A debate was held in the House of Commons on Wednesday 13th December to discuss the safety of the Covid vaccines. Only a tiny number of MPs showed up for the discussion, during which Andrew Brigden, MP for North West Leicestershire, gave a scathing talk on the harm done by the mRNA injections. You can hear his remarkable 21-minute speech here,1 or read a summary of the most relevant points here.
The recent Parliamentary Speech by Andrew Brigden MP prompted me – as a retired GP (though initially trained in internal hospital medicine) – to write to him, commending him for his integrity and courage. I based my letter on the ‘red flags’ that I detected with the whole Covid narrative, some of them from the very outset of the pandemic in 2020.
The issues that caused me the greatest concern include the following:
Lockdowns and Masks
Lockdowns were catastrophic for a host of reasons – having a devastating effect on, among other things, the nation’s health and economy. I’m not just saying this with ‘hindsight’ – many voices declared from the outset the damage they would cause. The world has known major health epidemics in the past – but closing down entire societies has not been an option.
I note that Harold Wilson did not ‘lock down’ the UK in 1968 when Hong Kong flu killed 80,000 people – and when the British population was 10 million smaller. The NHS was not overwhelmed and nor was the country bankrupted at that time. In any case, Prof Simon Wood at Edinburgh University showed that the first 2020 lockdown had no effect on the early course of the pandemic.
And shocking as it truly is, the wearing of masks for preventing viral airborne transmission was never based on scientific evidence.
And shocking as it truly is, the wearing of masks for preventing viral airborne transmission was never based on scientific evidence. Surgical masks were originally designed to prevent droplets and other debris contaminating surgical wounds. The pore size is way too large to filter aerosols and could possibly even generate them. An American asbestos removal expert has also testified that face-masks are ineffective for use in cleaning industrial contamination.
The recent release of some of US chief medical advisor, Dr Fauci’s emails and Twitter messages has revealed that he knew that masks would be ineffective from the outset. The scientific papers used to support the use of masks for the prevention of the spread of SARS COV2 are simply – pun intended – filled with holes! A great many studies testify to this; such as this one published by the US Government’s National Library of Medicine, which found that “countries with high levels of mask compliance did not perform better than those with low mask usage.” Meanwhile, the Brownstone Institute documented over 170 comparative studies and articles highlighting not only the ineffectiveness but also the actual harms of mask-wearing.
PCR Tests
Testing for Covid-19 has been equally controversial. The PCR (Polymerase Chain Reaction) test was designed to rapidly multiply a tiny amount of genetic material for research purposes. The technique is capable of multiplying one molecule over 20, 30 or 40 cycles to produce thousands of millions of molecules! Positive results on this test were then described as ‘cases’ when no symptoms of illness were present.
Dr Kerry Mullins, who invented the PCR test, said it was not suitable for the purpose for which it was being used.
The widespread rollout of such an inappropriate test with ridiculously high cycles to ‘diagnose’ a Covid 2 infection was an extraordinary move and seems to have served to engender mass fear by inflating the numbers of Covid ‘test cases’. America’s leading science-based service organisation that protects the public's health – the CDC – will no longer accept a diagnosis above 28 cycles. Anyone with a positive result at over this threshold should be viewed as a false positive. Dr Kerry Mullins, who invented the test, said it was not suitable for the purpose for which it was being used.
Alternative Treatments
Then came the paper – now deemed to have been fraudulent – that was published by The Lancet, which slandered the safe effectiveness of Hydroxychloroquine use in early disease. (The paper was eventually retracted, but not before considerable damage had been caused). This was followed by a world-wide media campaign to vilify the extremely safe and effective use of Ivermectin in all stages of the illness.
This was followed by a world-wide media campaign to vilify the extremely safe and effective use of Ivermectin in all stages of the illness.
Virtually all ‘developed’ countries persist in the demonisation of these two medical aids, whereas many ‘third world’ nations have successfully been using Ivermectin to treat and control the spread of the infection. Ironically, the number of peer-reviewed papers demonstrating the benefit of Ivermectin as part of a treatment regime is greater than the number of papers supporting other drugs which are currently in use in the Western World.
The following information table was tabulated by the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC):
I found it deeply worrying that at the same time as provenly effective aids were being vilified, the British public was not being given even basic health advice – such as encouragement to boost our vitamin D levels with cheap supplements. Neither were we vigorously encouraged to get our body mass index (BMI) down and to exercise, even though it was perfectly clear that outcomes for those infected with the coronavirus were far better in non-obese and physically well and fit individuals.
Barrington Declaration
There came, in October 2020, the Great Barrington Declaration – drawn up by three epidemiologists and public health experts from Harvard, and currently signed by close to a million scientists, health care providers and other leaders worldwide. Although it constituted standard traditional Public Health Medicine, it was publicly ridiculed, if noticed at all.
Although it constituted standard traditional Public Health Medicine, the Barrington Declaration was publicly ridiculed, if noticed at all.
The basic principles of the Declaration stated that the elderly and vulnerable should be protected whilst healthy members of society should be allowed to follow a normal, unrestricted life (work and leisure) whilst adopting sensible hygiene practices. People should be free to choose what restrictions they might place on their own lives.
Risk/Benefit Ratios
More recently it has been realised that the unsuspecting public was seriously misled by Dr Fauci in regard to the infective fatality rate of SARS COV2 compared with influenza. The Relative Risk Reduction (RRR) was used to sell the vaccines when we should have been told the Absolute Risk Reduction (ARR). The distinction between the two is significant. The RRR is useful when comparing the relative effectiveness of different treatments to show which is more effective, but it does not inform of the benefit to an individual: the ARR does that.2
That is where risk/benefit ratios become important. It has recently been stated by Dr Aseem Malhotra that with the current variants you will need to immunise over 7,000 people over eighty years old to save a single life. Yet the risk of a serious adverse event is as high as 1 in 800. In other words, the risks associated with the vaccines far outweigh any benefits from them – and this becomes increasingly the case as the age-group decreases.
The national public health agency in America (the CDC) has always stated in the past that the RRR should never be quoted in the absence of the ARR. In distinction, the RRR is only really useful for an individual if their absolute risk of catching something is significant. Researchers use RRR to compare treatments with other treatments but never as a justification for a particular treatment.
Destroying herd immunity and creating variants
Eminent virologists such as the late Prof Luc Montagnier (Nobel Prize) and Dr Greet Vanden Bossche (once of GAVI on Ebola vaccines and for Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation’s Global Health Discovery) warned at an early stage that mass vaccination during a pandemic would only force the emergence of variants, destroying the hope of herd immunity for a generation. Sadly, this is exactly what we saw taking place.3
The ‘Nelson's eye’ approach of the agencies in UK, and in the USA of failing to see the alarming accumulation of serious adverse events and deaths following the introduction of the mRNA injections beggars belief. All signals of adverse events from drugs/vaccines in the past had triggered product withdrawal long before what we are seeing with these mRNA vaccines (indeed, we saw the rapid withdrawal of the AstraZeneca vaccine for under-40s following a number of deaths from blood-clotting). I cannot conceive of a reasonable explanation for this.
In other words, the risks associated with the vaccines far outweigh any benefits from them.
Of further concern is the sudden significant rise in all-cause mortality across all age groups in the populations that have high rates of Covid vaccination – i.e. the disturbing rise in excess death figures. This is also reflected in the payments being made by Life Insurance Companies. A review of this was recently printed in the Children’s Health Defence and in The Epoch Times.
Deafening Silence
Over the past two years I have written to both my Westminster MP, my MSPs in Scotland, to Chief Medical Officers, as well as to National and local newspapers. The majority of the responses that I have received have been very disappointing and unconvincing, despite reassurances that everything is being done to monitor safety, etc. Notably, the role of the mainstream media in all of this has been highly suspicious. What has happened to quality investigative journalism?
In fact, I cannot but fear that something rather sinister is going on when I hear of many doctors, journalists and other MPs being fearful of the risk of losing their careers and jobs if they dare to speak out on this subject, clearly aware that the current policies of both the Westminster and Scottish parliaments are endangering life, causing medical harm and destroying the economy and real people's livelihoods. Those who do speak out are often vilified and ‘cancelled’ – a disturbing new trend in the UK. Yet more and more health professionals feel they can't keep silent any longer - reference these powerful doctors' testimonies.
Notably, the role of the mainstream media in all of this has been highly suspicious. What has happened to quality investigative journalism?
In conclusion
The effects of these measures continue to be destructive – not least on public trust in politicians, the media and the medical profession. Without open, constructive debate on these serious issues, the same mistakes risk being made once more. The Bible tells us that “In a lawsuit the first to speak seems right, until someone comes forward and cross-examines” (Pr 18:17). If opportunities to ‘cross-examine’ are not given, a true understanding is not reached, and justice is suppressed.
There are many people who have been injured by these decisions and who can’t speak for themselves. Does our Christian faith not call us to speak out in the face of injustice, to keep vigilant and to never stop seeking the truth?
For as long as alternative views are supressed by media, government, and pharmaceutical companies, fears will continue to hold sway, the debate will remain on the fringes, and the damage will continue to multiply.
“For there is nothing hidden that will not be disclosed, and nothing concealed that will not be known or brought out into the open” (Luke 8:17).
Dr Alistair Montgomery, MB.ChB, MRCGP, DRCOG
Endnotes
1 Bridgen’s speech was criticised by some other MPs and doctors.
2 Fact check websites have sought desperately to counter Andrew Brigden’s claims regarding risk/benefit ratios. Sarah Turnnidge of fullfact.org clearly does not understand the research use of these figures and is wrong when she says the ARR is not valuable to real life. Quite the opposite is actually true. ‘The numbers needed to treat’ is calculated from the ARR and not the RRR.
3 The vaccine does not, of course, cause variants as they occur naturally all the time. However, the vaccine provides the environment in the population that favours the variants.