HELP: Send this letter to Andrew Bridgen MP and UK's Reclaim Party

All VST subscribers, please send a copy of this letter to Andrew Bridgen MP and the UK Reclaim Party, then share any responses.

Context

Andrew Bridgen MP is practically the only voice in UK Parliament who has challenged and continues to challenge aspects of UK COVID policy and periphery/corollary issues. Having been politically taken out by the Tory party, he became an independent MP and has now joined the microscopic Reclaim party, whose manifesto can be found here.

Mr. Bridgen MP appears to be interested in scientific and medical evidence around COVID and gene therapies, and continues to use his time in the House of Commons to raise questions around them. To date, he has suffered greatly for taking a stance against the COVID narrative and raising issues well known but deliberately suppressed.

However, one should never assume anything about a politician’s knowledge, interests, motivations or competence, irrespective of what they say. Talk is free. Meaningful, measurable, accountable actions are all that matter.

With this in mind, please send a copy of the following letter to Andrew Bridgen and the Reclaim Party, irrespective of whether you are a UK citizen or one of Mr. Bridgen’s UK constituents.

Objectives

• Use strength of numbers to ensure Mr. Bridgen & Reclaim read and acknowledge this letter.

• Educate Mr. Bridgen and Reclaim on these specific issues and request that they take provable, measurable actions related to them, using Mr. Bridgen’s Parliamentary privilege and access to gain access to information that can otherwise be denied to citizens.

• Test Mr. Bridgen and Reclaim in order to evaluate their integrity, accountability and commitment to the issues around COVID that Bridgen claims to be concerned by.

• Hope that this action helps move the needle on the wider anti-human agenda.

What you are asked to do

1. Copy the following letter into an email.

2. Make the subject line: “URGENT - Legal action against Pfizer & Moderna re COVID GMOs”

3. Address that email TO:

   1. andrew@andrewbridgen.com

   2. andrew.bridgen.mp@parliament.uk

   3. press@reclaimparty.co.uk

4. BCC

   1. semmelweisz@protonmail.com

5. Tweet and DM @ABridgen @LozzaFox @thereclaimparty pointing them to this letter.

It does not matter whether you are a UK citizen or not. Using force of numbers to make Mr. Bridgen and Reclaim aware of the following letter is the objective.

---

Letter

To: Andrew Bridgen MP andrew@andrewbridgen.com andrew.bridgen.mp@parliament.uk

Reclaim Party Leadership press@reclaimparty.co.uk

Dear Mr. Bridgen MP & Reclaim Party Leadership,

Request to take specific actions re UK COVID policy and COVID gene therapies

Further to Mr. Bridgen’s previous welcome stance, statements and actions on UK COVID policy and COVID gene therapies, I am writing to you to:

• Make you aware of specific medical, scientific and legal issues relating to COVID gene therapies via the Australian Fidge v. Pfizer & Anor case;

• Illustrate how the issues are relevant to the UK and other territories;

• Request that you initiate action relating to the above in Parliament and your public spheres of influence to drive public awareness and potential legal action against Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca, UK government and UK regulatory bodies;

• Request Mr. Bridgen use wherever possible his Parliamentary privilege and access to seek answers and collect evidence relating to any and all matters contained herein;

• Request that you campaign for the repeal of the UK Coronavirus Act 2020 in totality and make it a Reclaim manifesto item.

• Request that you promulgate the above to your contacts within the UK House of Commons and House of Lords, and the EU Parliament, including Christine Anderson MEP, Rob Roos MEP and any others.

1.1 COVID Gene Therapies - Australian Legal Case File Number VID510/2023 Julian Fidge v. Pfizer Australia Pty Ltd & Anor

An Australian legal case has been filed on July 6, 2023 against Pfizer & Moderna, which also implicates the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) and Office of Gene Technology Regulation (OTGR), Fidge v. Pfizer & Anor.

Mr. Julian Gillespie LLB, B Juris is the architect of the case, and he works with Ms. Katie Ashby-Koppens, Dr. Julie Sladden, Dr. Chris Neil, Kevin McKernan and others in bringing the case.

1.1.1 Classification of COVID “vaccines” and regulation as Genetically Modified Organisms

The case alleges:

• criminal violations of the Australian Gene Technology Act (2000) by Pfizer and Moderna;

• criminal recklessness and/or negligence on the part of Pfizer, Moderna, OTGR and TGA;

• procedural failure on the part of the Australian Secretary of Health.

Submissions made to the court and the defendants demonstrate the nature of the primary active ingredients of COVID “vaccines” and their mode(s) of action conform to the Australian legal definition of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO), which means that the products must be regulated by the OTGR as such. This has not occurred. In Australia and the rest of the world, the products’ nature and mode of action has been deliberately misclassified/mischaracterised as only “vaccines” (hereafter they are referred to as “gene therapies”). Their GMO status has always been known, understood and admitted by manufacturers and regulators globally in their own documentation (see “Gene Therapies”, below).

AstraZeneca itself admitted that its Vaxzevria COVID gene therapy is a GMO when it applied for Australian regulatory approval. AZ’s Vaxzevria by design must enter the human nucleus to interact directly with human DNA in order for it to work. Knowing this, AZ did in Australia what Pfizer and Moderna did not: AZ followed Australian law and sought the involvement of the OTGR before it sought approval/authorisation from the TGA. Despite AZ’s Vaxzevria employing an adenovirus viral vector carrying a DNA payload, and the others using Lipid Nanoparticle (LNP) wrappers carrying what was described as a “messenger RNA” payload, all these products have ingredients and modes of action that meet the Australian GMO definition.

Pfizer and Moderna did not follow Australian law and failed to refer the products to the OTGR before seeking authorisation/approval from the TGA. The Secretary of Health is also implicated in having failed to send required notifications to the regulatory bodies against a mandated timeline.

The plaintiff demands immediate cessation of the products’ use in Australia.

1.1.2 GMOs with the proven capability to affect the human genome

The case raises the ability for Pfizer's, Moderna's and AZ’s products to interact with and affect the human genome. That ability has been categorically denied by all governments and manufacturers but has been proven experimentally. Multiple studies exist showing the ability for these products’ primary active ingredient to interact and integrate with the human genome with multiple, complex and unknown implications.

1.1.3 “messenger RNA” products are actually made with modRNA and have different properties and effects than was claimed by manufacturers and governments

The public has been led to believe that Pfizer and Moderna COVID gene therapies delivered a messenger RNA (mRNA) payload into their cells that triggered a short duration, non-toxic, translation of that mRNA into a protein synonymous with SARS-CoV-2 spike protein.

Molecular biologist, Klaus Steger Ph.D published an article in which he states the belief that the COVID gene therapies actually contain a modRNA payload that is distinctly different in nature and effects to mRNA. If correct, this would speak to serious issues and possible fraud and other crimes on the part of both manufacturers and governments.

1.1.4 Contamination of COVID gene therapies with undeclared GMOs - Plasmid dsDNA with SV40 promoter

The case references multiply replicated genetic sequencing work on COVID monovalent and bivalent gene therapies that proves the presence of additional genetic material as undeclared contaminants, grossly beyond any specified regulatory maximum level. This material is plasmid dsDNA, which is a GMO fundamental to the manufacturing process of Pfizer's and Moderna’s products. This contamination is in and of itself a GMO, separate to any declared, assessed and regulated primary ingredients.

The lead scientist conducting this sequencing work is genomics expert, Kevin McKernan; he has filed an affidavit in the case regarding his work and findings, which other independent scientists have reproduced with additional samples of COVID gene therapies.

The identified plasmid dsDNA inter alia:

• should not be present in the products;

• is not declared in any way as a product “ingredient” in any manufacturer, regulatory, clinical or patient information;

• is subject to a pre-agreed regulatory maximum limit of less than 330ng/mg RNA (EMA limit). Detected levels of plasmid dsDNA contamination exceed these limits by 18-70x;

• is capable of being encapsulated in the LNP “wrapper” of the gene therapies and therefore is aided in entering (“transfecting”) human cells in vivo and in vitro;

• may be able to transfect human cells simply by virtue of the amount present in a single dose, in addition to transfection via encapsulation in LNP wrappers;

• may have effects on human health and the human genome. No one knows what those effects are because their effects have not been researched;

• features what is referred to as a “SV40 promoter”, which is a deliberately engineered and inserted genetic feature of the plasmid dsDNA genome known to have carcinogenic and/or oncogenic effects in humans.

1.1.5 Gene therapies, prior manufacturer and regulator classification and knowledge

Both the regulators and manufacturers knew about the above issues since before product approval and roll out.

Regarding their status as either GMOs or “gene therapies” both Pfizer and Moderna state in their own SEC filings dated at least September 2019:

Re all of Moderna’s products:

Currently, mRNA is considered a gene therapy product by the FDA. Unlike certain gene therapies that irreversibly alter cell DNA and could act as a source of side effects, mRNA-based medicines are designed to not irreversibly change cell DNA; however, side effects observed in gene therapy could negatively impact the perception of mRNA medicines despite the differences in mechanism. In addition, because no product in which mRNA is the primary active ingredient has been approved, the regulatory pathway for approval is uncertain. The number and design of the clinical trials and preclinical studies required for the approval of these types of medicines have not been established, may be different from those required for gene therapy products, or may require safety testing like gene therapy products. Moreover, the length of time necessary to complete clinical trials and to submit an application for marketing approval for a final decision by a regulatory authority varies significantly from one pharmaceutical product to the next, and may be difficult to predict.

Moderna SEC Filing June 2020

Re BioNTech’s mRNA products:

To our knowledge, there is no current precedent for an mRNA-based immunotherapy such as the type we are developing being approved for sale by the FDA, European Commission or any other regulatory agency elsewhere in the world. Although we expect to submit BLAs for our mRNA-based product candidates in the United States, and in the European Union, mRNA therapies have been classified as gene therapy medicinal products, other jurisdictions may consider our mRNA-based product candidates to be new drugs, not biologics or gene therapy medicinal products, and require different marketing applications.

Currently, mRNA is considered a gene therapy product by the FDA. Unlike certain gene therapies that irreversibly alter cell DNA and may cause certain side effects, mRNA-based medicines are designed not to irreversibly change cell DNA. Side effects observed in other gene therapies, however, could negatively impact the perception of immunotherapies despite the differences in mechanism. In addition, because no mRNA-based product has been approved, the regulatory pathway in the United States and may other jurisdictions for approval is uncertain. The pathway for an individualized therapy, such as our iNeST mRNA-based immunotherapy where each patient receives a different combination of mRNAs, remains particularly unsettled. The number and design of the clinical and preclinical studies required for the approval of these types of medicines have not been established, may be different from those required for gene therapy products or therapies that are not individualized or may require safety testing like gene therapy products. Moreover, the length of time necessary to complete clinical trials and submit an application for marketing approval by a regulatory authority varies significantly from one pharmaceutical product to the next and may be difficult to predict.

There have been few approvals of gene therapy products in the United States and other jurisdictions, and there have been well-reported significant adverse events associated with their testing and use. Gene therapy products have the effect of introducing new DNA and potentially irreversibly changing the DNA in a cell. In contrast, mRNA is highly unlikely to localize to the nucleus, integrate into cell DNA, or otherwise make any permanent changes to cell DNA. Consequently, we expect that our product candidates will have a different potential side effect profile from gene therapies because they lack risks associated with altering cell DNA irreversibly. Further, we may avail ourselves of ways of mitigating side effects in developing our product candidates to address safety concerns that are not available to all gene therapies, such as lowering the dose of our product candidates during repeat dosing or stopping treatment to potentially ameliorate undesirable side effects.

BioNTech SEC Filing September 9, 2019

Regarding the GMO contamination with plasmid dsDNA, manufacturers and global regulators knew it existed before granting approval/authorisation. This is indicated by their deliberate specification of a maximum level for contamination in the products before approval/authorisation was granted. After approval and roll out in Australia, the regulators and manufacturers were specifically made aware of all of the above issues by third party Australian court submissions made in December 2021. None of the defendants appear to have acted appropriately despite that third party notification.

2.1 Ramifications/Corollaries

The ramifications of the above are far-reaching in every respect and are of concern to literally every person on the planet. Issues include:

• COVID gene therapies are simply not what we were told they were, in either nature or effects. Because their nature and mode of action are genetic, the products may have permanent effects on the human genome that are passed onto and persist in offspring, and/or harm human fertility.

• Given that all of the above was known by manufacturers and regulators before roll out, anyone injected with these products had a right to know the above in order to then give fully informed consent to be treated. All persons still have the right to know but are being actively denied access to the essential information about these products while still being encouraged, coerced or - in some territories and settings - forced by mandate to take them.

• In the absence of fully informed consent, the act of vaccination may constitute a criminal act of battery committed by the vaccinator against the vacinee.

• Manufacturers, the government, regulators, and vaccinators may be liable as a result of possibly committing crimes including fraud, negligence, recklessness, and battery. These acts may override, supersede or nullify any and/or all protections and liability shields conferred by other contracts and/or legislation, including sections of the Coronavirus Act (2020) and manufacturer supply contracts.

• All UK (and other) government information materials provided to clinicians and patients are misleading and/or deceptive and/or obfuscatory by virtue of withholding critical product information that was known before, during and after approval/authorisation was granted by the MHRA and other regulators.

• The contents, action and effects of these products are now experimentally proven to deviate far from all stated ingredients, characteristics, and claims of safety, efficacy and testing. All of them are now admitted to be causally linked to growing lists of fatal and deleterious medical conditions, which were either never declared in patient or clinician information, or mischaracterised in that information and in claims originated and/or supported and/or tolerated by manufacturers and government. Pfizer and Moderna’s own clinical trial data (released only under force of US FOIA rulings) proves that they had knowledge of harms that went beyond claims they, the British government, the MHRA and the NHS all made repeatedly before, during and after roll out.

2.2 Applicability in UK law

The above issues clearly concern most if not all nations in which these products have been deployed. Indeed, Gillespie et al has identified legal and regulatory similarities between Australia and the EU, such that their case may be easily ported to the EU. This may also be the case in the UK and elsewhere.

Gillespie et al has provided a basic framework of steps that need to be taken in order to rudimentarily assess whether the Australian case can be easily ported to another jurisdiction. These steps are stated in the linked article in 3.1, 1.a (below).

2.3 UK Coronavirus Act (2020)

The Act contains powers that are profound and wholly inappropriate as of not just today but also the start of the so-called pandemic. The Act must be repealed.

COVID-19 is a non-event and was always known to have an Infection Fatality Rate of 0.20% or less (Ioannidis, John P A. (‎2021)‎. “Infection fatality rate of COVID-19 inferred from seroprevalence data." Bulletin of the World Health Organization). Cases and death data have been multiply misdefined, miscalculated, misrepresented and are deeply flawed. COVID-19 was known in May 2020 to be fully and effectively treatable using cheap generic drugs per the published and widely used McCullough treatment algorithm and its derivatives. Governments around the world have been exposed as and admitted to having misled their citizens about the severity of COVID and the ways to treat it. This false data and false presentation was the justifying and deliberately fear-inducing context in which the Coronavirus Act (2020) was passed and repeatedly extended.

Most if not all sections of the Act (listed and accessible here) are highly questionable and of zero relevance now given that:

1. COVID-19 is no longer affecting society;

2. It remains fully treatable with means other than COVID gene therapies;

3. Has an IFR for most people far, far below 0.2%;

4. Large populations (possibly the majority) have acquired natural immunity to infection by SARS-CoV-2;

5. the Coronavirus Act (2020) was borne out of a totally false context;

6. Measures and treatments introduced, recommended and enforced in the UK have been rolled back, including: the entire, global use of AZ’s Vaxzevria on grounds of fatal and deleterious effects; repeated changes to the characterisations and recommended uses of COVID gene therapies in the UK and other territories.

Therefore, the Act should be repealed in its entirety. It was and remains unfit for purpose.

3.1 Actions requested of you

I request that you:

1. Take the above matters seriously and avail yourselves of further information via the following links that will provide lay accessible explanations and links to source documents:

   1. Australian case Fidge v. Pfizer & Anor (includes deeper information about products as GMOs and portability of Australian case to other jurisdictions);

   2. Discussion of Fidge v. Pfizer & Anor by Gillespie et al;

   3. Plasmid dsDNA contamination in COVID gene therapies (with links to McKernan’s source material and ongoing research);

   4. Klaus Steger Ph.D’s article on modRNA;

   5. COVID gene therapies can cross the placental barrier and affect the foetus;

   6. look up #plasmidgate and #placentagate on twitter;

2. Adequately, publicly and transparently question every relevant body in the UK including:

   1. the Secretary and Department of Health;

   2. the MHRA;

   3. all scientific advisory bodies who were involved in funding, research, development, assessment, approval, deployment and administration of COVID gene therapies;

   4. the NHS, its leadership and every significant entity involved in deploying these products in the UK;

   5. the manufacturers of any COVID gene therapy product (mRNA, DNA or other technology) that has been considered for use or used in the UK;

3. Make full use of Mr Bridgen’s Parliamentary privilege and other relevant authority/power/access to get information and answers regarding the above matters;

4. Use your profiles and platform to widely publicise the above and educate your audiences and followers on it;

5. Actively work to repeal the Coronavirus Act (2020) and make it a Reclaim party manifesto item.

6. Consider what role you all can play in bringing cases in the UK similar to that being brought in Australia and make serious, committed efforts to do so;

7. Use your profile and access to share the above directly with sympathetic MEPs including Christine Anderson, Rob Roos and others, in order to help ensure they see this information and prioritise it in their ongoing political work with a view to bringing legal cases in the EU.

Thank you in advance for your time and consideration of these grave matters.

I would be grateful if you could please acknowledge your receipt of this letter.

I am keen to hear your thoughts on these issues once you have had time to consider them.

Yours sincerely,