I do not have expertise in the chemistry or the medical effects of vaccines. If you wish to discuss this topic then go to sites that are capable of handling these issues and have articles from people who do know about them. Nor do I wish to host a debate about Mr Bridgen’s  words. As you can see I have not written about this medical issue.


  1. XY
    January 12, 2023

    I’ve not said anything on those subjects, but I’m not sure why you need expertise on a subject for people to discuss it here.

    Bridgen’s words… can’t people express an opinion on a hot topic? As long as it’s within legal boundaries etc (which I’m sure you can moderate).

    1. Hope
      January 13, 2023

      Your blog your rules. However, most ministers are not qualified for the post they hold or act for our country on a national basis. Your view could also very restrict what you blog about? Your view could be interpreted to shut down debate about emergency use of vaccines that in any other circumstance would be forbidden by law.

      There is no emergency or pandemic so why are our MPs not acting with a fiduciary duty to represent our interests that the govt. is not acting ultra vires and outside the law?

  2. The Prangwizard
    January 12, 2023

    Dodging and avoiding anything that might be seriously critical of Tory woke attitudes and the restrictions of our freedoms of expression.

    1. Your comment is awaiting moderation
      January 13, 2023


  3. Nottingham Lad Himself
    January 12, 2023

    Thank you Sir John.

    Could you also please recommend that a number of your posters do the same regarding climate science, the international law of claiming asylum, and other such matters requiring an informed position in order to make comments which are other than worthless?

    Thank you again.

    1. Donna
      January 13, 2023

      Your comment demonstrates yet again that lefties always want to prevent debate. No-one is allowed to hold and express an opinion which doesn’t conform to lefty dogma.

    2. Mickey Taking
      January 13, 2023

      and stop people claiming it is Brexit when the sun doesn’t shine!

    3. MFD
      January 13, 2023

      Well NLH, do these subjects make you uncomfortable ? I’m not surprised when I read some of your comments.
      You must be employed by a nudge unit, the BBC maybe!

    4. Lifelogic
      January 13, 2023

      So you want to shut down debate on the great climate alarmist religion/fraud do you too? A report by Chris Skidmore seems to be full of more insane Net Zero lunacy. Why did Liz Truss ask a deluded Modern History Graduate to write such a report. This deluded dope really does not have a clue about energy, physics, climate…

    5. Mike Wilson
      January 13, 2023

      If the ‘International Law of claiming asylum’ means that anyone in the world who doesn’t like where they live has the lawful right to claim asylum here, then we will have a population of a billion in short order and turn into the sort of third world dump they are escaping.

      1. Mickey Taking
        January 13, 2023

        politicians often talk about ‘standing shoulder to shoulder’. That is what we will be doing.

    6. beresford
      January 13, 2023

      Not to mention industrial relations and railway operational practices.

    7. Your comment is awaiting moderation
      January 13, 2023

      @Nottingham Lad Himself
      “please recommend that a number of your posters do the same”
      Presume you mean the contributors that you don’t agree with?

    8. Wil
      January 13, 2023

      Too right NLH, I am a Chemical Engineer and it drives me crazy to when I hear the United Nations and our Government spout nonsense about the dangers of CO2°.

      1. Wil
        January 13, 2023


        1. Wil
          January 13, 2023

          CO₂ – Finally got it!

  4. IanB
    January 12, 2023

    Sir John

    Thankyou, agreed. The country, democracy and it’s economy is my general perseption of your diary. Although there is a generalisation (not specifics) on the situation of freedom of speech and cancellation of things a minority don’t agree with – hearing and counter arguing is realistic in a democracy. That said your Diary as you say is not the place when the specifics are so narrow

  5. forthurst
    January 12, 2023

    Sir John, do you have a comment on Sunak’s grotesque overreaction? Is this indicative of extremely weak leadership?

  6. Iain Gill
    January 12, 2023

    but you know the astrazeneca covid vaccine has been withdrawn from use, despite large stockpile of it being built up. somebody somewhere knows why this kind of vaccine is out of favour, and why is that not public domain?

    we all know the chances of children dying from Covid are almost zero, the drive to vaccinate them against Covid obviously leads to lots of obvious questions.

    there are a lot of subjects you are not an expert in that you give a view on.

    but its refreshing to hear a politician say “I dont know” most of them should say that far more often

    1. Nottingham Lad Himself
      January 13, 2023

      Yes, I’ve had one shot of that.

      It is relatively safe, but not as safe as others.

      It’s that simple.

      Your comment is simply incorrect on its main claims.

      1. Bill B.
        January 13, 2023

        And as usual you never say why you’re right and the other chap’s wrong: NLH™

  7. Brian Tomkinson
    January 12, 2023

    The fact that you do not wish to have any discussion about the efficacy and potential dangers of these Covid ‘vaccines’ is very disturbing. Questioning the safety of a ‘vaccine’ that all were encouraged to accept, and some coerced to accept in order to keep their jobs, is something no one, least of all an MP and legislator, should prevent. People have been seriously injured and some have died as a direct result of these jabs. Yet they are still being ppushed even for babies. Those in government who have maliciously attacked Andrew Bridgen and wish to deny him the right of free speech do so in order to deflect attention away from their own dirtect personal responsibility and involvement. It is disgraceful and an affront to our liberty, freedom and democracy.

    1. Your comment is awaiting moderation
      January 13, 2023


    2. alan jurek
      January 14, 2023

      + 1

  8. Donna
    January 13, 2023

    We live in what is described as a Representative Democracy so we are reliant on “our” Representatives to inform themselves about difficult issues and be prepared to discuss them.

    An elected MP has had the whip removed for doing his job, representing his Constituents and QUOTING an Expert Cardiologist. Nothing he said was anti-Semitic.

    The Government’s attempt to impose a narrative about (a) Covid and (b) the gene therapies has failed.

    1. Jim Whitehead
      January 13, 2023

      Donna, ++++++++
      Three succinct and accurate paragraphs, thank you.
      I’m very disappointed in Sir John’s brief paragraph explaining why he is silent on what is a most disturbing development.
      Sunak’s diatribe was as transparent an attempt at evasive diversion as one can imagine.
      Anti-semitism has absolutely nothing to do with Andrew Bridgen’s attempt to wake up Parliament to an impending disaster.
      The shutting down of free speech is not going unnoticed.

    2. hefner
      January 22, 2023

      If you had ever read on the topic you would know that mRNA vaccines are not gene therapy. But I guess the websites you are familiar with peddle this argument which is scientifically inane.
      As anybody with a bit of biology past A-level would know (and one would expect Bridgen to know as he is supposed to have got a BSc in biology from U.Nottingham) mRNA vaccines do not enter the cell nucleus and therefore cannot interfere with the DNA (which is what gene therapy actually is).

      I am all for people participating in any type of discussions, but with a proviso, that they are willing to inform themselves before commenting.
      A blog like Sir John, which almost everyday introduces a new topic, is usually only able to collect the instinctive, ie not likely informed, reactions of the people participating.

      On each topic, there might be a few (very few indeed) people properly able to comment intelligently. Unfortunately it is not within the reach of the large majority of contributors here.
      I guess, they are very unlikely to try to get any information past the top appearances in a Google search (if they ever do such a thing), top appearances more likely than not, to be populated by similarly ad hoc sites of very little scientific content.

      So when Sir John asks what people are thinking about this or that topic, is he really expecting to get balanced answers? Or is it a plain exercise in demagoguery?

      Reply It’s an exercise in democracy which you seem to dislike

  9. davews
    January 13, 2023

    I am not an expert in medical science, virology and other subjects, but as an Engineer who is able to analyse information it is clear that there are very serious issues with these vaccines. I have direct experience from friends and relatives who have been victims. It concerns me greatly that nobody is investigating these matters and that anybody who dare mention that the vaccine is not as ‘safe and effective’ as government continue to insist is considered a pariah. That our learned John has stated he is of the same opinion, and joining the chorus of those criticising Andrew Bingham is most disturbing. Free speech is essential in our democratic world and it should be the case on this forum as well.

    Reply Not what I wrote! Try reading it again

    1. Stred
      January 13, 2023

      Reply to SJR. You wrote that if contributors wish to discuss vaccines go to other sites.
      Also that you do not have the expertise to deal with the subject.
      The problem is that few MPs have investigated any other opinions that do not follow government policy and that government policy is to censor or pay the MSM to remove any contrary opinion.
      These, such as from Professor Bhakdi at the start then Dr Yeadon former president of research at Pfizer, pus Professor Dalgleish, German , Belgian, Swedish, Danish, American, Canadian, Brazilian, Japanese, Ausralian ,S.African, and even French doctors have been writing about the subject with opposing views but these are not to be found except via blogs such as Daily Sceptic and TCW. MPs are paid to represent their constituents, not civil servants, big pharma and government manipulators. If you wish to know how the experimental and coerced vaccination programme has gone wrong please request information.
      My own motivation came after a botched injection and immediately breathing difficulties which have not improved. The lie that the vaccines stays in the arm muscle and does not reach the bloodstream has now been dropped. Why not ask a question about this and see ministers give another non answer.

    2. Lifelogic
      January 13, 2023

      You only really need to understand the statistics. Of course it would help if the Government were not trying to hide and disguise these. Sunak seems to think he is good at mathematics so has he bothered to look at the Vaccine Harm Stats?

      Though he is not so good at understanding the mathematics of the economy or currency debasement by QE it seems when he was Chancellor or was this his deliberate choice. So as to pay workers with £1 notes worth only 80p or a bit less.

  10. Wanderer
    January 13, 2023

    I can understand why you would want to channel debate here to issues that relate to your expertise, rather than to outliers that don’t greatly interest you or a lot of the readers. Or to not analyse words that got a fellow MP suspended.

    However, overshadowing the details is the freedom of expression issue. It impacts us all, not least when restrictions are placed on parliamentarians, who have privilege in this regard in order that they can voice concerns that would otherwise go unsaid.

    As an experienced politician who is gifted with his words, I feel it is telling of the times we live in that even you avoided alluding to the distinction between what was said, and the right to say it, in your post.

  11. J M
    January 13, 2023

    You don’t need to be a chemist to consider whether or not the vaccines are effective or harmful. Just analyse the data. This lack of curiosity and willingness to trust so-called experts is not healthy for democracy.

  12. Mickey Taking
    January 13, 2023

    I have a very wide circle of relatives, friends and contacts all of whom stated how pleased they were to have the vaccines, apart from tender upper arms for a day, none reported serious effects. I’m just wanting to state my experience as do several on here who claim the opposite, or quote heresay. All opinions should be covered not just alarmist.

    1. Donna
      January 14, 2023

      And I have a similarly wide circle and a number have become seriously ill post-jab and 3 have died. This may, or may not be, related to the jabs but there is enough correlation with the timings and the data (which we’re not supposed to see/discuss) to raise concerns

  13. a-tracy
    January 13, 2023

    Bridgen should set up his own blog so all these people that want to discuss it with him can, but he probably hasn’t got the work ethic to make it succeed.

  14. Cary
    January 13, 2023

    Whilst Sir John may not have expertise on vaccines, as a parliamentarian he is perfectly entitled to comment on them just as he does on other matters on which he may not be an ‘expert’. And I fail to see why he hesitates to comment on Andrew Bridgen’s words. They were clearly stupid (when you resort to comparing something to the Holocaust or Hitler, that’s a sure sign you’ve lost the plot somewhat), but they weren’t anti-semitic (the words were from an Israeli doctor). And the general lack of debate on Covid vaccine efficacy and side effects in parliament and the mainstream media is extraordinary; I don’t think there’s ever been a medicine that has gathered so much uncritical praise. The withdrawal of the whip is an over-reaction; some stern words and an order to apologise would have sufficed.

  15. Mike Wilson
    January 13, 2023

    I do not have expertise in the chemistry or the medical effects of vaccines

    Fair enough. But some people that do have such expertise – doctors, cardiologists etc. – have raised the issue that the vaccines may have done some damage. Is it Tory Party policy to deny this out of hand? Don’t mention the war! Don’t mention the vaccines.

    A few weeks ago a Tory MP raised this issue in the House of Commons and a health minister simply dismissed him. She, presumably, knows better than the cardiologist the MP referred to.

    Reply I have encouraged bloggers here to raise them in suitable fora. I highlight a wide range of other issues to discuss here. I am not hosting a site for others to free ride their campaigns unless I agree with them.

    1. Clough
      January 13, 2023

      Reply to reply
      That seems very fair, Sir John, except that I’m not sure I understand the last part. Does this mean that it would be OK for me to free ride every day a campaign e.g. to keep both lanes in Peach St. Wokingham open, on the basis that you agree with me? (As I hope you do.)

      Reply not every day!

  16. Light and shadow
    January 13, 2023

    Sir John,
    This is your blog, so you are very much entitled to set the parameters. I furthermore like the idea of not wanting to profess an opinion rather than spouting platitudes.
    On the other hand, as raised by others, while you may lack medical expertise like many, analysing data is sufficient, or shall I mention the suppression of alternative points of view that happened?
    The Government, like so many, threw out well-prepared plans (why?), definitions of words were amended, fundamental liberties and the fundamental principle of informed consent to medical treatment counted for naught. The general public was warned of danger while parties were held by those issuing the messages.
    The situation we are now in is one way or another linked to measures taken in the recent past: economically and medically (excess mortality). Wanting to return to normalcy is understandable, but might be doomed without honest analysis.

  17. Geoffrey Berg
    January 14, 2023

    The important thing is that everybody (and most people are not experts) has had to make a personal decision over whether to have Covid vaccines or not and many have thought carefully about it, generally more carefully than they think about politics.
    Views are very polarised on the vaccines, indeed too polarised.
    Without a doubt mortality from Covid has been overwhelmingly related to age with mortality increasing with age. Vaccine risks seem similar between age groups (possibly worse among the young as they may live to suffer long term side effects in the unlikely event any occur) but benefits in mitigating Covid infections are much greater for older people.
    I was 65 years old when l first opted to get vaccinated. Had I been 25 I might have decided otherwise and legitimately opted not to get vaccinated.

Comments are closed.