event, serious adverse event, following vaccination have on average one in 800, you will be putting over 1100 people at risk of death or serious injury to peep one person out of hospital with COVID 19. Well, that is neither a good spend of money, or who is this is the science of madness. And again, guys, my debate was very sparsely attended, not reported in the media. But within two or three weeks, the government then restricted the booster program to the over 75 in the immunosuppressed. And quite honestly, James, they should certainly should not be taking these experimental jabs. But that's what the government's response was, despite criticizing me in the chamber and saying that the vaccines are safe and effective. And I ambushed the Prime Minister two weeks ago. Rishi Sunak at Prime Minister's questions and again asked him to correct his statement that the VAX the experimental vaccines for COVID-19 were safe and effective. And he said that unequivocally they are safe. He didn't say they were effective, and then why anyone even if they weren't safe, which they're not, why anyone would want to take an ineffective experimental treatment is beyond me.

James Roguski  09:58

Well, you use the phrase Is that is a trigger word for me. So, I want to give you the floor. But I'm going to have to go off on a little bit of a rant. Because the phrase safe and effective, does not have any legal meaning. So, whenever I hear someone say that, I know immediately they're lying. What they're supposed to say, is they're supposed to say, well, here are the studies that we found, here are the potential benefits. And here are the potential risks, you know, broken down by certain demographics. And so someone might be elderly, someone might be, you know, a six week old baby, someone might be pregnant. It's not a one word answer. And you're exactly right, the word effective, can be negative. And so what happened in the studies, you don't really even need to look at the data, you could read the clinical trial design, and understand that it was flawed from the beginning. And the way they collected the data and what they looked for. You know, it was sad that a year and a half in, it became known that they didn't test to see if it stopped transmission. Well, you can read that from the design of the study. So my analogy for what people should think about whenever they hear someone use the term safe and effective, is if you're familiar with the idea of Russian roulette, you have a revolver with a, you know, six chambers, you put a bullet in one that's at 4% safe, but that one bullet is very effective at killing people, now, we're not dodging bullets, but we're dodging needles and, and unknown substances in those needles, that, you know, the data is showing are associated with excess deaths. And so I'll give you back the floor. I'm

Andrew Bridgen  12:06

sometimes criticized in the press as being an anti Vaxxer. Well, James, I took two shots of AstraZeneca. After the second shot, they really hurt me, really hurt me, has lots of the immune problems, allergies, which I'm still suffering from now. My body came out in hives, at 58. Suddenly, I became acutely suffering with hay fever. And I speak to lots of people who also had the jabs and, and they're suffering very, very similar with it. They had a bit of eczema. Now they're covered in it. Psoriasis, they're covered in it. And I'm absolutely convinced none of this has ever gone on the yellow card system over here. So it's massively massively underreported. I mean, they are not effective. Anyway. I had I caught COVID-19 before I was ever jumped. So I would have actually had immunity. And I caught it after I got a dose of Omicron after I'd been down. So I think but once bitten, twice shy or twice bitten, twice shy. And I'm, I'm certainly not having any more of these experiments. But also evidence has come out now that I'm the Pfizer. I've seen the evidence, and I've reported it to the Prime Minister and the Department of Health in the UK, last July, that the Pfizer vaccine that was approved was not the vaccine that was rolled out around the world as effectively a bait and switch operation. And that is easily demonstrated by the fact in the UK when the mass vaccine rollout started. On day two of the mass vaccination. The Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency changed the guidelines and told everyone they've got to stay at the vaccine Center for 50 minutes. And that was because of the risk of anaphylactic shock. They weren't expecting Alif lactic shock. And what's clear is that the 22,000 doses that were tested in the Pfizer trials, they that vaccine that genetic materials was manufactured expensively and slowly through a PCR machine, whereas the vaccine that was rolled out around the world was produced in Escherichia coli, and that's the impurities in those vaccines from the Escherichia coli. Plus you've got the risk of all the genetic material from from the Escherichia coli which will also get wrapped up in lipid nanoparticles and be injected into your body. That's, that's why the adverse events that we're seeing being reported in the various system in the US and the yellow card system in the UK, then their relationship to the adverse event As reported in the Pfizer trial, and I'm told by scientists who are analyzing all the data that all the major vaccine manufacturers did exactly the same that they got approval for a vaccine, and then did a bait and switch and gave the people something else. So effectively, the vaccines that we were given, were completely untested. What could possibly go wrong?

James Roguski  15:23

You know, I am of the belief that I have faith in the common men and women of UK of the United States of the world. I give myself over to you as a volunteer to do what I can to help organize a push back against this ongoing, quite frankly, slaughter. What is it that someone such as myself, could do to help you stop this insanity?

Andrew Bridgen  15:56

Well, I think we need to get the message out there that everyone because this is a global problem wherever the vaccine is being rolled out. And it's interesting. I spoke in Stavanger in Norway at a conference, I think it was last May. And I met a professor from the University of Western Norway Institute of Science and Technology. And he produced a paper where it analyzed the excess deaths in countries, certainly the European countries and the vaccine uptake. And he even the correlation was so tight that they came to a conclusion that for every 1% of your population vaccinated in 2021, there was a corresponding point one and a percent increase in mortality in 2022. I asked him, Are you going to get this peer reviewed? And he said, he laughed at me and said, You must be joking anyone? I said, Mike, he said, my maths is completely correct, he said, but anyone who peer reviews, this will get defunded. And so they're not going to do it. I mean, that's the state. We've got to where the science has been bought. And it's not only on the issue of vaccines, clearly, and the level of intimidation. But ultimately, there's a lot of elections going to happen of elected officials in the UK around the world in the US in the next 12 months. And I think we've got to, we've got to get on to people have got to lobby very hard, get their friends, their relatives, anyone who's concerned to lobby their elected representatives. And we've got to be talking and debating, not just in my parliament, but in other Parliament's around the world, this issue of excess deaths. I mean, I don't if you saw it happening in Australia, some very brave senators stood up and put a motion forward in the upper house of the Australian Parliament to have a debate on excess deaths. You said they had a debate on whether they should have a debate on excess deaths. And the majority of senators voted they shouldn't have a debate on excess deaths all I mean, that is a travesty of open and transparent democracy and a suppression clearly a huge suppression of debate. If

James Roguski  18:02

I may ask you, are you standing as an independent,

Andrew Bridgen  18:06

I am Yes, I'm going to stand as an independent. I'm not standing for the Conservative Party, they expelled me permanently, for speaking out, accused me of anti semitism, for quoting for retweeting a tweet from a Jewish scientist from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. That's pretty spurious, I would say,

James Roguski  18:27

I'm familiar with the absurdity that you endured.

Andrew Bridgen  18:31

I've actually got Matt Hancock in court on the first of March, because he tweeted about it and didn't have privilege on that outside the chamber. And I'm taking him for defamation. He's trying to strike out my application. And we'll be in the Royal Courts of Justice on the first of March. And I'm very hopeful that justice will begin to be done. And that will open the door for a lot of things. You're in the UK, and you want to donate to my reelection campaign that will be helpful. I've got a new website coming out probably in a week's time. And if you want to come and volunteer to come and help deliver some leaflets, that would be much appreciated, as well. But ultimately, I'm just one elected member of parliament we need I don't think I don't think wherever I say we're not going to the chamber of the House of Commons is not going to come to the rescue of the people of my country or the world. It's far too committed and corrupted. We used to have a parliament that legislative for the people. I thought that's why I became a member of parliament for my home area. But now we have a parliament that inflicts laws upon the people. And as I've said many times before, quoting the late great Tony Benn, who was a left wing politician, but a great Democrat. When when the People are scared of the politicians. That's tyranny. And but when the politicians are scared of the people, that's democracy, and we need to get back to the latter. And if the politicians aren't scared of the, of the people in an election year, then then they're never going to be scared. But all I'll say is in my parliament, there's so many people and members of parliament are standing down. And I can't help but feel James, they've played their part in that pantomime of a parliament that we have, in that they've played their part in this vignette of deceit of the people. And now they want to leave the stage, before we get to the end, because they know that's the death scene, we know where they are, and there won't be anywhere to hide. When this breaks, it will break. And I would say that, you know, this, this is the biggest medical scandal in world history, and the death toll will run to millions. And people aren't going to have to be held to account, the penalties are going to have to be very, very severe. To regain any form of trust in science, our medical institutions and our democracy. This is a it's a crime against humanity.

James Roguski  21:16

Any final words to the people of the UK and to the people of the world as to what we all can do to help you but you've got to raise the world.

Andrew Bridgen  21:25

You are being threatened our democracy, and it's being threatened on all fronts. We've got to deal with the excess deaths. The vaccines need to be withdrawn, while we have a full inquiry as to who's responsible. We're under our democracy is under threat from the who these two instruments is the biggest power grab in history by an unelected, unaccountable, non taxpaying diplomatically immune from prosecution, there's absolutely no way of putting the who in court to rectify anything they can do. There's no, there's no, there's no laws that allow you to do that. And for our democracies to consider handing the powers that they're asking for him to these two instruments, to this body, which is mired in scandal is tantamount to treason as far as I can see, and it will be a betrayal of the trust placed in us as elected representatives. And I will never vote for any of that. And people need to be aware that that would change the relationship between the citizen and the state irrevocably. And we can't allow this to happen. And that's, again, this is a worldwide problem. And every nation needs to resist. But I would say just say, No, the globalists behind all of this. They need the compliance of the masses, and the masses really don't understand their power. And the biggest thing you can say sort of small word, but if enough of us say no, it's going to have a huge volume. And finally, I'd say that when this is over James, and I promise you it will be over. We will have a chance to build a better society, something better than we had before.

James Roguski  23:13

It Thank you very much for your time. It's a pleasure to have this discussion with you and bless you. We need more and more people around the world like you. Thank you for all that you do.

Andrew Bridgen  23:25

Thank you very much for having me on. It was a pleasure. And we'll speak again soon

We just got the rough draft back and are VERY close to filing the first case to stop the shots - lets get the law team paid!

If you are able, please remember to take the effort to support StopCovdVaccinesNOW.org There is a series of SERIOUS globally significant lawsuits which are JUST about ready to file! IOJ really needs your help to meet our current fundraising goal to pay the legal fees to really dig in and get started to stop these shots and prosecute them as Nuremberg Violations. It’s NOT a health product, its a dangerous experiment murdering unlucky victims who trusted their lying governments who are in bed with Big Pharma and WHO to attack us with psy ops, “Project Fear” to terrorize us, behavioral nudging to get us to take the jab. We can still stop this freight train and we need your help to step up and pay the attorney. Would you consider a donation of $100-1000 or more if you are in the position to help? If you are able to help get this first round of funding over with so that we can take the legal actions into court and intend to stop covid vaccines NOW! Every donation, small or large is getting us closer - together we are getting there in this crowd sourced legal effort. We believe we can win this!

We are chipping it down, let’s keep it going and get into court everyone!!!

THANK YOU. IOJ has your back. Thank you for having ours!

---

Source:

A Discussion With Andrew Bridgen

James did a wonderful job assembling videos of Andrew Bridgen trying to sound the alarm as well as assemble the charts and graphs proving the excess deaths after the jab was rolled out.