Another parliamentary debate but still no straight answers published

More elephants in the House

All HART articles also on Substack. Please consider a PAID SUBSCRIPTION so we can continue our work. Comments are open so you can join in the conversation.

On Thursday 22nd February a private member debate was held on ‘Heart and Circulatory Diseases: Premature Deaths’. The debate was led by Dean Russell, conservative MP for Watford, who spoke eloquently about having a heart attack last August at the age of 47. He talked about the importance not only of immediate access to emergency medical care, but also about the rehab and life-style changes required. He also discussed the psychological impact including initial loss of confidence. 

Mr Russell mentioned the decline in cardiac deaths over the last 6 decades, from the 1960s to 2019, but he did not mention the increase since 2021. He also rightly mentioned multifactorial aetiology including mention of obesity and smoking and our more sedentary lifestyles. He did not mention whether he had received any DNA or mRNA vaccines and no-one was impertinent enough to ask him. He ended his speech with a plea for action: As I have said, heart and circulatory diseases cause a quarter of all deaths in England, amounting to over 140,000 each year, 480 a day or one every three minutes. Sadly, in the time that I have spoken today, five people will have lost their lives. I therefore call for urgent action to do more to protect our hearts. By prioritising the right action and supercharging the progress that has been made on addressing heart and circulatory diseases, we can improve the nation’s health, grow the economy and give people hope for a brighter, healthier future.”

Perhaps not surprisingly, it was Andrew Bridgen who was first on his feet to speak and when the speaker wanted to limit him to 5 minutes, he pointed out the debate had already been cut from the customary 3 hours to only one hour, so she gave him 7 minutes, an extra 40% for which he promptly thanked her. He reminded MPs that the briefing pack for the debate mentioned a 10% increase in cardiovascular deaths since the pandemic. As he said, “The previous steady reductions followed major improvements in public health policy, reductions in risk factors such as smoking, and the controlling of blood pressure, as well as improvements in medical care. Although I am grateful to the hon. Member for Watford for securing this debate, and to the other Members who will contribute, there is an elephant in the room—indeed, there are so few speakers that there is probably room for a herd of elephants. Why has there been a significant uptick in cardiac deaths in recent years? What novel intervention in public health has occurred since 2019?”

Sir Christopher Chope then intervened with a request that the Minister in responding to the debate would address the article in The Daily Sceptic on 20 February this year by Will Jones, headlined “Covid Vaccines Linked to Large Increase in Heart, Blood and Neurological Disorders, Major Study Finds”?”

Andrew Bridgen went on to say ”a mountain of peer-reviewed evidence is emerging and hypotheses are being proposed. Numerous cardiologists have concerns, but unfortunately, many experts do not feel able to speak out openly about their concerns because of the climate of fear, and the consequences of whistleblowing or speaking out against big pharma, which has so often been found to be not operating in the public interest, and causing harm.” He ended with, “I wish I had more time, Madam Deputy Speaker; this is a huge issue and we need to debate it again. It is the biggest killer of our constituents, and our fear is that the rate of increase in cardiac deaths will not slow in the UK, or the rest of the world.” The full speech he planned to give is included as an appendix below.

Philip Davies, MP for Shipley, spoke next and his speech can also be read in full on the Hansard link at the top of the page, but I recommended watching him on this video link. While he is speaking,These are not just numbers and statistics—these are real people, loved ones, often from younger age groups, who are dying before their time. It is urgent and our duty to get to the bottom of the situation sooner rather than later. As I am sure we are all aware, there are many theories circulating about the causes of these excess deaths. One is the possibility of a causal link between the population-wide use of covid-19 vaccines and the marked increase in cardiovascular-related critical events, including heart attacks and strokes, among otherwise apparently healthy people. We do not know if that is the cause or not, because the data is not being released. Until certain data sets are released, it is impossible to rule that theory in or out.”, two MPs in the second row are apparently laughing and chatting. His speech lasted only 5 minutes and surely MPs are well aware they are on camera.  Perhaps they are lucky and don’t know any “otherwise apparently healthy people” who have suffered a “cardiovascular-related critical event”. Or perhaps they do, and it was nervous laughter.

Mr Davies went on to say that he and cross-party colleagues had written the previous day to Secretary of State for Health and Social Care; Professor Steven Riley, the director general for data at the UK Health Security Agency, and Dr Alison Cave, the chief safety officer at the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, asking that “anonymised record-level official mortality data be released, alongside vaccination dates, doses and co-morbidities, without delay.”  He then asked, “if the Government and their agencies are not willing to share the data we have requested, will the Minister explain to us why not?” He ended by rightly saying,“We are all on the same side and want to look after people.”  Sadly it doesn’t always feel like that.

Jim Shannon, DUP, again highlighted the recent increase in cardiovascular deaths, “But after nearly a decade of slowing progress, recent statistics show that the rate of premature deaths from cardiovascular disease has now increased in England for three years back to back. This is the first time that there has been a clear reversal in the trend for almost 60 years. Again, the question must be: what has brought that about and what has been done to stop it.” 

Moving on to the Minister’s response, Dame Andrea Ledsome said “I will write to the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) and my hon. Friends the Members for Shipley (Philip Davies) and Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) about the statistics. I do not have any information today; I wanted to focus on the Government’s strategy for preventing cardiovascular disease, but I will write to them.”
She couldn’t quite bring herself to say she would write to them about the statistics of cardiac deaths and covid vaccination status, but at least she “will write to them.”

Postscript : The Telegraph has picked up on the letter mentioned above by Philip Davies. Maybe the bubble is starting to leak a little, if not yet to burst.


Cardiac death speech

Andrew Bridgen


Mr Speaker

Can I thank the Honourable member for Watford for proposing this important debate today. Cardiovascular disease casts a devastating shadow over the lives of too many of our constituents. 

I am sure many members here have been affected, or know people close to them, who have been deeply affected by this appalling and shocking killer.

The House of Commons Library pack for this debate contains a startling statistic. 

Almost casually, it mentions that cardiovascular deaths per 100,000 have risen 10% since 2019 after falling steadily for decades.  Ten percent!

The previous steady reductions followed major improvements in public health policy, reduction in risk factors like smoking and controlling blood pressure as well as improvements in medical care. 

Whilst I am grateful to the Member for Watford, and the other members for their contributions, there is an elephant in the room. Why has there been a significant uptick in cardiac deaths in recent years? What novel intervention in public health has occurred since 2019? Some might think that Covid is the cause. Not so. The same uptick is observable in Australia and Singapore.

And it happened in those countries before they got Covid but after they rolled out the experimental MRNA injection. Ah the jab. I can see some members tutting and turning away.

Everyone knows that MPs with science degrees are few and far between so people’s eyes glaze over whenever science is discussed. 

Well I am one of the few MPs with a science degree. Margaret Thatcher was more proud of being the first PM with a science degree than the first woman PM. Quite right.

I have a degree in Biological Sciences including Genetics. So maybe it falls to me to raise in this House a critical matter of science. To sound the alarm for posterity. 

Since some of those here today appear to have prejudged the issue. It is often said that it is easier to fool someone than to persuade them that they have been fooled – or lied to. So, for posterity then.


It took 11 years for the thalidomide scandal to be discussed in parliament. Eleven years! I refuse to let this new mammoth medical scandal be ignored in the same way. 

We are witnesses to the greatest medical scandal in decades. Perhaps in living memory. Possibly ever. Bigger than Thalidomide which everyone here will know about. Bigger than the Tuskegee Untreated Syphilis Study scandal where some black people were deliberately not treated to see what would happen to their body in real time. 

Maybe even bigger than Vioxx – hitherto the Grandaddy of all medical scandals.

I can see some members looking puzzled. 

Vioxx was a new drug invented by Merck. It was an alternative to aspirin – a mild painkiller. 

A researcher first highlighted the issue to the senior management of Merck in 1997 two years before the drug was approved. 

1 in 115 people who took Vioxx would have a heart attack. 

Their profits comfortably exceeded the criminal fine and compensation and litigation costs after it was pulled. It was a good business decision for them. 

Not one pharma executive went to jail for skewing the trial results. For deceiving the regulators. For recklessly causing the deaths of 60,000 ordinary Americans. For profit. 

Lives tragically cut short. Families destroyed. Children devastated.

Imagine the incentive structure in an industry where profits can be made like that. 

This is what can happen in a corporate culture that is acclimatised to wielding the power of life and death over millions. 

Godlike power.

The potential for appalling scandals like Vioxx is built into their perverse incentive structure.

In 1986, pharma companies got immunity in the USA for all vaccine products. The number of vaccines administered to children in the USA has exploded since then.

In 2020, pharma manufacturers secured a world wide legal immunity from liability for their covid vaccines. 

Unlike the rest of us, the pharma companies were immunised from harm.

What better time, what better opportunity, what better means was there to roll out a novel drug platform. Known as the mRNA platform. Untested. Unknown. Minimal trial data in humans before Covid.


So what caused the cardiovascular injuries. The heart attacks in young people. 

The horrifying sight of super fit athletes keeling over on pitches around the world. 

The deaths?

There is a mountain of peer-reviewed evidence emerging and some hypotheses are being proposed. 

There are numerous cardiologists with concerns. Unfortunately many experts do not feel able to speak openly about those concerns because of a climate of fear and the consequences of whistleblowing.    

One hypothesis is that some injections mistakenly go into the vein in the arm, not the muscle. This circulates the contents all round the body immediately, but particularly in the cardiovascular system. 

Hitting the vein is a well known potential hazard among, for example, body builders who take steroids. Between 12% consistently report a metallic taste in the mouth if they hit the vein by mistake. 

Some of the covid vaccine injured report a unique metallic taste after the vaccine.

Of course, we know the vaccine will still enter the veins and arteries and reach other organs even if injected into muscle. 

The veins, arteries and heart will therefore be directly affected as well as every organ that the vaccine eventually reaches.

What will happen to them?

The covid injection is an instruction to cells to make a protein. The manufacturers decided to use the most lethal part of the virus. The spike protein. In the injection. 

The body recognises the foreign protein and attacks the cell, killing it. It has no other option.

If the cell is in the arm muscle that’s fine. Arm muscles can regenerate.

If the cell is in the heart or the arterial lining? 

Not so good. Heart muscle cannot regenerate. Any damage is permanent. 

Damage to an artery can lead to atherosclerosis and to clots which in turn lead to heart attacks and strokes. 

Ten percent rise, remember.


The evidence of the harms caused by the vaccine is growing inexorably. There is a wealth of data.

As the HART Group have pointed out the risk of a heart attack is increased by the covid vaccine. When 500 people were tested for blood markers of inflammation their 5 year risk of a heart attack went from 11% to 25%. 

This study must be treated with caution because it has no unvaccinated control group but it does suggest a significant increase in risk of coronary artery disease.

Another piece of evidence is that the rate of ambulance calls for serious cardiac events jumped from 2,000 to 2,500 per day in the UK coincident with the vaccine rollout, not with the spread of covid. 

Correlation is not causation but that is an interesting — and terrifying — statistic is it not?

Pfizer claimed that the Covid vaccine would disappear from the body in around 9 days

Multiple recent studies are now finding the spike protein in vaccinated patients who have never had covid six months after the injection. 

Some of these studies were in Australia and Singapore before covid ever spread there.

Don’t forget, the pharma companies managed to get almost total, world wide immunity for any negative consequences of the jab. 

Pfizer walked away from a market of 1.4 billion people in India because India wanted to do their own testing and refused to grant a liability waiver

In the UK, their immunity means that any successful litigation for negligence or other liability is underwritten by the taxpayer. 

Nice work if you can get it. 

What kinds of perverse incentives does this immunity from legal liability create in pharmaceutical companies?


Why inject in the arm for a virus that lodges in the throat and lungs — known as mucosal respiratory viruses?

One world class expert said last year:

“It is not surprising that none of the predominantly mucosal respiratory viruses have ever been effectively controlled by vaccines”

He continued

“This observation raises a question of fundamental importance: if natural mucosal respiratory virus infections do not elicit complete and long term protective immunity against reinfection, how can we expect vaccines, especially systemically administered non-replicating vaccines to do so”

Who is this world class vaccine expert expressing scepticism about vaccines for respiratory viruses ever working. And pointing out that no vaccine for a covid like virus has ever worked?

Anthony Fauci.

What incentives led to the roll out of a vaccine that the head of the USA Centre for Control of Diseases never believed could work? 

And did not in fact immunise the population. 

I thought vaccines were supposed to make the recipient immune from the disease?

Did I miss a meeting? 

One definition of vaccine failure is an outbreak in a vaccinated population. What does that say about the covid injection?

Why are many public health authorities around the world still recommending boosters for a vaccine that has failed by most normal measures? Do GPs still get paid per shot delivered?

It’s hardly surprising that people are voting with their feet on boosters. Only 31% of frontline NHS staff took the autumn booster and fewer than 10% of care home staff had the autumn booster in 2023. 


And then we have the side effects of the vaccine, including significant injury and death.

No serious person denies that the injection causes severe side effects — including death — in a small proportion of people.

So when the Prime Minister calls these injections “safe”, what does he mean?

The Prime Minister was recently confronted on GB News by John Watt who has a serious covid vaccine injury. 

These victims have been gaslighted, ignored and ridiculed. 

They have even been accused of being anti-vaxxers. 

Isn’t it a minimum requirement to be an anti-vaxxer that you are against taking, er, vaccines? 

How can people who did what they were told was the right thing. Who like me actually took the vaccine. Who then were unlucky enough to be injured. How can those victims be described as anti-vaxxers? 

The one group of people who cannot be called anti vaxxers are people injured from taking the vaccine. It would be funny if it wasn’t so incredibly serious.

But no one cares. Worse, no one cares that no one cares. Well I care Mr Speaker.

As I say, we may be witnesses to the greatest medical scandal in history. 

They will hang this medical catastrophe around our necks for generations. This is what we will be known for. Forever. For shame.

Public confidence in formal government vaccine advice has been significantly harmed. 

For nothing. 

The injection didn’t work as claimed. 

It did not confer immunity.

In October 2021, Boris Johnson correctly said, “It doesn’t protect you from catching the disease and doesn’t protect you against passing it on”.

I am sure everyone here knows people, maybe in their own family, who had covid after the vaccine. Aren’t vaccines supposed to, er, vaccinate you from catching the disease? 

Isn’t that the whole point of it being a “vaccine”?

Even the Prime Minister, when I asked him about the vaccine at PMQs recently, could not bring himself to utter the “safe and effective” mantra. 

No. He only said, and I quote:

“Let me be unequivocal from this dispatch box that the covid vaccines are safe”.  

He did not say. 

He could not bring himself to say:

“The vaccines are safe and effective”.

Because he has seen the data.

He knows. 

The vaccine failed.

It does not prevent infection.

It does not prevent transmission.

It does not reduce viral load.

And, contrary to popular belief, it does not prevent or reduce serious illness and death. 

Just look at the Delta Covid wave in Europe and the USA if you doubt this. The Delta wave was post vaccination. Serious illness and death rates were of a similar magnitude. 

All medical interventions are a trade-off between safety and effectiveness. Even the slightest safety risk makes a non-effective intervention unacceptable for use.


Billions of pounds have been spent on these interventions;

They have an appalling safety record; and 

The Prime Minister cannot bring himself to claim that they are effective. 

It should never have come to this.


What perverse incentives did these immunities from legal liability create? What motives can we ascribe to big pharma? 

World wide immunity. A guaranteed market. A golden opportunity.

Some of the Covid responses suggest patterns that could be linked to those perverse incentives.

First Example

Grant Shapps, then Transport Secretary, was on Julia Hartley Brewer’s radio show discussing the end of lockdown in early 2021. He promised he would “man the barricades” with her if lockdowns were not removed once the over 70s were jabbed. 

Then the injection rollout was extended to over 50s, then everyone. Then — appallingly — to children, contrary to the formal advice of the Joint Committee on Vaccinations and Immunity in September 2021. 

No barricades. 

No sign of Shapps. 

No apology or guilt. 

No shame.

Second Example 

Another interesting pattern illustrating the hidden incentives was the push to enforce the experimental mRNA jab on the unwilling.

Care home workers were forced to get jabbed or get fired, arguably in breach of both domestic and international prohibitions on the state imposing medical treatment on ordinary citizens, as Robert Craig has argued in an excellent and extremely useful recent article in the European Human Rights Law Review.

NHS workers were targeted next. Only a concerted effort by 99 brave backbench MPs saved the NHS workers from being forced to choose between their vocation and the jab. I was proud to be one of those rebels.

Third Example

Another highly disturbing pattern — illustrating covert and unexplained perverse incentives — was the decision to recommend that even people who already had Covid get the jab. 

This was another giant red flag to anyone thinking scientifically. 

Its immunity 101. 

If you have had the disease, you don’t need a vaccine. The chance of severe illness in the previously infected is vanishingly rare.

Why was the official public health recommendation to get vaccinated even if you already had Covid?

Isn’t that a bit odd? And what about the potential conflict of interest for doctors weighing up the fee per shot delivered. Versus the known risks to healthy patients?

There has been a disturbing side effect of the failed Covid vaccination. 

People have rejected other vaccination programmes. There is an observable worldwide reduction in people, especially children, taking the vaccines that actually work. 

Vaccination is the bread and butter of public health but public health institutions have severely damaged public trust in vaccines which was painstakingly built up over many many decades.


I call on the ONS and the NHS to be fully transparent and release anonymised patient-level data to rule out the possibility that these injections are a possible cause of these cardiovascular events.

I want to finish by reminding the House of the shocking statistic in the background briefing paper.

After decades of steady improvement, death rates from cardiovascular events have increased by 10% in recent years. 

Why is that?

Please follow and like us:
Visit Us