A few days earlier, on 20 October, Sir Christopher and Mr. Bridgen were also two of the five MPs who took the time to listen to those who had been injured by vaccines at the first All Party Parliamentary Group (“APPG”) meeting on vaccine damage.  Dr. Tess Lawrie attended the meeting.

“Our half of the room was packed: mainly by the vaccine injured and bereaved, and loved ones representing those unable to make the journey to Westminster … while more than 100 people sat on our side, just five politicians bothered to turn up … Five,” wrote Dr. Tess Lawrie.

There are 650 MPs in the UK.  So, 645 MPs are showing no concern about vaccine damage and the cost to human life within their constituencies.  We need to ask ourselves who, then, are these MPs representing?

During the Parliamentary debate on 24 October, both Sir Christopher and Mr. Bridgen gave a speech.  Mr. Bridgen’s speech concluded:

“What is the Government’s analysis of the excess deaths that we are suffering in this country, across Europe, and in the Americas? Even a casual glance at the data shows a strong correlation between vaccine uptake and the excess deaths in those regions. Surely we must have an investigation. Tens of thousands more people than expected are dying. This is really important, and if we do not get it right, no one will believe us, and trust in politicians, in medicine, and in our medical system will be lost.”

You can read the transcript of Mr. Bridgen’s speech in Hansard HERE.  Sir Christopher spoke before Mr. Bridgen and you can read the transcript of his speech by scrolling up the same page of Hansard.

The debate continued after his speech and about half an hour later while Dr. Caroline Johnson was responding,  Mr. Bridgen asked: “Is the Minister aware that excess deaths run somewhere – there are two different sets of figures – between 18,000 and 25,000 this year alone?”

To which Dr. Johnson, MP for Sleaford and Hykeham and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, replied:

“There is no evidence that those deaths were caused by the covid vaccine. Let me acknowledge and pass on my sympathies to the very small number of people for whom vaccines may not have worked as intended, and who may have suffered an adverse reaction from vaccines.  I turn to vaccine safety. All vaccines used in the UK covid-19 vaccine program are safe.”

In an appallingly biased article in The Times, George Grylls, the writer, misquoted Mr. Bridgen and smeared Sir Christopher, falsely linking his campaign for the vaccine-injured to “anti-vaxxers.”

“Disappointed to see @georgegrylls at The Times misquoting my intervention in the vaccine harms debate. The Times reported that I said ‘vaccines had been given to those with natural immunity because they had probably had the virus. I said ‘provably’. The meaning is very different,” tweeted Mr. Bridgen.

As well as dismissing MPs’ evidence as “false claims,” Grylls went on to describe production company Oracle Films as “an anti-vax conspiracy group.”

Mark Sharman, the producer of the latest Oracle Film documentary, ‘Safe an Effective: A Second Opinion’, has sent an email to The Times in response:

It is [ ] with some authority that I can say that your piece entitled ‘Anti-vaxxers applaud Tory MP Christopher Chope as he questions safety of Covid vaccines’ (The Times, October 31^st) is one the most biased, ill-informed and shady pieces of journalism I have ever seen.

Sir Christopher Chope is not an ‘anti-vaxxer’, nor is he speaking on behalf of any ‘anti-vax’ organisations. Rather, he is supporting with concern the many thousands of people who have been Covid vaccine-injured in the UK, whose many and various symptoms include amputations caused by blood clots, heart disease and in extreme cases death. This is not misinformation; coroners and physicians have confirmed the cause in many instances.

Times Article ‘One of The Most Biased, Ill-Informed and Shady Pieces Ever’, News Uncut, 1 November 2022

Below is a sample of related articles written in the last few days by suitably qualified people providing evidence which The Times chooses to ignore:

• YouTube bans Safe and Effective documentary saying evidence from those injured by jab violates its guidelines, 27 October 2022
• Counting Deaths (Part 2), John Dee’s Almanac, 1 November 2022
• Excess Deaths – yet again, Carl Heneghan and Tom Jefferson, 1 November 2022
• The Australian Holocaust? Joel Smalley, 27 October 2022
• They’re killing kids with the vax! George Christensen, 31 October 2022
• Classic Criminal Behaviour: ‘At This Point, It’s a Cover-Up,’ and They’re Tripling Down, The Vigilant Fox, 27 October 2022
• UPenn Professor Jeffrey Morris just sent us a major gift, More confirmation that the vaccines are causing huge numbers of excess deaths, Steve Kirsch, 27 October 2022
• Dr. Meryl Nass: More Vaccine Deaths Reported to VAERS in the Last 20 Months Than All Vaccines in the Last 30 Years Combined, Epoch TV, 1 November 2022

Who is The Times’ George Grylls?

Grylls is a failed architect who has become a political reporter at The Times.  He has written extensively about housing policy.  What has housing policy got to do with health?

On his Twitter profile, the young failed architect claims to report on defense and politics.  There’s no mention of his extensive experience in writing about housing policy.

This, as shown in the profile image above, is the state of UK “professional journalism.”  And it gets worse.

Despite having 6,338 followers he gets next to no interaction with his tweets. According to one of his most popular tweets by far with 41 engagements – most likely because it is pinned at the top of his feed and other Times staff and possibly family members feel obliged to acknowledge it – he is temporarily covering the “defence beat for The Times” as from 27 October.

“Armed forces, veterans, procurement, Ukraine, China, all the rest – my email is in my bio and my DMs are open so drop me a line!” he tweeted.  Judging by the lack of interest from his “followers,” he shouldn’t hold his breath.

There’s little else to say about George Grylls.  He seems to be no one of any significance and no one really seems to take any notice of him. What is The Times thinking using an inexperienced “political commentator” – who temporarily is covering the “defence beat” but whose main experience is writing about housing policy – to write about health, particularly a piece as important as the effects of experimental medical interventions on the UK population?

Is anyone still in doubt that The Times is acting as a propaganda agent for the Government?