Michael Yeadon, Ph.D., a former
vice-president and chief scientific adviser for the drug company Pfizer
and founder and CEO of the biotech company Ziarco, now owned by
Novartis, has become one of the most prominent critics of COVID mandates
and COVID-19 shots. In this riveting interview with British radio
presenter Maajid Nawaz, he shares why he believes that the narratives
around COVID-19 are false and were put into place deliberately to exert
control over society.
Yeadon is uniquely positioned to speak on this topic, as he has
degrees in biochemistry and toxicology, and studied respiratory
pharmacology. You have likely seen Yeadon being interviewed many times
previously, but I strongly encourage you to watch this one as he
explains items I have never heard him previously discuss. He is one of
the sharpest guys out there in this area and you will be glad you took
the time to listen.
In the film, he says: “So, I understand … inside of cells and how
cells and tissues talk to each other, and how dangerous chemicals can
affect and injure humans and others.”1
Not only does Yeadon explain why COVID-19 shots aren’t effective, but
he details why using spike protein in the vaccine was one of the most
diabolical mistakes made.
“First,” Yeadon says, “you've been lied to about the magnitude of the
threat represented by this entity called SARS-CoV-2 and the disease
COVID-19. Been lied to about that, in every way, shape and form … the
bottom line is, we've been lied to and it's deliberate, and they knew
it, and no action was needed whatsoever, other than if you're sick, stay
home.”2 Further, the wheel may have been set into motion in 2009, during the swine flu pandemic.
The 2009 Swine Flu Was the Final Dress Rehearsal for COVID
During the 2009 H1N1 (swine flu)
pandemic, secret agreements were made between Germany, Great Britain,
Italy and France with the pharmaceutical industry before the H1N1
pandemic began, which stated that they would purchase H1N1 flu
vaccinations — but only if a pandemic level 6 was declared by the World
Health Organization.
Six weeks before the pandemic was declared, no one at WHO was worried
about the virus, but the media were nonetheless exaggerating the
dangers.3
Then, in the month leading up to the 2009 H1N1 pandemic, WHO changed
the official definition of pandemic, removing the severity and high
mortality criteria and leaving the definition of a pandemic as "a
worldwide epidemic of a disease."4
This switch in definition allowed WHO to declare swine flu a pandemic
after only 144 people had died from the infection worldwide. In 2010,
Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg, then head of health at the Council of Europe,
accused pharmaceutical companies of influencing WHO’s pandemic
declaration, calling swine flu a “false pandemic” that was driven by Big
Pharma, which cashed in on the health scare.5
According to Wodarg, the swine flu pandemic was “one of the greatest medicine scandals of the century,”6 — and it shares many similarities with the COVID-19 pandemic. Yeadon explained:7
“He [Wodarg] was public health officer and a
politician during the swine flu pandemic in 2009. And some very similar
things that happened in COVID were happening in 2009. There's a very
interesting experience here and I think 2009 was the final dress
rehearsal for COVID.
They misused PCR, they overdiagnosed cases, they
twisted the arms of governments all around the world to pay for billions
of dollars’ worth of vaccines, and not very good antivirals.
And then they all ran off. And Wodarg was the one
that managed to point out in the second season that it was a false
positive pseudo epidemic. It was all bad PCR testing. And as soon as
they fix the PCR, it all went away. All went away.”
PCR Tests Labeled Healthy People Sick
For the first time in history, during the COVID-19 pandemic the
polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests were used to dictate whether
someone was healthy or sick. If the test was positive, then you’d be
labeled as sick and counted as a case, even if you had no symptoms.
The PCR tests used for COVID-19 use a powerful amplification process
that makes them so sensitive they can even detect the remains of a dead
virus, long after infection.8
Wodarg said COVID-19 “was a ‘test’ pandemic. It was not a virus pandemic,”9 because PCR tests may give a positive result when it detects coronaviruses that have been around for 20 years.10
PCR tests weren’t meant to be used for clinical diagnoses, according to
their inventor, the late Kary Mullis, Ph.D. Yeadon explained:11
“And the reason is … that the PCR test has a
theoretical lower limit, that is, what's the smallest amount it might
detect and give a positive result, the smallest amount is one, one
virus, one piece of a virus.
… And then basically, every time you run a cycle of
this polymerase chain reaction, like cranking a handle, it gets hot and
cold, hot and cold, and it goes through basically a doubling, every
cycle is a doubling …
So basically, if there's an infinitesimally tiny
amount of a piece of a virus, or the sequence you allege is a virus, in
the sample, and then you run it 40 cycles, you could get a positive
result even though there's only one piece of one virus — not enough to
make you ill, not enough to make you infectious.”
The same strategy was used in COVID as deaths characterized as being
COVID related, but only because they had been falsely lumped into that
category due to a positive test being recorded within 28 days of death.
“If you die from something entirely unrelated but you've tested positive
by a PCR test, and you die within that 28 days that's counted as a
COVID death,” Nawaz noted.12
90% of COVID Immune Response Is Not to Spike Protein
Yeadon stresses that there are “design errors” in COVID-19 shots.
“The main problem with them is there's no dose where you can get obvious
signs of benefit without attendant harms, that are much greater at a
population level than any possible benefit.” Further, the use of the
spike protein was a mistake, as it’s been known for more than 10 years
that it causes adverse effects in humans:13
“There are no gene based vaccines on the market for
very good reasons. And that's one of the problems. But let's see, you
could like pull it pull it apart, you can pull the spike off, you could
pull the ball in the middle of this virus, which bit would you give to
people? … what you would do is ask, what's the toxicity of the bit I'm
going to give to a person?
So if I told you that the spike protein, like a
floating landmine in … the sea with the spikes sticking out, I told you
that we've known for more than a decade that the spike bits from related
viruses had unwanted biology that could cause blood to coagulate and
activate platelets and make blood clots. That's true.
And if you knew those things, you'd think well,
probably a bad idea then to give them the spike to train on … So the
fact that they chose spike protein, gene for spike protein, make your
body become a manufacturing center briefly to make that virus spike
protein — that's the first mistake.”
Further, according to Yeadon, the human body mounts its best immune
responses after natural COVID-19 infection, not exposure to the spike
protein in the shots. He states, “90% of the immune response to COVID
are two bits of the virus that are not spike protein. So I think I am
right that that was not the best bit to give, because it’s not the thing
your body likes to respond to.”14
Spike Protein Mutates Rapidly, Destroying Shots’ Protection
By choosing the spike protein on which to base COVID-19 shots,
scientists picked a protein that was known to be toxic to humans and
that was not the part of the virus that prompted the best immune
response. On top of that, spike protein mutates rapidly, which
essentially destroys virtually any protection that the shot provides
shortly after it’s given. The end result is a seemingly never-ending
series of annual shots and boosters.
COVID-19 shots have been found to have dismally low effectiveness
rates of 12% in children, according to research conducted by the New
York State Department of Health.15
Among adults, within four to five months post-booster, protection
against emergency department and urgent care visits due to COVID-19
decreased to 66%, then fell to just 31% after five months or more
post-booster.16 Yeadon explained:17
“What you should do is pick the bits of the virus
that's genetically most stable. Now, I don't know that we knew it at the
beginning, but it's certainly true now that the thing that undergoes
variation most quickly is the spike protein … now you've picked
something that's going to rapidly go out of focus to rapidly evolve to a
different variant, new vaccine won't work anymore.”
Further, because the spike protein is similar to “lots of bits in
humans,” it can prompt your body to make an immune response to human
proteins — “that’s called an autoimmune response,” Yeadon says. Yet,
scientists chose the spike protein anyway — even though it violated all
of the “rules” when it comes to creating a safe and effective product.
Yeadon believes this wasn’t a mistake at all; it was intentional:18
“So just to say, again, you deselect things that are
toxic in their own right, you pick things that are genetically stable,
and you pick things that are most different from humans, all three of
those, in the words of patents, they teach away, they will teach you
away from picking spike protein.
But guess what? Moderna picks spike protein and so
does Pfizer, and AstraZeneca, and Johnson & Johnson. So I put it to
you, colleagues, any scientists out there or just logical people. How
the hell would they pick?
No team I was ever part of would ever have picked
bloody spike protein for this vaccine. And you know, what, if we did,
and we have competing groups, we would not, all four of us, make the
same mistake. Not possible. It’s collusion and malfeasance. The did it
on purpose, knowing it would hurt you.”
For the Next Pandemic Understand Vaccines Are Not the Answer’
Bill Gates has made it plain the next pandemic is inevitable, by
stating publicly that COVID-19 was “pandemic one” and “pandemic two” is
coming. “We’ll have to prepare for the next one. That will get attention
this time,” he said — while smiling.19
The implication is that “next time” another experimental mRNA shot will
be available much quicker with which to inject the population. But
Yeadon wants the public to learn from COVID-19 and understand that the
shots aren’t the answer:20
“It's really important that you listen to me here,
that if there's another respiratory virus, you must know this time that
whatever however they design, the damn vaccine is the wrong answer. It's
the wrong answer for loads of reasons. One is, you will generate an
immune response in your blood that cannot possibly affect infection, it
doesn't matter what it is, it won't affect infection.
Secondly, if you if you design it using spike protein
from some other virus, then if it has that same property of causing
toxicity, it will cause toxicity because when you inject these gene
based vaccines, it's like launching a go kart that has an accelerator,
no steering wheel and no brakes … there's nothing in the design of these
vaccines that limits where they go.
Some of it will go into your brain, the back of your
eyes, your ovaries or testes, your blood vessels or your heart … you
can't develop rapid vaccines, and then give them to billions of people,
because you will never have enough safety data to allow you to know
whether that was a good bet or not. And without that data, it's
reckless. Don't do it.”
What else can be learned from the COVID-19 fiasco, Yeadon says, is
that the nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) — things like masks,
lockdowns, border closures and mass testing of the population — were
also useless in curbing the spread of the disease, and world leaders
knew this in 2019, when a paper by WHO scientists showed that most NPIs
were ineffective in stopping the spread of respiratory viruses.
“Of course, many of them have really serious side effects on the economy, psychology, social relationships and so on,” he noted.21
Evidence of Supranational Coordination
“Public health officials knew perfectly well those things didn't
work,” Yeadon said, but the fact that virtually every country worldwide
followed suit nonetheless suggests a coordinated effort was underway. “I
think it's the strongest evidence of supranational coordination,
something happening above the level of country,” Yeadon said, and he
wants to get the word out:22
“They were doing it because there was pressure to do
it … They did not oppose what was happening. That's the most
disappointing and frightening thing that why, why none of the scientists
from Germany, Holland, Belgium, France, Spain, Portugal, Britain, why
none of them, said, ‘You know, this is absurd.
I'm not doing this. And if you're going to do it, I'm
resigning, and then I shall go to the media.’ Either that didn't happen
or they tried to try this and BBC … said, ‘Well, we're not interviewing
you.’ That's possible.
… There was a supranational agreement or pressure to
do it. I don't know whether that pressure was instantiated in spring of
2020, or whether they had already agreed to do it a few months ago, but
either way, nobody spoke up. And as far as I know, nobody resigned even
though what was being imposed on all of those countries was …
ineffective and would damage their economies. That's the kindest thing
you can possibly say.”