Tory MP Andrew Bridgen suspended for comparing Covid vaccine to Holocaust

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: quintessentone

You really need to try hard to see antisemitism in his tweet.

It's just absurd and ludicrous that antisemitism is even mentioned. It's obvious what the problem is and it seems his views and his speech on the parliament did bother the establishment.

What the problem is in my view is that he is in the best position to meet and discuss his concerns with top ranking officials in their health agencies, yet he does not exercise his access and power in government rather he goes to social media. Taking into account his other acts of disregard for the Code of Conduct I am suspicious of his agenda.

What agenda??

Only one side has an agenda and that's not the side Andre Bridgen belongs to. I mean Pharmaceuticals have an agenda of promoting their products and agendas to increase their share of power and influence so to control political and medical narratives.

He has actually spoken to the Parliament for the issue of the crippled vaccines and the various issues associated with the vaccination campaign and the origins of Covid. The video Its around 17-18 minutes long. But the Parliament was empty that day.... The video has been viewed quote a lot though.

Misguided agenda...fixed that for all of us.

The gist of this fact-checking article on Brigden's understanding of absolute risk and relative risk seems to me that he does not understand it all. Also most of his understanding was from dated sources having nothing to do with Covid vaccines.

The Academy of Medical Royal Colleges has also previously put out guidance stating that both absolute risk and relative risk should be published in press releases.

In a 2017 guidance document, the organisation said absolute risk reduction is “best understood by patients and the public”, while “relative risk reduction tends to exaggerate benefits and harms” and should not be used in isolation. However, the guidance also adds that the latter “is more generalisable as it does not depend on a specific time frame and baseline risk”.

We deserve better than bad information.
After we published this fact check, we contacted Andrew Bridgen to request a correction regarding his claim that serious adverse effects reported by the public after vaccination are thought to represent only 10% of the true rate of serious adverse events.

Mr Bridgen did not respond to our correction request.

fullfact.org...

Mr Bridgen did not respond to our correction request - that's because he only wants to be a mouth piece on social media.

Absolute risk and relative risk reduction
Here is the paper where it shows how these are very different. It is very misleading to present the relative risk reduction without making it clear what it is.

www.nejm.org...

Send the link to Bridgen, he needs it more than anybody else it seems.

He already raised this in parliament and I am sure he is aware of the paper and other papers that discuss vaccine effectiveness.

You have misunderstood something here just as some other things which I have pointed out to you in our discussions. He isn't the one who needs to explain himself over this matter. What he said about relative and absolute risk reduction is true. To make it more clear it is the pharmaceuticals that are accused of misleading the public and the papers which are written without explaining what vaccine effectiveness is. Which is very misleading.

He doesn't need any defense on this matter as he is right. He doesn't need any defense on any other matter he is raised in parliament as he is right and he has backed his speech with plenty of evidence.

The claim made by full fact that he doesn't understand the relative and absolute risk reduction is just baseless. Nobody can take seriously 'fact checkers'

It was proved that he does not understand the context of relative risk and absolute risk reduction and he won't have any debates with those that do.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Here:

en.m.wikipedia.org...

No, of course it doesn't include stealing or murder.

That would be just absurd and ludicrous.

Perhaps you didn't understand my sarcasm but anyway...

It seems that parliamentary privilege isn't an obstacle in this case and he is considering to sue Hancock or whoever else for libel and defamation. Something predictable given the circumstances.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: quintessentone

You really need to try hard to see antisemitism in his tweet.

It's just absurd and ludicrous that antisemitism is even mentioned. It's obvious what the problem is and it seems his views and his speech on the parliament did bother the establishment.

What the problem is in my view is that he is in the best position to meet and discuss his concerns with top ranking officials in their health agencies, yet he does not exercise his access and power in government rather he goes to social media. Taking into account his other acts of disregard for the Code of Conduct I am suspicious of his agenda.

What agenda??

Only one side has an agenda and that's not the side Andre Bridgen belongs to. I mean Pharmaceuticals have an agenda of promoting their products and agendas to increase their share of power and influence so to control political and medical narratives.

He has actually spoken to the Parliament for the issue of the crippled vaccines and the various issues associated with the vaccination campaign and the origins of Covid. The video Its around 17-18 minutes long. But the Parliament was empty that day.... The video has been viewed quote a lot though.

Misguided agenda...fixed that for all of us.

The gist of this fact-checking article on Brigden's understanding of absolute risk and relative risk seems to me that he does not understand it all. Also most of his understanding was from dated sources having nothing to do with Covid vaccines.

The Academy of Medical Royal Colleges has also previously put out guidance stating that both absolute risk and relative risk should be published in press releases.

In a 2017 guidance document, the organisation said absolute risk reduction is “best understood by patients and the public”, while “relative risk reduction tends to exaggerate benefits and harms” and should not be used in isolation. However, the guidance also adds that the latter “is more generalisable as it does not depend on a specific time frame and baseline risk”.

We deserve better than bad information.
After we published this fact check, we contacted Andrew Bridgen to request a correction regarding his claim that serious adverse effects reported by the public after vaccination are thought to represent only 10% of the true rate of serious adverse events.

Mr Bridgen did not respond to our correction request.

fullfact.org...

Mr Bridgen did not respond to our correction request - that's because he only wants to be a mouth piece on social media.

Absolute risk and relative risk reduction
Here is the paper where it shows how these are very different. It is very misleading to present the relative risk reduction without making it clear what it is.

www.nejm.org...

Send the link to Bridgen, he needs it more than anybody else it seems.

He already raised this in parliament and I am sure he is aware of the paper and other papers that discuss vaccine effectiveness.

You have misunderstood something here just as some other things which I have pointed out to you in our discussions. He isn't the one who needs to explain himself over this matter. What he said about relative and absolute risk reduction is true. To make it more clear it is the pharmaceuticals that are accused of misleading the public and the papers which are written without explaining what vaccine effectiveness is. Which is very misleading.

He doesn't need any defense on this matter as he is right. He doesn't need any defense on any other matter he is raised in parliament as he is right and he has backed his speech with plenty of evidence.

The claim made by full fact that he doesn't understand the relative and absolute risk reduction is just baseless. Nobody can take seriously 'fact checkers'

It was proved that he does not understand the context of relative risk and absolute risk reduction and he won't have any debates with those that do.

It was proved nowhere. On the contrary his speech in parliament shows a very different picture. It's about 17-18 minutes and you have to listen to the concerns he raised.

If what you say is true show me where it was priced and how.

The people who don't understand biology, epidemiology and science, generally speaking, are reporters and 'fact-checkers' who are unqualified to speak about matters in science and medicine.

You need also to have a look on what Andrew Bridgen has studied. Which is not journalism or pseudo-journalism and fact checking

a reply to: quintessentone

I will repeat this because it is very important


He already raised this in parliament and I am sure he is aware of the paper and other papers that discuss vaccine effectiveness.

You have misunderstood something here just as some other things which I have pointed out to you in our discussions. He isn't the one who needs to explain himself over this matter. What he said about relative and absolute risk reduction is true. To make it more clear it is the pharmaceuticals that are accused of misleading the public and the papers which are written without explaining what vaccine effectiveness is. Which is very misleading.

He doesn't need any defense on this matter as he is right. He doesn't need any defense on any other matter he is raised in parliament as he is right and he has backed his speech with plenty of evidence.

The claim made by full fact that he doesn't understand the relative and absolute risk reduction is just baseless. Nobody can take seriously 'fact checkers

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: quintessentone

I will repeat this because it is very important


He already raised this in parliament and I am sure he is aware of the paper and other papers that discuss vaccine effectiveness.

You have misunderstood something here just as some other things which I have pointed out to you in our discussions. He isn't the one who needs to explain himself over this matter. What he said about relative and absolute risk reduction is true. To make it more clear it is the pharmaceuticals that are accused of misleading the public and the papers which are written without explaining what vaccine effectiveness is. Which is very misleading.

He doesn't need any defense on this matter as he is right. He doesn't need any defense on any other matter he is raised in parliament as he is right and he has backed his speech with plenty of evidence.

The claim made by full fact that he doesn't understand the relative and absolute risk reduction is just baseless. Nobody can take seriously 'fact checkers

What is baseless are his negative vaccine efficacy claims and that is evidenced by him being ousted and investigated.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

You can lead a horse to water.....

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: quintessentone

I will repeat this because it is very important


He already raised this in parliament and I am sure he is aware of the paper and other papers that discuss vaccine effectiveness.

You have misunderstood something here just as some other things which I have pointed out to you in our discussions. He isn't the one who needs to explain himself over this matter. What he said about relative and absolute risk reduction is true. To make it more clear it is the pharmaceuticals that are accused of misleading the public and the papers which are written without explaining what vaccine effectiveness is. Which is very misleading.

He doesn't need any defense on this matter as he is right. He doesn't need any defense on any other matter he is raised in parliament as he is right and he has backed his speech with plenty of evidence.

The claim made by full fact that he doesn't understand the relative and absolute risk reduction is just baseless. Nobody can take seriously 'fact checkers

What is baseless are his negative vaccine efficacy claims and that is evidenced by him being ousted and investigated.

No you are wrong.

The effectiveness of the vaccine is a very misleading term. There is a huge difference between relative and absolute risk reduction and he has raised it in the parliament. Nobody can say that he is misinformed.

Where is it that he was proven wrong? Coming back to your reply a few posts back.

You still seem to be confusing why he was suspended from his party. And you have confused before why he apologised for a different matter for which he received a temporary suspension from parliament for 5 days.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: quintessentone

I will repeat this because it is very important


He already raised this in parliament and I am sure he is aware of the paper and other papers that discuss vaccine effectiveness.

You have misunderstood something here just as some other things which I have pointed out to you in our discussions. He isn't the one who needs to explain himself over this matter. What he said about relative and absolute risk reduction is true. To make it more clear it is the pharmaceuticals that are accused of misleading the public and the papers which are written without explaining what vaccine effectiveness is. Which is very misleading.

He doesn't need any defense on this matter as he is right. He doesn't need any defense on any other matter he is raised in parliament as he is right and he has backed his speech with plenty of evidence.

The claim made by full fact that he doesn't understand the relative and absolute risk reduction is just baseless. Nobody can take seriously 'fact checkers

What is baseless are his negative vaccine efficacy claims and that is evidenced by him being ousted and investigated.

What he has said in his speech in parliament and the concerns he raised in relation to the Covid-19 vaccines has strong basis. Vaccine injuries, deaths, and effectiveness, are very legitimate concerns and he is not investigated about this matters. The establishment won't open a front to see whether Bridgen is correct about his views. First of all he has the right to hold any views he wants and most importantly he is right and an investigation will expose the vaccine campaign and the response to Covid.

www.change.org...

Over 34,000 have signed the petition

Breaking

twitter.com...

As a Jewish researcher, as a daughter of a holocaust surviver, I proudly stand with Andrew Brigen and agree with every word he twitteted: This IS the biggest crime against humanity since the holocaust

a reply to: Asmodeus3

How many threads are you going to post about this?

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Asmodeus3

How many threads are you going to post about this?

Have a look at my other thread.

A number of Jewish Scientists and Doctors have written to Rishi Sunak explaining the obvious.

You see?! I was correct again...

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

So why two threads about the same topic?

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Oldcarpy2

So why two threads about the same topic?

Not the same topic.

Does it bother you that the truth is out?

a reply to: Asmodeus3

Not really.

I'm not as obsessed as you on one subject.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Not really.

I'm not as obsessed as you on one subject.

Does it bother you that the truth is out?
Do you have any valid arguments?

Upgrade

news.sky.com...

Andrew Bridgen: MP kicked out of Tory party after comparing COVID vaccines to Holocaust.

Mr Bridgen was suspended from the parliamentary Conservative Party following his remarks at the start of this year. He has now been ejected completely from the party but says he intends to stand again for election.

Andrew Bridgen has been kicked out of the conservative party in England.

I have made another thread in the past where I have shown the absurdity of the claims made against him.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Here is a thread about a number of Jewish scientists and medical doctors who sent a letter to Rishi Sunak arguing that what Mr Bridgen has said was not antisemitic and that it is disgraceful to weaponise antisemitism so to promote politics and censor other people's views. In addition the emphatically argued the concerns raised by Mr Bridgen in relation to the Covid campaign, lockdowns, and vaccines, are very legitimate.

From his twitter page

twitter.com...

My expulsion from the Conservative Party under false pretences only confirms the toxic culture which plagues our political system.

Above all else this is an issue of freedom of speech. No elected Member of Parliament should ever be penalised for speaking on behalf of those who have no voice.

The Party has been sure to make an example of me.