Perspectives on the Pandemic
An Urgent Warning to the world

Mike Yeadon
Former Vice President and Chief Science Officer
allergy and Respiratory research unit pfizer pharmaceuticals

Canterbury

veteran of the pharmaceutical industry
a degree in biochemistry and toxicology
PhD in respiratory pharmacology
32 years in new drug discovery in respiratory and allergy, most notably pfizer where he was chief scientist and head of respiratory research

He founded and ran a successul biotech company which was acquired by a larger pharmaceutical company
Experienced in the research development and production of vaccines

Recently authored a letter to the European Medicines agency

Of course I am pro novel medicines, especially safe and effective medicines. Like anyone he is troubled if something does not work or is not safe and is being rolled out. He co-authored a letter in December of 2020
Concerned that these gene-based vaccines are moving at too great a pace and have not acquired a safety database for them to be widely rolled out
Completely wreckless dispensing of these novel technology vaccines
Fundamentally these are new technology products - there are no products of this kind where they use a gene, sometimes a virus, to somehow bring a gene inside the cells of the human body, get those cells to manufacture part of the pathogen - and use that to create an immune response. Normal vaccines use an already dead pathogen - this is new in that the gene fo the pathogen is being brought into the body and invitigint he body to manufacture part of that pathogen
The number of unknowns are a concern, because we simply dno't know what will happen downstream from that event not having been done before.
The moment I'm seeing the way these vaccines are rolled out, with the assurance taht they are safe, even in th elong term, and completely ignoring the potential for longer term side effects. Imaginge a scenario where 1% after a year or two get some unexpected problem - what are you going to do? You've already given ti to the majority of the population. So when you roll it out to people who are not at any risk of dying from the virus, you know something very bad is happening. Our broad concern is new technology, you need a good safety database, didn't have it - be careful - and then had a list of specific oncerns that people have focused on. Those concerns are minor details.

None of these gene-based vaccines have been through the normal research and development phase to completion. The ones that have been used in UK at the moment - all of these are still deep in their pivotal phase 3 clinical trials - dno't finish for 2 years. They arenot playing around - those 2 years are to gather evidence of robust continuing activity - what you want to happen - and also to check whether or not something bad happens. We don't have that information - they've been given emergency-use authorization. In addition to that rather substantial question, there are numerous other pharmaceutical treatments like ivermectin, hcq, vitamin D, corticosteroids - and all of theese have been batted out of existence by what I believe are criminals - because if any of those things were approved, even off-label, it would undermine the rationale for these vaccines that would then have to wait unti lthey had finished their normal clinical development. So we've only got them because there are no alternatives, and this is what is required to get emergency-use authorization, because all of these viable alternatives have been suppressed.

`How can so many governmental agencies around the world be countenancing this`

I think that's a fair comment - it's the largest phase III trials in world history. The nuremberg code that was put together after the nazi doctor trials after the 2nd world war - the court decided that these doctors should be subject in many cases to the death penalty. The code was written after that, designed expressly to prevent involutnarily experiments on human beings without their consent. I looked at the consent forms - the ones that have been available to me - none of them mention that these products are still in the experimental phase. They have not received regulatory approval, an there is never a comment that they are experimental. It's fair to say that it's an experiment and you are a part of it. It seems to me that law and order has just largely failed in this country (UK). I can't explain it - my answer at this point is that "it's not my crime". I've identified along with other people that very improper and dark things are happening, but as for why it's happening and who is driving it I doint' know it's not my crime.

There may have been an emergency, certainly in the spring of the northern hemisphere - i can understand why terrified political leaders and their advisors might ahve erred on the side of caution. But I'm afraid, ntohing in the UK at least, absolutely nothign the government and the advisors have informed the public about any key pieces of information - none of them have been true. For example, PCR, no one defines its rate of false positives - every test produces some false positive when the virus is absent. EVeryone knows this. but the scientists and government officials have simply refused to engage with scientists who ask what is that rate of operation . You just get abuse, trolling, and eventually censorship. They also do not unify how many cycles of amplification before we all say "if that's not positive, we'll say the virus is absent". Number of cycles, failure to identify false-positive rates, and from time-to-time some labs, instead of using 3 probes, or primers, to identify unique spots in the virus - all three of which have to say "yes, that's consistent with the virus' genetic information being in the sample", sometimes they use 2 genes, or 1 gene - And I'm afraid, the unifying observation is that some of these cheating, bits of cheating really, serve to increase the number of cases - and that's not only a diagnosis, but it also becomes an attribution label - so if someone dies within 28 days of  apositive test, no matter how bad that test was - they call it a covid death. And I just don't believe anything like the number of people who are claimd to die absurdly with covid, rather than of it, have actually died of it, let alone of it. So everything we are told has amplified the harm and psychological fear and harm, of the virus - from top to bottom :

bad testing
lies about the idea that you could be completely symptom free and represent an infection-risk to people around you

Healthy people can make other people sick? What do you say to that

So yes, the concept of asymptomatic transmission - someone who is perfectly well can represent a health-threat to someone else who is perfectly well, is simply not true. The weight of evidence that was used to form this idea were 6 or 7 case studies. A study of one person, usually, where someon asserted that a person who was positive by PCR, but according to the report had no symptoms, managed to infect someone else nearby - and when they infected them, it wasonly that they became PCR-positive too. The majority of these were out of China, interestingly - and I'm afraid anything that's influential that comes out of research in China is approved by the Party, and that's just the way it's always been. And there has only been one substantial claim for asymptomatic transmission in Europe was a subject that ha come from China and who had visited a number of engineering plants in Germany - and ti was claimed they infected a lot of people, event though they were "asymptomatic". Very quickly after that report, it was corrected that the person was heavily symptomatic, and had been using over-the-counter medicines to try and get through their day - so it really was symptomatic after all - and just like someon with flu or a cold, they had barrelled on through their day and just manage to infect people. But I can explain to people, very simply, why it's not my opinion, and that of other people that asymptomatic transmission isn't true. And I can show you by reasoning.
In order to be a good source of infectious virus, I need to have a lot of virus in my airway - I can't infect you at a distance if I'v egot a tiny amount - and that's bbecause the world is full of pathogens all the time, and you are able to fight them off routinely, minute by minute, throughout your whole life. You have to have an amoutn over an amount such that it becomes an infectious case. and that can only happen if you are in close contact with someone who is emitting lots of virus - and in order to be emitting lots of virus, you need to have lots of them in your body. If you have lots of viruses in your body, you will have symptoms. It's simply not possible for you to have a high viral load and for that virus to be attacking you and you have no symptoms, and for your immune system to be fighting back and for you to have no symptoms, it's simply not possible. There might be a brief period of a few hours where the virus is growing very quickly - the body is just starting to respond. You might not notice you might not feel ill yet, that's called pre-symptomatic, and i guess it's possible that a few people were infected in that way - but the idea that transmission - a major contribution to epidemic spreading, occurred in a person who was full of virus and had no symptoms - it's just bunk. We are very good at noticing whether someon eis a health threat to us - a respiratory threat to us - when you come close to a person, a relative or a stranger, without trying you scan them and you are aware if their gait is normal, is their head normal, are they looking at you with clear eyes, are they hunched and a little bit ill -a nd without thinking about it, if you don't know them and they look a bit ill, you will skirt around them and socially distance unconsciously.

In a sense you wwill socially distance uncnsciously

so the two things I've just said there, in order to be a good infectious source you need yo be yourself full of virus and you will be symptomatic
the only chance you would encounter someone like that in your community would be still averted because if yousaw someone stumbling around full of flu and a cold you would think " oh god get around this person"
so it's myu contention that there's almost no transmission in the community because there weren't symptomatic people they would be feeling ill if they were in that situation
so there were hardly any infectious contacts in the community
and you know what ? and that explains why lockdowns systematically across the world, haven't done anything

and that's because the places where you do encounter symptomatic and infectious people are where they've no choice but to be there, either hospitals or care homes or occasionally around a domestic environment
everywhere else you simply won't find infectious sources, so when you lock down and smash the economy, and civil society, fo course you don't lower transmission
it wasn't taking place there, of course not
so that's where I am on asymptomatic transmission
so anyway, it was a manufactured story, and it's on that basis that we were told to all wear masks
and they don't work anywa3y, so even if it was true asymptomatic transmission masked don't work anyway, because they've been tested repeatedly over the years, and they don't do anything against respiratory viruses, and that was the justification as well for mass testing

millions of people who had no symptoms, and as I said early on , when uou uese tests on mass a fraction of them will be false positive even when the virus is absent, and if oyu don't take account for that you'll think oh my god there's all these millions of people who have this virus, and they better be self-isolating for days or weeks
this whole thing has terrified people and it's all a lie, I do'nt think a single fundamental driving factor about this epidemic has been represented correctly
and it's obvious for an experienced scientist like me, and when I've spoken to my peers they all agree, so it's not like I'm an unusual person in thinking as I do, what's unusual is that I have come out and said so
and most of my colleagues have more or less sasid "my employer or my university doesn't want me to say anything that would be counter to the official lie, so i've decided to just stay quiet", whereas I decided I wasn't going to do that

Censorship and self-censorship
he world overdoctos and regular MDs would understand that intuitively based on their experience and in so many ways, how can we account for the general silence of so many of your colleagues and the medical community in general

I can't explain why the vast majority of people who definitely know better have decided to stay silent, but what I can tell you is that anyone, myself included, who said things like what I'm saying - which is that there are problems, for example, with the PCR test in the UK and I would comment about it and write articles about it. What I did notice is that immediately you did that, and the more qualified you were, the worse it was, youw ould get attacked. For example, no Twitter, and eventually on main media. So, for example, alast year, the main UK broadcaster, the BBC acctually used well-known journalists to slander me - in public - a lady named Emma Barnet who runs the Women's Hour pod cast - i'll name you Emma, because she named me - and she made some statements about me which I had not said, which slandered me - and on that occasion I told her she better take that lie back or I would sue, and they did indeed delete that portion, so basically they intimidate you and they will use either employed people on social media, who do exist, to attack you, and sometimes professional colleagues one way or another will have just taken a different view and they will attack you - and no one gets on any of the main media that doesn't have a view that accords with the government is saying, so I do'nt know whether they really believe it or not, I think some of them do and they're a bit faultless
so people were a bit uncertain whether they were going to say something noticed that anyone who said anything got attacked, slandered, called a conspiracy theorist, or a fool, or wrong, or a covidiot, someone who puts others' lives at risk, the accusations are endless
well, the thing is, I'm not doing this for money. I have suffered injury, shall we say, to my reputation and my finances for speaking out
But i'm very confident in myp osition. So once you arrive at that view, you know that attacks are manufactured. And, so they say with warfare, when you're over the target, that's when the flak is heaviest. So I think a lot of people, I'm not in people's heads, but I  think that a lot of people chose to say nothing perhaps out of self-preservation, cowardice perhaps, or pragmatically they realized they would just be destroyed, so and that's that
I do think the origin in Britain was we have a regulator of broadcasting in this country which is called OFCOM, and on the day of the first lockdown they issued a 4-page guidance that said more or less we expect all broadcasters and that includes radio tv newspapers to not say things that contradict the position of the government or their authorized health-advisors - it didn't quite say censorhsip but it did say it was an emergency and it's not going to be appropriate for you to give the option of publicity tyo viewpoints taht challenge that
and that still continues and now we're about 55 or 56 yweeks into this "emergency" so they laid a marker down pretty quickly and nobody on the main media said anything at all other than, um, the government's official position
and I think people noticed within a few weeks it was "that's not tolerated" so we've had whatever 11 and a half months of a single party line and everyone knows that anyone who says anything else will get attacked
so that's why it's continued, btu I'm not able to answer your first question which is: people who didn't say something before the example had started - and I do'nt know. BUt d I do know that friends of mine, some form of friends, who damn-well knew that what was being said was a lie - and I asked ofr help, and they said 'you know, i'm nto going to' because it will threaten my position with the University and I won't get grants from granting bodies - so plenty of people self-preservation, cowardice or pragmatists
because I haven't gotten got very far - my reward for trying to speak out has just been I'm prettymuch extinguished as a professional scientist
` Thanks himf or taking the risk that he has taken and assures him that it's appreciated across the world
Gives sample from a recent british publication - the summary of modelling easing roadmap - restrictions - buried on page 10 - vaccine -> the resurgence in both hospitals and deaths is dominated by those that have received 2 doses of the vaccine - comprising around 60% and 70% of the wave, respectively - this can be attributed to the high levels of uptake in the highest at risk age groups such that immunisation failures account for more serious illness than unvaccinated individuals - this is discussed in other paragraphs`
`What do you make of this?`
`They are essentially admitting that if you are vaccinated you are at greater risk of dying`
So I didn't really read it like that, so I mean just a fgew things
remember, these are models - they are models - please, for god's sake people, they are not chicken entrails, they don't have a time machine these are not predictions of the future
what they are are mathematical models -a nd th eproduct of models, essentially, is like a sausage factory - what you throw in one end, and you turn the handle, adn a product comes out
so they're just telling you that they think if there's another wave, the subjects that would fall ill would come from the groups that you just described - I don't think they're actually saying that will happen, because if they are, I would ask them if they were in this room "how the hell do you know that?"
so I don't know why they have produced that forecast, it just looks like nonsense, but all of their models have been nonsense
it's just very strange that I've never seen that modeling group go back and say "this is what we said would happen, here's what happens, and this is why you should have confidence in our forecast" and of course, the reason they haven't done that is because none of forecasts have been even faintly close to the out-turn
so I'm afraid our world seems to be being destroyed by credulous people paying attention to mathematical modeler's projections as to what will happen
so what I would say that if the vaccine is effective, and certainly the trials purport to show that, and i'm not in a position to say that it's not true, although I know some people tha tsay that it's nt true
but if the vaccines are effective, it's not possible to get what's called Epidemic Spreading - it doesn't matter, even if there were 20% who were vulnerable, they might be vaccination failures - a percentage of people don't get immune
but it would be very unlikely that they would acquire the virus because how would they? they would need to encounter a source of infectiousness, because there's very little source of it, and there are very few people who could be it
`Doctor, let's talk about whta we've been observing in the short term. I know one of the great concerns that we all share are what the long-term effects are of this brand-new experimental some would call it a gene based therapy - but what we are seeing and you and doctor Sucharit Bhakdi have described short-=term adverse reactions - what have we been seeing and how does that comport with some of the projections that you all were making`

I've been working with a number of scientists and physicians - we've called ourselves Doctors for Covid Ethics - and we write to the European Medicines Agency (Amsterdam)
a number of people were suffering what you would call thromboembolic disorders - disorders of blood clot and bleeding, oddly enough, and I was looking at some of the basic science and with horror I came acrossa number of different papers that were written between 2000-2010 about teh Spikes - the spike proteins on the earlier SARS virus, 2003, and I realized to my horror that the spike protein is not a passive protein that the virus uses to anchor as a sort of docking receptor on the outside of human cells which it uses then to enter the cell - it's not a passive protein at all it's biologically active, the spike protein is biologically active - it can be described as fusogenic - it prompts cells that it contacts to stick togehter, even including blood platelets and as you can gather once blood platelets stick together - and furthermore those spike proteins are capable of initiating some of the steps of the blood coagulation pathway - so this is potentially a lethal combination - i didn't know it at the time, I came across it a few motnsh ago - but you would think that the vaccine manufacturers would have done their homework and checked whether or not the piece of the dead virus that they were having the human cells manufacture through these gene based vaccines would not itself be harmful but I can only assume they missed it and what these vaccines all do is that they encourage your body to manufacture that spike protein or part of that protein, and stick it on the outside of a cell or release it from the cells - so it struck me at the time that could be both an explanation for the thromboembolic disorders and firthermore you would expect that you would get some very serious cases
and let me explain why
by contrast with traditional vaccines where you would be given a defined dose of a given pathogen - with these gene-based vaccines you'll get a defined dose of it, but depending on where it lands in your body, how efficiently it's taken up, how efficiently it's copied, how well that genetic message is translated into the spike protein you could have very different outcomes
nad I think some people were unfortunate and had perhaps a greater idstribution of this vaccine into vulnerable vessels in their brain and perhaps in some of those people the vaccine was taken up well and copied efficiently and uf you furthermore some of thos epatients were perhaps in an unstable position they could easil ybe prompted to form a clot - that's all you need to hypothesize the deaths in healthy young women agede 20-50 with an extremely unusual cerebro venous sinus thrombrosis. But I think those side effects are occuring in other blood vessels that are moving relatively slowly - certainly there are some oin the abdomen the so calle Splanchenick vein - and any slow moving blood vessel - if you're unlucky enough to have a disproportionately large dose land there and to be efficiently taken up and efficiently copied now you've got an amount of the spike prtein that you really don't want in the inside of your blood vessels lurking there able to perhaps prompt the start of a serious adverse event - so it is my contention that all of the gene-based vaccines that work fundamentally like that - that they harness the body's ability to manufactur ethe spike protein - all of them, to an extent, shoudl be regarded as having a class risk
so one of the things that i've been both annoyed and furious and terrified is this increasing push, certainly in the UK and i know in other places, to push this vaccine down and down into the younger and younger population
and yet, we know, from the work of John Iannidis, that the stronger risk factor for becoming very ill and dying after being infected by this virus is age. So eif you're younger than about 70 and you don't have any pre-existing illnesses, you're very unlikely to die - in fact, less likely to die with this virus than influenza.
So, why would anyone want to give it to someone under 50 who's well, under 30 who's well? My goernment is hell-bent on vaccinating absolutely everyone from 18 and over
There was a pediatric study as well, and of course that's because they want to vaccinate all the children as well.
I put it to you, any listener, can you think of a benign explanation for why you would want to give an experimental use authorized gene-based vaccine to millions, 10s of millions of people, whoc ould not possibly die if they ran into this virus, and you can't. If you can't think of a benign explanation for why this has happened, you must begin to think about malign explanations, and I think I've found what that is:
It's this damn vaccine passport - nonsense
If you are a vulnerable person and you've chosen to be vaccinated, and all has gone well, and it will in most cases - you are now protected - you do not need to know the immune status of anyone around you, in a football game or a theatre or a shop
you wouldn't benefit from the presence of a vaccine passport int he hands of anyone around you, because you're protected by your vaccination
If on the other hand you've chosen not to be vaccinated, because you understand the risks, you don't need to know anyon else's immune status either - you don't need to see the passport
so neither the vaccinated or the unvaccinated will benefit at all
But I'll tell you who will benefit - the people pushing it on you - if it come sinto being, they will be the world's first common format digital ID for every person on the planet, and at least one editable health related flag which is your validity of  vaccine passport. Whoever controls that database can set the algorithm to allow someone who's got a valid vaccine passport to cross a boundary like an international border, or getting into a shop or a sports game, and it will prohibit people who don't have that from doing those things. It doesn't benefit any of the people, but it benefits the totalitarian conrtollers who have that database - it's never been like this in the world before, and I think that if goes live, we'll not only be standing at the gates of hell, but we'll just be given a little push and in we'll go. Because once you're in this system and your whole life is permissioned by your status on this system, then you can be made to do absolutely anything.
6 months time, your vaccine passport app pings - Dr Yeadon, it's time for you to come in for your top-up vaccine, and please bring your 10 year old grandchild - final comment: if you do not comply, within 3 weeks, your vaccine passport will expire, and you will be excluded from your life and all parts of your life.
So you might think that you would not allow your 10 year old to be vaccinated, but if you let this damn thing go live, you will be coerced into doing it - there's no way out, you have to comply
And why would you want to top-up vaccine? This is the thing that really catalyzed my recent series of interviews - I know immunology, one of my strongest suits is immunology - I am absolutely confident that all the stories they are telling you about variants is a lie - a complete fraud - and I can exemplify:
We are all told about different variants - the brazilian, the kent, the south afraican, and so on
and I just ask people, just to take a deep breath: recognize this is a BIG virus - it consists of amino acids -> 10,000 of them in strings which are folded up to form the characteristic shape that you know and hate - if tyou go and look for the virus that is most different from the one originally sequenced in Wuhan 16 months ago - you will find that the most different variant is only 0.3% different. So it's 99.7% identical - they're all of them 99.7% identical to the original - and you might be thinking "that doesn't sound like enough to escape the human immune system" - and you're right, I can prove it!
The 2003 SARS Virus is related to the SARS-Cov2 - they differ by about 20% - 80 times variation between those two viruses and any of the variants of the current one - and I can assure you that when immunlogy researchers found scores of people that had been infected by SARS in 2003, they took blood samples from these volunteers - they confirmed 2 important things:
1. All of the survivors had really good immune memory to the virus they encountered 17 years ago
2. They all also possessed cross-immunity - the immune system recognized the new virus
And This is not surprising - the human immune system essentially takes multiple pictures of any pathogen it encounters - often between 15 and 30 "pictures" - and basically, none of the variants change more than a couple of those pictures - so when you encounter the variants - having been immunized by vaccination or infection - it's impossible that your body doesn't recognize it as something it's seen before. So your governments are lying to you, and in my case the UK has closed the border - really restricted international travel - and the reason they give is thes variants which I know is a lie, they're not a problem at all.

What's absolutely terrifying is 2 further bits of information that I want you to hear:
1. The pharmaceutical industry is already manufacturing top-up variant vaccines - and I'm right and these variants are not different enough to warrant a different vaccine, and they rae not - what is it they are manufacturing? I don't know the answer to that question, but I'm terrified
2. A few weeks ago, the world's medicines regulators, including FDA, EUROPEAN MEDICINES AGENCY, and their sibling in Japan - they issued a statement that said that the variants or top-up vaccines are so similar to the parent vaccines from which they were derived that we won't require the drug companies to run any clinical safety studies on them.
If the vaccine company designs a vaccine on the computer, it will go straight to manufacturing, and as long as it meets manufacturing quality standards, it can then be injected into the arms of 100s of millions, even billions, of people
And remember what I've told you about the vaccine passports - once they are running and it tells oyu to do something on pain of losing the validity of your vaccine passport - you will comply.
If you wanted to be really terrified - since it's not my crime, I do'nt know why they are manufacturing top-up vaccines and i do'nt know what their intent is on injecting you, but you don't need a particularly vivid imagination to think that since so much of this crisis has been malign, and there is no benign interpretation of what's going on - it certainly has the potential to be a very harmful event.

`What should people do when they are confronted with this pressure to take the vaccine - the looming passport, already instituted in Israel - what shoudl people do? what's the best response - how can we resist this?`

It's not any harder than it sounds, actually - it's to say "thank you vvery much for your generous offer of a free vaccine" and do not engage in debate with them. You do not need to explain your decision. You are a sovereign human being, you decide what goes into your body or not. So just say "thanks very much, I'm declining". Don't even engage them with discussion. The other thing to do is to prevent the vaccine passport system from coming into being - you're being told that it's necessary to regain confidence, but I"ve just explained that if you are vaccinated you are protected - and if you'be chosen not to be vaccinated, you don't need to know, so no one needs to know anyone's vaccine status.

I think we can restore confidence by frankly just being told the truth - that's what's needed, not some ghastly nightmarish totalitarian control system - because I'm fraid that's what it will be - so legislatures if you're listening, i'm afraid get on their case and explain to them that there'll be no advantages
Once it starts, there's no recovery from it - if you're asked to do anythin at all, in relation to yourself or your children - you won't be able to go to the shops anymore, you won't be able to buy gasoline, leave your house, whatever rules the controllers set, you'll then be coerced into doing anything they'll tell you. Is that really what you want? Because if you do'nt, you better start demonstrating. If you don't do something, these criminals are going to steal liberal democracy and freedom forever.