It is quite unfortunate that people use "leftist" as a propaganda tool to mean "anything that criticizes right wing views".
The speech said nothing about the DoD, Fort Detrick or Canada. He quoted statistics from the UK Government about the efficacy or lack of efficacy of the vaccine.
It is also a matter of public record that the US DoD and the NIH funded the EcoHealth Alliance who channelled funds to the Wuhan Institute of Virology for Gain of Function research on the coronavirus.
A lot of the coronavirus GoF research was also done by Dr Ralph Baric at Chapel Hill University and guess who funded that as well?
Irregardless of how the Covid outbreak occurred if you have some points to make about the content of Andrew Bridgen's speech lets hear them. They are about the efficacy or lack thereof of the vaccines and their side effects and are not about the origin of the Sars Cov 2 virus.
For anyone reading this comment, I would advise you to listen to the speech rather than wasting time on snide HN commenters who have no meaningful facts to contribute.
QED.
HNers are of course, free to make up their own minds whether someone who suggests that Fort Detrick and a facility in Canada created COVID and refers to it as a "viral bioweapon" is a "level headed" commentator on the issue likely to be offering accurate interpretations of government statistics well worth taking the time to listen to.
And indeed on the subject of your original claim about whether politicians feared the implications of hearing a fearless utterer of such irrefutable truths or just didn't want to dignify someone who has rapidly descended into the political equivalent of Alex Jones with an audience.
Where do you see peeving? I see a call to action. This content makes money. That doesn't mean you have to write that, but there's clearly–as you observe–an audience willing to pay for a different perspective.
Typical leftist slant peeved at the fact that the so called alt-right writers shunned by his MSM masters have an audience willing to pay for information suppressed by the MSM even if a lot of that information comes from "authoritative, official, reputable" sources including Govt bodies.
A good example of this speech in the UK Parliament which resulted in MPs leaving the chamber so they could possible claim "plausible denial" to their constituents if asked why they are not calling proper investigations into the facts presented.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvSHD_n3Lyg&t=390s