Ok you took the vax. You regret it. Now start understanding how you were lied to. The COVID Lies, by Former Pfizer VP Dr. Mike Yeadon
- Thread starter munkle
- Start date
Ok you took the vax. You regret it. Now start understanding how you were lied to. The COVID Lies, by Former Chief Science Officer for Pfizer Dr. Mike Yeadon
The Covid Lies
Yeadon bio. and work: Dr Mike Yeadon | Totality of Evidence
From Wikipedia article on Dr Michael Yeadon
COVID-19 misinformation
See also: COVID-19 misinformation and COVID-19 vaccine misinformation and hesitancyYeadon falsely claimed in an October 2020 blog post that the COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom was "effectively over".[19][20][a] He stated that there would be no "second wave" of infections[7][22] and that healthy people could not spread the SARS-CoV-2 virus.[2][23] Yeadon has also discouraged COVID-19 lockdowns and the use of face masks despite evidence for their effectiveness.[24] Several of Yeadon's false or misleading claims have been amplified on social media.[2][7][25][26][19][27]
Yeadon has claimed without evidence that COVID-19 vaccines were unnecessary,[28][23][22] unsafe,[2][24] and could cause infertility in women.[2][7][29] In a letter to the European Medicines Agency, Yeadon and the German physician Wolfgang Wodarg called for all vaccine trials to be stopped, falsely suggesting[30][31][32][33] that mRNA vaccines could target the syncytin-1 protein needed for placenta formation.[34][35]Michael Yeadon - Wikipedia A Telegram account under his name has promoted the unfounded claim that the vaccines cause recipients to become magnetized.[17]
Yeadon has been interviewed by The Exposé, a website known for publishing COVID-19 misinformation.[38] In an interview with American political strategist Steve Bannon, Yeadon falsely asserted that children were "50 times more likely to be killed by the COVID vaccines than the virus itself", citing a high number of events following COVID-19 vaccination reported on the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) database.[26][39][4] The US Centers for Disease Control, which operates the database, cautions that such reports are not verified and do not prove that vaccines caused any given adverse event.[26][39]
References
- ^ Jump up to:a b Lytton, Charlotte; Dodds, Io (26 March 2022). "Why anti-vaxxers are starting new lives in exclusive tropical communes". The Telegraph. London. Archived from the original on 28 March 2022.
- ^ Jump up to:a b c d e f "Fact Check-Fact check: Ex-Pfizer scientist repeats COVID-19 vaccine misinformation in recorded speech". Reuters Fact Check. 20 May 2021. Archived from the original on 5 January 2022. Retrieved 4 July 2021.
- ^ Osaki, Tomohiro (29 June 2021). "In Japan, anti-vaccine movement threatens to make widespread hesitancy worse". The Japan Times. Archived from the original on 29 November 2021.
- ^ Jump up to:a b Lee, Ella (18 November 2021). "Fact check: Former Pfizer VP spreads false claim about COVID-19 vaccines and child deaths". USA Today. Archived from the original on 22 December 2021. Retrieved 29 November 2021.
- ^ Parker, Charlie (28 August 2021). "The new breed of antivaxers". The Times. London. Archived from the original on 15 December 2022. Retrieved 1 November 2021.
- ^ Jump up to:a b Ellery, Ben (15 August 2021). "Mike Yeadon: Antivaxer with eye on Lib Dems plans resort for unjabbed". The Times. London. Archived from the original on 18 December 2021. Retrieved 1 November 2021.
- ^ Jump up to:a b c d e f g Stecklow, Steve; Macaskill, Andrew (18 March 2021). "The ex-Pfizer scientist who became an anti-vax hero". Reuters. Archived from the original on 16 January 2022. Retrieved 27 April 2021.
- ^ "UPDATED: Ex-Pfizer crew snags $27M financing for U.K. drugs startup". FierceBiotech. 5 November 2012. Archived from the original on 31 January 2022. Retrieved 27 April 2021.
- ^ "Ziarco chooses Discovery Park as base for new drug development". Pharma Business International. 10 November 2015. Archived from the original on 27 April 2021.
- ^ Yeadon, Michael (August 1988). Receptor mechanisms involved in opioid induced respiratory depression in the rat (doctoral thesis). University of Surrey. Archived from the original on 25 June 2023. Retrieved 15 July 2021 – via ProQuest.
- ^ Hodgson, Simon T.; et al. (1993). "Design and synthesis of achiral 5-lipoxygenase inhibitors employing the cyclobutyl group". Bioorganic & Medicinal Chemistry Letters. 3 (12): 2565–2570. doi:10.1016/S0960-894X(01)80717-4. ISSN 0960-894X.
- ^ Jump up to:a b Harrison, Charlotte (1 February 2013). "Mike Yeadon". Nature Reviews Drug Discovery. 12 (2): 96. doi:10.1038/nrd3936. ISSN 1474-1784. PMID 23370238.
- ^ Loucaides, Darren (9 August 2021). "Inside the UK's anti-lockdown media machine". Coda Story. Archived from the original on 14 August 2021. Retrieved 17 March 2023.
- ^ Dapcevich, Madison (5 May 2021). "Did Michael Yeadon Say COVID-19 Vaccine Will Kill Recipients Within 2 Years?". Snopes. Archived from the original on 21 November 2021. Retrieved 3 June 2021.
- ^ Hansel, T. T.; Barnes, P. J. (2010). New Drugs and Targets for Asthma and COPD. Karger Medical and Scientific Publishers. ISBN 978-3-8055-9567-4. Archived from the original on 25 June 2023. Retrieved 4 May 2021.
- ^ "Pfizer helps fund biotech venture from former researchers at closed Kent facility". PMLive. 5 November 2012. Archived from the original on 27 April 2021. Retrieved 27 April 2021.
- ^ Jump up to:a b c d e Piper, Ernie (20 July 2021). "Scientists vs Science: Interviews with Mike Yeadon and Robert Malone". Logically. Archived from the original on 3 January 2022. Retrieved 15 November 2022.
- ^ "Novartis Annual Report 2017" (PDF). Basel: Novartis. 2018. pp. 162, 198. Archived (PDF) from the original on 21 November 2022.
- ^ Jump up to:a b Swenson, Ali (30 November 2020). "Coronavirus pandemic is not 'effectively over' as op-ed claims". Associated Press News. Archived from the original on 4 January 2022. Retrieved 4 July 2021.
- ^ McCarthy, Bill (2 December 2020). "Former Pfizer employee wrong that coronavirus pandemic is 'effectively over' in UK". PolitiFact. Archived from the original on 25 June 2023. Retrieved 4 July 2021.
- ^ Teoh, Flora (10 November 2020). "A rise in the number of COVID-19 cases and deaths starting in September 2020 contradicts the claim by Michael Yeadon that 'the pandemic is fundamentally over in the U.K.'". Science Feedback. Health Feedback. Archived from the original on 16 April 2024. Retrieved 16 September 2024.
- ^ Jump up to:a b Kasprak, Alex (10 March 2021). "Did Pfizer's Former 'Chief Scientist' Say There Was 'No Need for Vaccines'?". Snopes. Archived from the original on 25 June 2023. Retrieved 4 July 2021.
- ^ Jump up to:a b "Former Pfizer scientist wrong on asymptomatic COVID-19 spread". AAP FactCheck. Australian Associated Press. 14 May 2021. Archived from the original on 24 September 2021. Retrieved 26 August 2021.
- ^ Jump up to:a b "Mike Yeadon wrong again on lockdowns and face masks". Full Fact. 23 April 2021. Archived from the original on 25 June 2023. Retrieved 4 July 2021.
- ^ Wu, Katherine J. (10 December 2020). "No, there isn't evidence that Pfizer's vaccine causes infertility". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 25 June 2023. Retrieved 1 November 2021.
- ^ Jump up to:a b c "Fact Check-No evidence to support claim by ex-Pfizer scientist on COVID-19 vaccine safety in children". Reuters Fact Check. 16 November 2021. Archived from the original on 24 December 2021. Retrieved 3 December 2021.
- ^ Jump up to:a b O'Rourke, Ciara (10 December 2020). "No, Pfizer's head of research didn't say the COVID-19 vaccine will make women infertile". PolitiFact. Archived from the original on 1 November 2021. Retrieved 1 November 2021.
- ^ Lajka, Arijeta (20 April 2021). "Vaccines are needed to end the pandemic, prevent serious illness". Associated Press News. Archived from the original on 27 January 2022. Retrieved 4 July 2021.
- ^ Palma, Bethania (4 December 2020). "Did 'Head of Pfizer Research' Say COVID-19 Vaccine 'Is Female Sterilization'?". Snopes. Archived from the original on 25 June 2023. Retrieved 25 July 2021.
- ^ Gregory, John (13 September 2021). "The Top COVID-19 Vaccine Myths Spreading Online". Encyclopedia Britannica. NewsGuard. Archived from the original on 27 August 2021. Retrieved 1 November 2021.
- ^ Rigby, Jennifer (30 June 2021). "How the Covid-19 vaccine fertility myth lapped the globe". The Telegraph. London. Archived from the original on 9 July 2021.
- ^ Dupuy, Beatrice (20 April 2021). "No evidence that COVID-19 vaccine results in sterilization". Associated Press News. Archived from the original on 29 January 2023. Retrieved 1 November 2021.
- ^ "False: Michael Yeadon, head of research at Pfizer, stated that the mRNA vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 causes infertility in women". International Fact-Checking Network, Poynter Institute. 4 December 2020. Archived from the original on 25 June 2023. Retrieved 2 April 2022.
- ^ Sajjadi, Nicholas B.; et al. (2021). "United States internet searches for 'infertility' following COVID-19 vaccine misinformation". Journal of Osteopathic Medicine. 121 (6): 583–587. doi:10.1515/jom-2021-0059. PMID 33838086.
- ^ Schraer, Rachel (11 August 2021). "Covid vaccine: Fertility and miscarriage claims fact-checked". BBC News. Archived from the original on 5 November 2021. Retrieved 22 January 2022.
- ^ Jaramillo, Catalina (26 February 2021). "No Evidence Vaccines Impact Fertility". FactCheck.org. Archived from the original on 9 October 2021. Retrieved 2 November 2021.
- ^ Eschner, Kat (5 November 2021). "NFL's Aaron Rodgers said fertility concerns kept him from getting vaccinated. Here's what's behind the fertility myth". Fortune. Archived from the original on 18 November 2021.
- ^ Piper, Ernie (22 July 2021). "EXCLUSIVE: Actors Behind UK Misinformation Site The Daily Expose Revealed". Logically. Archived from the original on 21 September 2022. Retrieved 10 August 2022.
- ^ Jump up to:a b Kertscher, Tom (15 November 2021). "Kids '50 times more likely to be killed' by COVID-19 vaccines? Pants on Fire". PolitiFact. Archived from the original on 25 June 2023. Retrieved 15 December 2021.
billyerock123
Gold Member
- Jan 9, 2021
- 2,806
- 979
- 208
what you didn't seem to want to talk about this long-winded post of one person, why 1.5 million died from COVID-19 was... easy question...then after the Shots started being done, why did the deaths slow down easy enough question ... don't need a book on it just answer the simple questionOk you took the vax. You regret it. Now start understanding how you were lied to. The COVID Lies, by Former Chief Science Officer for Pfizer Dr. Mike Yeadon
The Covid Lies
Yeadon bio. and work: Dr Mike Yeadon | Totality of Evidence
“The corona crisis is one of the least deadly pandemics the world has experience over the last 2000 years. - Klaus Schwab, “COVID-19: The Great Reset.”
The Covid Lies
The Covid Lies
By Dr. Mike Yeadon, former Chief Science Officer and VP at Pfizer
THE NARRATIVE POINT
SARS-CoV-2 has such a high lethality that every measure must be taken to save lives.
Note: Covid-19 is the disease resulting from infection with the virus, SARS-CoV-2. They are often used interchangeably. Sometimes it doesn’t much matter, but the confusion was sowed deliberately.
IMPORTANCE
Essential to claim high lethality in order that unprecedented responses may seem justified. To “pep up” the claim, recall “falling man” in Wuhan? The person was allegedly sick but walking about, before falling dead on his face. That was never real. It was theatre.
THE REALITY
Early estimates of lethality were very high with, in some reports, an “infection fatality rate” (IFR) of 3%. Seasonal influenza is generally considered to have a typical IFR of 0.1%. That means some seasons, IFR for flu may be 0.3% and other times, 0.05% or lower.
In practise, and this was usual, estimates of IFR for Covid-19 were revised downwards repeatedly and now are generally recognised as in the range of 0.1–0.3%. It cannot now be argued that it is significantly different from some seasonal influenza epidemics. Why, then, have we all but destroyed the modern world over it?
CONCLUSION AND VERDICT
FALSE
The perpetrators knew that lethality estimates of new respiratory viral illnesses ALWAYS start high and reduce. This is because, early on, we do not have any estimate of the number of people infected but not seriously ill and the number infected with no symptoms at all.
They created the impression of extreme danger, which was never true. This is such a crucial point, for once one sees it for what it is, the rest of the narrative is superfluous.
Dr. John Ioannidis is one of the world’s most-published epidemiologists and he has been scathing about the inappropriate responses to a novel virus of not particularly unusual lethality. Like most respiratory viruses, SARS-CoV-2 represents no serious health threat to those under 60 years of age, certainly not children, and is a serious threat only to those nearing the end of their lives by virtue of age and multiple comorbidities.¹
Dr. Ioannidis’s current estimate of global IFR is around 0.15%. For reference, a typical seasonal influenza outbreak has a typical IFR of around 0.1%, but can be markedly worse in bad winters.²
THE NARRATIVE POINT
Because this is a new virus, there will be no prior immunity
in the population.
IMPORTANCE
Seems reasonable, doesn’t it? This remark, made repeatedly early on, aimed to squash any notion that there was a degree of “prior immunity” in the population. Prior immunity and natural immunity are only now, two years in, not considered “misinformation”.
THE REALITY
Within a few months, multiple publications showed that a large minority (ranging from 30%–50%, some later said even more) of the population had T-cells in their blood which recognised various pieces of the viral protein (synthesised, as no one seemed to have any real virus isolates to use).
While some people argued that recognition by T-cells didn’t mean functional immunity, really it does.
We were prevented from learning that we already knew of six coronaviruses, four of which cause “common colds,” which in elderly and infirm people can cause death.
CONCLUSION AND VERDICT
FALSE
This was a straight lie. It’s pretty much never true that there’s no prior immunity in a population. This is because viruses are each derived from earlier viruses and some of the population had already defeated its antecedents, giving them either immunity or a big head start in defeating the new virus. Either way, a sizeable proportion of the population never had cause to worry.
!is article includes all the important peer-reviewed articles to mid-2020, with many showing at least 30%–50% having prior immunity (it depends upon the measure used to assess it).³
THE NARRATIVE POINT
This virus does not discriminate. No one is safe until everyone is safe.
IMPORTANCE
Intention was to minimise the numbers who might reason they’re not “at risk” people.
THE REALITY
This claim was always absurd. The lethality of this virus, as is common with respiratory viruses, is 1000X less in young, healthy people than in elderly people with multiple comorbidities.
CONCLUSION AND VERDICT
FALSE
In short, almost no one who wasn’t close to the end of their lives was at risk of severe outcomes and death. In middle-aged individuals, obesity is a risk factor, as it is for a handful of other causes of death.
!is intriguing review details how the initial modelling induced fear and provided the excuse for heavy-handed measures, especially “lockdowns”.ª It was, however, just that: an excuse. All experienced public health experts knew that lockdowns were absurd, ineffective, and hugely destructive. There’s no way to sugar-coat this. It was wrong before it was ordered, and it’s necessary to examine why those who knew did not protest. It’s almost as if they were complicit.
THE NARRATIVE POINT
People can carry this virus with no signs and infect others: asymptomatic transmission.
IMPORTANCE
This is the central conceptual deceit. If true, then anyone might infect and kill you. Falsely claimed asymptomatic transmission underscores almost every intrusion: masking, mass testing, lockdowns, border restrictions, school closures, even vaccine passports.
THE REALITY
The best evidence comes from a meta-analysis of a larger number of good studies, examining how often a person testing positive went on to infect a family member (they compared as potential sources of infection people who had symptoms with those who did not have symptoms). ONLY those WITH symptoms were able to infect a family member at any rate that mattered.‘
CONCLUSION AND VERDICT
FALSE
Asymptomatic transmission is epidemiologically irrelevant. It’s not necessary to argue it never happens; it’s enough to show that if it occurs at all, it is so rare as not to be worth measuring.
In this video, we also have Fauci and a WHO doctor telling us exactly this.ª Also, I show why it is like it is. It’s very clear.
THE NARRATIVE POINT
The PCR test selectively identifies people with clinical infections.
IMPORTANCE
This is the central operational deceit. If true, we could detect risky people and isolate them. We could diagnose accurately and also count the number of deaths.
Polymerase chain reaction (PCR), at its best, can confirm the presence of genetic information in a clean sample and is useful in forensics for that reason. It involves cycle after cycle of amplification, copying the starting material at the beginning of each cycle. The inventor of the PCR test, Kary Mullis, won a Nobel Prize for it and often criticised Fauci for misusing that test to diagnose AIDS patients, which Mullis insisted was inappropriate.
THE REALITY
In a “dirty” clinical sample, there is more than a possible piece of, or a whole, virus which might replicate. There are bacteria, fungi, other viruses, human cells, mucus, and more. It’s not possible unequivocally to know, if a test is judged “positive” after many cycles, what it was that was amplified to give the signal at the end that we call “positive”.
In mass testing mode, commonly used, no one ever runs so-called “positive controls” through the chain of custody. That’s diagnostic testing 101. It’s a deception.
Every test has an “operational false positive rate” (oFPR), where some unknown percent of samples turns positive, even if there is no virus present. A good oFPR would be less than 1%, but is it 0.8% or 0.1%? If you test 100,000 samples daily, and the oFPR is 0.8%, you will get 800 positive tests or “cases,” even if there is no virus in the entire community. Often, the “positivity,” the fraction of tests that are positive, is in that range, sub-1% or low-single-digit percent. I believe much or all of that can be caused by false positives. Note, criminals can manipulate the content of the test kits because there are very few providers in a territory, often just one. The conditions for running the test are also subject to variation by the authorities, like the CDC.
CONCLUSION AND VERDICT
FALSE
You can be genuinely positive, yet not ill. There is no lower limit of true detection below which you’d be declared to have some copies of the virus, but declared clinically well. It’s an absurd idea.
You can have no virus yet test positive (with or without symptoms). All of these are swept together and called “confirmed Covid-19 cases”. If you die in the next 28 days, you’re said to be a “Covid death,” no matter what the cause.
Those using the test kits provided commercially are what are called “black box”. They are unable to say what is in the kit, because this is proprietary. The original “methods paper” was published in 48 hours, making a mockery of claimed peer review, by a Berlin lab headed by Professor Christian Drosten, scientific advisor to Angela Merkel of Germany. The paper was comprehensively rebutted by an international team.’
The WHO released a series of guidance notes on PCR,8 and it was clear that their technical staff did not approve of mass testing the population, because it’s possible to return wholly false positives. Indeed, at times of low genuine prevalence, that’s all they can be.
I often wonder if this 2007 real-life example of a PCR-based testing system which returned 100% false positives, yet convinced a major hospital that they had a huge disease outbreak for weeks, might have been the inspiration for the untrustworthy methods used in the Covid-19 deception?ª
Drosten also led the TV publicity around the idea of asymptomatic transmission. One lucky scientist is at the centre of the two most important deceptions in the entire Covid-19 event!
Professor Norman Fenton here presents a multi-part lecture with two main elements.¹º First, he describes how mass testing of people with no symptoms unavoidably drives up the proportion of positive PCR test results that are false. The second part deals with the possibility that data fraud entirely accounts for the apparent efficacy of the vaccines, while attempting to hide vaccine deaths, by classifying them as unvaccinated for 14 days after injection.
THE NARRATIVE POINT
Masks are effective in preventing the spread of this virus.
IMPORTANCE
This is mostly used to maintain the illusion of danger. You see others’ masks and feel afraid. Complying is also a measure of whether you do what you’re told, even if the measure is useless.
THE REALITY
We have known for decades that surgical masks worn in medical theatres do not stop respiratory virus transmission. Masks were tested across a series of operations by doctors at the Royal College of Surgeons (UK). No difference in post-operative infection rate was seen by mask use.
Cloth masks definitely don’t stop respiratory virus transmission as shown by several large, randomised trials. If anything, they increase risk of lung infections. The authorities have mostly conceded on cloth masks.
Some people speak of “source control,” catching droplets. Problem is, there is no evidence that transmission takes place via droplets. Equally, there is no evidence it occurs via fine aerosols. No one finds it on masks, or on air filters in hospital wards of Covid patients, either. Where is the virus?
CONCLUSION AND VERDICT
FALSE
It’s not necessary to use up time on this topic. It was known long before Covid-19 that face masks don’t do anything.
Many don’t know that blue medical masks aren’t filters. Your inspired and expired air moves in and out between the mask and your face. They are splashguards, that’s all.
This is a good review of the findings with masks in respiratory viruses by a recognised expert in the field. No effect.¹¹
Neither masks nor lockdowns prevented the spread of the virus. This review summarizes 400 papers.¹²
THE NARRATIVE POINT
Lockdowns slow down the spread and reduce the number of cases and deaths.
IMPORTANCE
The most impactful yet wasteful intervention, accomplishing nothing useful.
Useful to the perpetrators, however, wishing to damage the economy and reduce interpersonal contacts. This measure was surprisingly tolerated in many wealthy countries, because “furlough” schemes were put in place, compensating many people for not working, or requiring them to work from home.
THE REALITY
The measure, though among the most repressive acts ever imposed on citizens in a democracy, was intuitively reasonable to many. This is an example of how far off-course uninformed intuition can be.
The core idea was simple. Respiratory viruses are transmitted from person to person. Reducing the average number of contacts surely reduces transmission? Actually, it doesn’t, because the transmission concept is wrong. Transmission is from a SYMPTOMATIC person to a susceptible person. Those with symptoms are UNWELL. They remain at home in most cases with no action from the government. Transmission occurred mostly in institutions where sick people and susceptible people were forced into contact: hospitals, care homes, and domestic settings.
CONCLUSION AND VERDICT
FALSE
A general lockdown had no detectable impact on epidemic spreading, cases, hospitalisations, or deaths.
This is now widely accepted, after a meta-analysis by Johns Hopkins University (interestingly, as the JHU repeatedly features as an actor in a documentary about pandemic-related fraud by German journalist Paul Schreyer).¹³
This is because those involved in the vast bulk of human-to-human contacts are fit and well and such contacts didn’t result in transmission. Essentially, if you’re fooled by the “asymptomatic transmission” lie, then lockdown might make sense. However, since it is epidemiologically irrelevant, lockdowns can never work, and of course, all the voluminous literature confirms this.
This concept is unequivocally known to multiple public health scientists and doctors.
This is why “lockdown” had never been tried before.
Importantly, WHO scientists drafted a detailed review of all the non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) in 2019 and distributed copies of the report to all member states.¹ª
This means that ALL member states already knew, late in 2019, that masks, lockdowns, border restrictions, and business or school closures were futile. Only “stay home if you’re sick” works at all, and people don’t need to be told this, for they are too unwell to go out.
THE NARRATIVE POINT
There are unfortunately no treatments for Covid beyond support in hospital.
IMPORTANCE
Reinforced the idea that it was vital to avoid catching the virus.
Legally, it was essential for the perpetrators bringing forward novel vaccines that there be no viable treatments. Had there been even one, the regulatory route of Emergency Use Authorisation would not have been available.
THE REALITY
In my opinion, while all these measures were destructive and cruel, active deprivation of access to experimentally applied but otherwise known safe and effective early treatments led directly to millions of avoidable deaths worldwide. In my mind, this is a policy of mass murder.
Contrasting with the official narrative, the therapeutic value of early treatment was already understood and demonstrated empirically during spring 2020. Since then, a sizeable handful of well-understood, off-patent, low-cost and safe oral treatments have been characterised.
CONCLUSION AND VERDICT
FALSE
The official position was that the disease Covid-19 could not be treated and the patient only “supported,” often by mechanical ventilation. Ventilation is wholly inappropriate because Covid-19 is rarely an obstructive airway disease, yet has a high associated morbidity and mortality. An oxygen mask is greatly preferred.
In my view, due to the very large amount of empirical treatment and good communication, Covid-19 is the most treatable respiratory viral illness ever. We knew in the first three months of 2020 that hydroxychloroquine, zinc, and azithromycin were empirically useful, provided treatment was started early and tackled rationally.¹‘
It’s very important to note that it has been known for a decade and more that elevating
intracellular zinc acts to suppress viral replication.¹ª
There is no question that senior advisors to a range of governments knew that so-called “zinc ionophores,” compounds which open channels to allow certain dissolved minerals to cross cell membranes, were useful in severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in 2003 and should be expected also to be therapeutically useful in SARS-CoV-2 infection.
This is a starting point for all of the clinical trials in Covid-19,¹’ including especially
ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine (which are zinc ionophores).¹8
It should be noted that using known safe agents for experimental purposes as a priority has always been an established ethical medical practice and is known as “off-label prescribing”.
THE NARRATIVE POINT
It’s not certain if you can get the virus more than once.
IMPORTANCE
The idea of natural immunity was flatly denied and the absurd idea that you might get the same virus twice was established. This ramped up the fear, which might otherwise have passed swiftly.
THE REALITY
Those with even a basic grasp of mammalian immunology knew that senior advisors to government, speaking in uncertain terms on this question, were lying. Certainly, in the author’s case, it was a pivotal point. I shared a foundational education in UK universities at the same time as the UK government’s Chief Scientific Advisor. This shared education meant we’d have had the same set texts. I reasoned that he knew what I knew and vice versa. I was as sure as it is possible to be that it wouldn’t be possible to get clinically unwell twice in response to the same virus, or close-in variants of it. I was right. He was lying.
CONCLUSION AND VERDICT
FALSE
There have been scores of peer-reviewed journal articles on this topic.¹ª Very few clinically important reinfections have ever been confirmed.
Beating off a respiratory virus infection leaves almost everyone with acquired immunity, which is complete, powerful, and durable.
You wouldn’t know it for the misdirection around antibodies in blood, but such antibodies are not considered pivotally important in host immunity. Secreted antibodies in airway surface liquid of the IgA isotype certainly are, but most important are memory T-cells.²º
Those infected with SARS in 2003 still had clear evidence of robust, T-cell mediated immunity 17 years later.²¹
THE NARRATIVE POINT
Variants of the virus appear and are of great concern.
IMPORTANCE
I believe the purpose of this fiction was to extend the apparent duration of the pandemic—and the fear—for as long as the perpetrators wished it. While there is controversy on this point, with some physicians believing reinfection by variants to be a serious problem, I think untrustworthy testing and other viruses entirely is the parsimonious explanation.
THE REALITY
I come at it as an immunologist. From that vantage point, there is very strong precedent indicating that recovery after infection affords immunity extending beyond the sequence of the variant that infected the patient to all variants of SARS-CoV-2.
The number of confirmed reinfections is so small that they are not an issue, epidemiologically speaking.
We have good evidence from those infected by SARS in 2003: they not only have strong T-cell immunity to SARS, but cross-immunity to SARS-CoV-2. This is very important because SARS-CoV-2 is arguably a variant of SARS, there being around a 20% difference at the sequence level.
Consider this: if our immune systems are able to recognise SARS-CoV-2 as foreign and mount an immune response to it, despite never having seen it before, because of prior immunity conferred by infection years ago by a virus which is 20% different, it’s logical that variants of SARS-CoV-2, like delta and omicron, will not evade our immunity.
No variant of SARS-CoV-2 differs from the original Wuhan sequence by more than 3%, and probably less.
CONCLUSION AND VERDICT
FALSE
Normal rules of immunology apply here.²² Despite the publicity to the contrary, SARS- CoV-2 mutates relatively slowly and no variant is even close to evading immunity acquired by natural infection.
This is because the human immune system recognises 20–30 different structural motifs in the virus, yet requires only a handful to recall an effective immune memory.²³
The variants story fails to note “Muller’s Ratchet,” the phenomenon in which variants of a virus, formed in an infected person during viral replication (in which “typographical errors” are made and not corrected) trend to greater transmissibility but lesser lethality. If this was not the case, at some point in human evolution, we would have expected a respiratory viral pandemic to have killed off a substantial proportion of humanity. There is no historical record for such an event.
I do not rule out the possibility that the so-called vaccines are so badly designed that they prevent the establishment of immune memory. If that is true, then the vaccines are worse than failures, and it might be possible to be repeatedly infected. This would be a form of acquired immune deficiency.
THE NARRATIVE POINT
The only way to end the pandemic is universal vaccination.
IMPORTANCE
This, I believe, was always the objective of the largely faked pandemic. It’s NEVER been the way prior pandemics have ended, and there was nothing about this one that should have led us to adopt the extreme risks that were taken and which have resulted in hundreds of thousands, probably millions, of wholly avoidable deaths.
THE REALITY
The interventions imposed on the population didn’t prevent spread of the virus. Only individual isolation for an open-ended period could do that, and that’s clearly impossible (hospital patients and residents of care homes have to be cared for at very least and additionally, the nation has to be supplied with food and medicines).
All the interventions were useless and hugely burdensome.
Yet we have reached the end of the pandemic, more or less. We would have done so faster and with less suffering and death had we adopted measures along the lines proposed in the Great Barrington Declaration and used pharmaceutical treatments as they were discovered, plus general improvements to public health, such as encouraging vitamin supplements.
CONCLUSION AND VERDICT
FALSE
It was NEVER appropriate to attempt to “end the pandemic” with a novel technology vaccine. In a public health mass intervention, safety is the top priority, more so even than effectiveness, because so many people will receive it.
It’s simply not possible to obtain data demonstrating adequate longitudinal safety in the time period any pandemic can last.
Those who pushed this line of argument and enabled the gene-based agents to be injected needlessly into billions of innocent people are guilty of crimes against humanity.
It quickly became apparent that natural immunity was stronger than any protection from vaccination,²ª and most people were not at risk of severe outcomes if infected.²‘
Even children who were immunocompromised are not at elevated risk from Covid-19, so advice that such children should be vaccinated is lethally flawed.²ª
These agents are clearly underperforming against expectations.²’
THE NARRATIVE POINT
The new vaccines are safe and effective.
IMPORTANCE
I feel particularly strongly about this claim. Both components are lies. I outline the inevitability of the toxicity of all four gene-based agents below.
Separately, the clinical trials were wholly inadequate. They were conducted in people not most in need of protection from safe and effective vaccines. They were far too short in duration. The endpoints only captured “infection” as measured by an inadequate PCR test and should have been augmented by Sanger sequencing to confirm real infection. Trials were underpowered to detect important endpoints like hospitalisation and death.
There’s evidence of fraud in at least one of the pivotal clinical trials. I think there is also clear evidence of manufacturing fraud and regulatory collusion. They should never have been granted emergency use authorisations (EUAs).
THE REALITY
The design of the agents called vaccines is very bothersome. Gene-based agents are new in a public health application. Had I been in a regulatory role, I would have informed all the leading R&D companies that I would not approve these without extensive longitudinal studies, meaning they could not receive EUA before early 2022 at the earliest. I would have outright denied their use in children, in pregnancy, and in the infected-recovered. Point blank. I’d need years of safe use before contemplating an alteration of this stance.
The basic rules of this new activity, gene-based component vaccines, are: (1) to select part of the virus that has no inherent biological action—that rules out spike protein, which we inferred would be very toxic, before they’d even started clinical trials;²8 (2) select the genetically most stable parts of the virus, so we could ignore the gross misrepresentations of variants so slight in difference from the original that we were being toyed with via propaganda—again, this rules out spike protein; (3) choose parts of the virus which are most different from any human proteins. Once more, spike protein is immediately deselected, otherwise unnecessary risks of autoimmunity are carried forward.
That all four leading actors chose spike protein, against any reasonable selection criteria, leads me to suspect both collusion and malign intent.
Finally, let nature guide us. Against which components of the virus does natural immunity aim? We find 90% of the immune repertoire targets NON-spike protein responses.²ª I rest my case.
CONCLUSION AND VERDICT
FALSE
These agents were always going to be toxic. The only question was, to what degree? Having selected spike protein to be expressed, a protein which causes blood clotting to be initiated, a risk of thromboembolic adverse events was burned into the design.
Nothing at all limits the amount of spike protein to be made in response to a given dose. Some individuals make a little and only briefly. The other end of a normal range results in synthesis of copious amounts of spike protein for a prolonged period. The locations in which this pathological event occurred, as well as where on the spectrum, in my view played a pivotal role in whether the victim experienced adverse events, including death.
There are many other pathologies flowing from the design of these agents, including, for the mRNA “vaccines,” that lipid nanoparticle (LNP) formulations leave the injection site and home to the liver and ovaries,³º among other organs,³¹ but this evidence is enough to get started.
See this interview for evidence of clinical trial and other fraud, publicised by Edward Dowd, a former BlackRock investment analyst.³²
See this video for evidence of official data fraud (UK Office of National Statistics): especially at 2min 45sec for the heart of the matter.³³
See here for evidence of manufacturing fraud.³ª The same methodology was used to obtain regulatory authorisations, and so it is my contention that there is also regulatory fraud.
In the Pfizer clinical trial briefing document to FDA, which was used for issuing the EUA (on p. 40 or thereabout), there is a paragraph stating that there were approximately 2,000 “suspected unconfirmed Covid cases”—meaning people were sick with symptoms but were not tested (otherwise, it would be stated that the tests were negative). Of these, in the first seven days after injection, there were 400 in the vaccine arm and 200 in placebo. These subjects were excluded from the dataset used to assess efficacy. It’s as clear evidence of fraud as you can get; they admit to it in the FDA briefing! Nobody paid any attention to this that I am aware of.
There’s also evidence of data fraud in that clinical trial as summarised by Dr. Peter Doshi, associate editor of The BMJ (formerly called the British Medical Journal).
Though many people refuse to accept or even look at the evidence, it is clear that the number of adverse events and deaths soon after Covid-19 vaccination is astonishing and far in excess, in 2021 alone, than all adverse effects and deaths reported to the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) in the previous 30 years. Here is a simplified view of Covid vaccine-related mortality reports from VAERS.³‘
This excellent presentation by a forensic statistician, well used to presenting analyses for court purposes, dismantles the claims that the vaccines are effective and shows how toxicity is hidden (see the second half of the recording).¹º
Another paper published by the same group questions vaccine efficacy.³ª
FULL PAPER AND REFERENCES The Covid Lies
- Apr 11, 2023
- 34,120
- 17,419
- 1,788
The conspiracy is anti-vax, not pro-vax.
jc456
Diamond Member
- Dec 18, 2013
- 145,981
- 32,068
- 2,180
the conspiracy was created by demofks. Every aspect of the DNC and those they own in the media. it just is.
billyerock123
Gold Member
- Jan 9, 2021
- 2,806
- 979
- 208
do you really think people are going to read your post ???? don't think so first your source of this information Michael YeadonOk you took the vax. You regret it. Now start understanding how you were lied to. The COVID Lies, by Former Chief Science Officer for Pfizer Dr. Mike Yeadon
The Covid Lies
Yeadon bio. and work: Dr Mike Yeadon | Totality of Evidence
“The corona crisis is one of the least deadly pandemics the world has experience over the last 2000 years. - Klaus Schwab, “COVID-19: The Great Reset.”
The Covid Lies
The Covid Lies
By Dr. Mike Yeadon, former Chief Science Officer and VP at Pfizer
THE NARRATIVE POINT
SARS-CoV-2 has such a high lethality that every measure must be taken to save lives.
Note: Covid-19 is the disease resulting from infection with the virus, SARS-CoV-2. They are often used interchangeably. Sometimes it doesn’t much matter, but the confusion was sowed deliberately.
IMPORTANCE
Essential to claim high lethality in order that unprecedented responses may seem justified. To “pep up” the claim, recall “falling man” in Wuhan? The person was allegedly sick but walking about, before falling dead on his face. That was never real. It was theatre.
THE REALITY
Early estimates of lethality were very high with, in some reports, an “infection fatality rate” (IFR) of 3%. Seasonal influenza is generally considered to have a typical IFR of 0.1%. That means some seasons, IFR for flu may be 0.3% and other times, 0.05% or lower.
In practise, and this was usual, estimates of IFR for Covid-19 were revised downwards repeatedly and now are generally recognised as in the range of 0.1–0.3%. It cannot now be argued that it is significantly different from some seasonal influenza epidemics. Why, then, have we all but destroyed the modern world over it?
CONCLUSION AND VERDICT
FALSE
The perpetrators knew that lethality estimates of new respiratory viral illnesses ALWAYS start high and reduce. This is because, early on, we do not have any estimate of the number of people infected but not seriously ill and the number infected with no symptoms at all.
They created the impression of extreme danger, which was never true. This is such a crucial point, for once one sees it for what it is, the rest of the narrative is superfluous.
Dr. John Ioannidis is one of the world’s most-published epidemiologists and he has been scathing about the inappropriate responses to a novel virus of not particularly unusual lethality. Like most respiratory viruses, SARS-CoV-2 represents no serious health threat to those under 60 years of age, certainly not children, and is a serious threat only to those nearing the end of their lives by virtue of age and multiple comorbidities.¹
Dr. Ioannidis’s current estimate of global IFR is around 0.15%. For reference, a typical seasonal influenza outbreak has a typical IFR of around 0.1%, but can be markedly worse in bad winters.²
THE NARRATIVE POINT
Because this is a new virus, there will be no prior immunity
in the population.
IMPORTANCE
Seems reasonable, doesn’t it? This remark, made repeatedly early on, aimed to squash any notion that there was a degree of “prior immunity” in the population. Prior immunity and natural immunity are only now, two years in, not considered “misinformation”.
THE REALITY
Within a few months, multiple publications showed that a large minority (ranging from 30%–50%, some later said even more) of the population had T-cells in their blood which recognised various pieces of the viral protein (synthesised, as no one seemed to have any real virus isolates to use).
While some people argued that recognition by T-cells didn’t mean functional immunity, really it does.
We were prevented from learning that we already knew of six coronaviruses, four of which cause “common colds,” which in elderly and infirm people can cause death.
CONCLUSION AND VERDICT
FALSE
This was a straight lie. It’s pretty much never true that there’s no prior immunity in a population. This is because viruses are each derived from earlier viruses and some of the population had already defeated its antecedents, giving them either immunity or a big head start in defeating the new virus. Either way, a sizeable proportion of the population never had cause to worry.
!is article includes all the important peer-reviewed articles to mid-2020, with many showing at least 30%–50% having prior immunity (it depends upon the measure used to assess it).³
THE NARRATIVE POINT
This virus does not discriminate. No one is safe until everyone is safe.
IMPORTANCE
Intention was to minimise the numbers who might reason they’re not “at risk” people.
THE REALITY
This claim was always absurd. The lethality of this virus, as is common with respiratory viruses, is 1000X less in young, healthy people than in elderly people with multiple comorbidities.
CONCLUSION AND VERDICT
FALSE
In short, almost no one who wasn’t close to the end of their lives was at risk of severe outcomes and death. In middle-aged individuals, obesity is a risk factor, as it is for a handful of other causes of death.
!is intriguing review details how the initial modelling induced fear and provided the excuse for heavy-handed measures, especially “lockdowns”.ª It was, however, just that: an excuse. All experienced public health experts knew that lockdowns were absurd, ineffective, and hugely destructive. There’s no way to sugar-coat this. It was wrong before it was ordered, and it’s necessary to examine why those who knew did not protest. It’s almost as if they were complicit.
THE NARRATIVE POINT
People can carry this virus with no signs and infect others: asymptomatic transmission.
IMPORTANCE
This is the central conceptual deceit. If true, then anyone might infect and kill you. Falsely claimed asymptomatic transmission underscores almost every intrusion: masking, mass testing, lockdowns, border restrictions, school closures, even vaccine passports.
THE REALITY
The best evidence comes from a meta-analysis of a larger number of good studies, examining how often a person testing positive went on to infect a family member (they compared as potential sources of infection people who had symptoms with those who did not have symptoms). ONLY those WITH symptoms were able to infect a family member at any rate that mattered.‘
CONCLUSION AND VERDICT
FALSE
Asymptomatic transmission is epidemiologically irrelevant. It’s not necessary to argue it never happens; it’s enough to show that if it occurs at all, it is so rare as not to be worth measuring.
In this video, we also have Fauci and a WHO doctor telling us exactly this.ª Also, I show why it is like it is. It’s very clear.
THE NARRATIVE POINT
The PCR test selectively identifies people with clinical infections.
IMPORTANCE
This is the central operational deceit. If true, we could detect risky people and isolate them. We could diagnose accurately and also count the number of deaths.
Polymerase chain reaction (PCR), at its best, can confirm the presence of genetic information in a clean sample and is useful in forensics for that reason. It involves cycle after cycle of amplification, copying the starting material at the beginning of each cycle. The inventor of the PCR test, Kary Mullis, won a Nobel Prize for it and often criticised Fauci for misusing that test to diagnose AIDS patients, which Mullis insisted was inappropriate.
THE REALITY
In a “dirty” clinical sample, there is more than a possible piece of, or a whole, virus which might replicate. There are bacteria, fungi, other viruses, human cells, mucus, and more. It’s not possible unequivocally to know, if a test is judged “positive” after many cycles, what it was that was amplified to give the signal at the end that we call “positive”.
In mass testing mode, commonly used, no one ever runs so-called “positive controls” through the chain of custody. That’s diagnostic testing 101. It’s a deception.
Every test has an “operational false positive rate” (oFPR), where some unknown percent of samples turns positive, even if there is no virus present. A good oFPR would be less than 1%, but is it 0.8% or 0.1%? If you test 100,000 samples daily, and the oFPR is 0.8%, you will get 800 positive tests or “cases,” even if there is no virus in the entire community. Often, the “positivity,” the fraction of tests that are positive, is in that range, sub-1% or low-single-digit percent. I believe much or all of that can be caused by false positives. Note, criminals can manipulate the content of the test kits because there are very few providers in a territory, often just one. The conditions for running the test are also subject to variation by the authorities, like the CDC.
CONCLUSION AND VERDICT
FALSE
You can be genuinely positive, yet not ill. There is no lower limit of true detection below which you’d be declared to have some copies of the virus, but declared clinically well. It’s an absurd idea.
You can have no virus yet test positive (with or without symptoms). All of these are swept together and called “confirmed Covid-19 cases”. If you die in the next 28 days, you’re said to be a “Covid death,” no matter what the cause.
Those using the test kits provided commercially are what are called “black box”. They are unable to say what is in the kit, because this is proprietary. The original “methods paper” was published in 48 hours, making a mockery of claimed peer review, by a Berlin lab headed by Professor Christian Drosten, scientific advisor to Angela Merkel of Germany. The paper was comprehensively rebutted by an international team.’
The WHO released a series of guidance notes on PCR,8 and it was clear that their technical staff did not approve of mass testing the population, because it’s possible to return wholly false positives. Indeed, at times of low genuine prevalence, that’s all they can be.
I often wonder if this 2007 real-life example of a PCR-based testing system which returned 100% false positives, yet convinced a major hospital that they had a huge disease outbreak for weeks, might have been the inspiration for the untrustworthy methods used in the Covid-19 deception?ª
Drosten also led the TV publicity around the idea of asymptomatic transmission. One lucky scientist is at the centre of the two most important deceptions in the entire Covid-19 event!
Professor Norman Fenton here presents a multi-part lecture with two main elements.¹º First, he describes how mass testing of people with no symptoms unavoidably drives up the proportion of positive PCR test results that are false. The second part deals with the possibility that data fraud entirely accounts for the apparent efficacy of the vaccines, while attempting to hide vaccine deaths, by classifying them as unvaccinated for 14 days after injection.
THE NARRATIVE POINT
Masks are effective in preventing the spread of this virus.
IMPORTANCE
This is mostly used to maintain the illusion of danger. You see others’ masks and feel afraid. Complying is also a measure of whether you do what you’re told, even if the measure is useless.
THE REALITY
We have known for decades that surgical masks worn in medical theatres do not stop respiratory virus transmission. Masks were tested across a series of operations by doctors at the Royal College of Surgeons (UK). No difference in post-operative infection rate was seen by mask use.
Cloth masks definitely don’t stop respiratory virus transmission as shown by several large, randomised trials. If anything, they increase risk of lung infections. The authorities have mostly conceded on cloth masks.
Some people speak of “source control,” catching droplets. Problem is, there is no evidence that transmission takes place via droplets. Equally, there is no evidence it occurs via fine aerosols. No one finds it on masks, or on air filters in hospital wards of Covid patients, either. Where is the virus?
CONCLUSION AND VERDICT
FALSE
It’s not necessary to use up time on this topic. It was known long before Covid-19 that face masks don’t do anything.
Many don’t know that blue medical masks aren’t filters. Your inspired and expired air moves in and out between the mask and your face. They are splashguards, that’s all.
This is a good review of the findings with masks in respiratory viruses by a recognised expert in the field. No effect.¹¹
Neither masks nor lockdowns prevented the spread of the virus. This review summarizes 400 papers.¹²
THE NARRATIVE POINT
Lockdowns slow down the spread and reduce the number of cases and deaths.
IMPORTANCE
The most impactful yet wasteful intervention, accomplishing nothing useful.
Useful to the perpetrators, however, wishing to damage the economy and reduce interpersonal contacts. This measure was surprisingly tolerated in many wealthy countries, because “furlough” schemes were put in place, compensating many people for not working, or requiring them to work from home.
THE REALITY
The measure, though among the most repressive acts ever imposed on citizens in a democracy, was intuitively reasonable to many. This is an example of how far off-course uninformed intuition can be.
The core idea was simple. Respiratory viruses are transmitted from person to person. Reducing the average number of contacts surely reduces transmission? Actually, it doesn’t, because the transmission concept is wrong. Transmission is from a SYMPTOMATIC person to a susceptible person. Those with symptoms are UNWELL. They remain at home in most cases with no action from the government. Transmission occurred mostly in institutions where sick people and susceptible people were forced into contact: hospitals, care homes, and domestic settings.
CONCLUSION AND VERDICT
FALSE
A general lockdown had no detectable impact on epidemic spreading, cases, hospitalisations, or deaths.
This is now widely accepted, after a meta-analysis by Johns Hopkins University (interestingly, as the JHU repeatedly features as an actor in a documentary about pandemic-related fraud by German journalist Paul Schreyer).¹³
This is because those involved in the vast bulk of human-to-human contacts are fit and well and such contacts didn’t result in transmission. Essentially, if you’re fooled by the “asymptomatic transmission” lie, then lockdown might make sense. However, since it is epidemiologically irrelevant, lockdowns can never work, and of course, all the voluminous literature confirms this.
This concept is unequivocally known to multiple public health scientists and doctors.
This is why “lockdown” had never been tried before.
Importantly, WHO scientists drafted a detailed review of all the non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) in 2019 and distributed copies of the report to all member states.¹ª
This means that ALL member states already knew, late in 2019, that masks, lockdowns, border restrictions, and business or school closures were futile. Only “stay home if you’re sick” works at all, and people don’t need to be told this, for they are too unwell to go out.
THE NARRATIVE POINT
There are unfortunately no treatments for Covid beyond support in hospital.
IMPORTANCE
Reinforced the idea that it was vital to avoid catching the virus.
Legally, it was essential for the perpetrators bringing forward novel vaccines that there be no viable treatments. Had there been even one, the regulatory route of Emergency Use Authorisation would not have been available.
THE REALITY
In my opinion, while all these measures were destructive and cruel, active deprivation of access to experimentally applied but otherwise known safe and effective early treatments led directly to millions of avoidable deaths worldwide. In my mind, this is a policy of mass murder.
Contrasting with the official narrative, the therapeutic value of early treatment was already understood and demonstrated empirically during spring 2020. Since then, a sizeable handful of well-understood, off-patent, low-cost and safe oral treatments have been characterised.
CONCLUSION AND VERDICT
FALSE
The official position was that the disease Covid-19 could not be treated and the patient only “supported,” often by mechanical ventilation. Ventilation is wholly inappropriate because Covid-19 is rarely an obstructive airway disease, yet has a high associated morbidity and mortality. An oxygen mask is greatly preferred.
In my view, due to the very large amount of empirical treatment and good communication, Covid-19 is the most treatable respiratory viral illness ever. We knew in the first three months of 2020 that hydroxychloroquine, zinc, and azithromycin were empirically useful, provided treatment was started early and tackled rationally.¹‘
It’s very important to note that it has been known for a decade and more that elevating
intracellular zinc acts to suppress viral replication.¹ª
There is no question that senior advisors to a range of governments knew that so-called “zinc ionophores,” compounds which open channels to allow certain dissolved minerals to cross cell membranes, were useful in severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in 2003 and should be expected also to be therapeutically useful in SARS-CoV-2 infection.
This is a starting point for all of the clinical trials in Covid-19,¹’ including especially
ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine (which are zinc ionophores).¹8
It should be noted that using known safe agents for experimental purposes as a priority has always been an established ethical medical practice and is known as “off-label prescribing”.
THE NARRATIVE POINT
It’s not certain if you can get the virus more than once.
IMPORTANCE
The idea of natural immunity was flatly denied and the absurd idea that you might get the same virus twice was established. This ramped up the fear, which might otherwise have passed swiftly.
THE REALITY
Those with even a basic grasp of mammalian immunology knew that senior advisors to government, speaking in uncertain terms on this question, were lying. Certainly, in the author’s case, it was a pivotal point. I shared a foundational education in UK universities at the same time as the UK government’s Chief Scientific Advisor. This shared education meant we’d have had the same set texts. I reasoned that he knew what I knew and vice versa. I was as sure as it is possible to be that it wouldn’t be possible to get clinically unwell twice in response to the same virus, or close-in variants of it. I was right. He was lying.
CONCLUSION AND VERDICT
FALSE
There have been scores of peer-reviewed journal articles on this topic.¹ª Very few clinically important reinfections have ever been confirmed.
Beating off a respiratory virus infection leaves almost everyone with acquired immunity, which is complete, powerful, and durable.
You wouldn’t know it for the misdirection around antibodies in blood, but such antibodies are not considered pivotally important in host immunity. Secreted antibodies in airway surface liquid of the IgA isotype certainly are, but most important are memory T-cells.²º
Those infected with SARS in 2003 still had clear evidence of robust, T-cell mediated immunity 17 years later.²¹
THE NARRATIVE POINT
Variants of the virus appear and are of great concern.
IMPORTANCE
I believe the purpose of this fiction was to extend the apparent duration of the pandemic—and the fear—for as long as the perpetrators wished it. While there is controversy on this point, with some physicians believing reinfection by variants to be a serious problem, I think untrustworthy testing and other viruses entirely is the parsimonious explanation.
THE REALITY
I come at it as an immunologist. From that vantage point, there is very strong precedent indicating that recovery after infection affords immunity extending beyond the sequence of the variant that infected the patient to all variants of SARS-CoV-2.
The number of confirmed reinfections is so small that they are not an issue, epidemiologically speaking.
We have good evidence from those infected by SARS in 2003: they not only have strong T-cell immunity to SARS, but cross-immunity to SARS-CoV-2. This is very important because SARS-CoV-2 is arguably a variant of SARS, there being around a 20% difference at the sequence level.
Consider this: if our immune systems are able to recognise SARS-CoV-2 as foreign and mount an immune response to it, despite never having seen it before, because of prior immunity conferred by infection years ago by a virus which is 20% different, it’s logical that variants of SARS-CoV-2, like delta and omicron, will not evade our immunity.
No variant of SARS-CoV-2 differs from the original Wuhan sequence by more than 3%, and probably less.
CONCLUSION AND VERDICT
FALSE
Normal rules of immunology apply here.²² Despite the publicity to the contrary, SARS- CoV-2 mutates relatively slowly and no variant is even close to evading immunity acquired by natural infection.
This is because the human immune system recognises 20–30 different structural motifs in the virus, yet requires only a handful to recall an effective immune memory.²³
The variants story fails to note “Muller’s Ratchet,” the phenomenon in which variants of a virus, formed in an infected person during viral replication (in which “typographical errors” are made and not corrected) trend to greater transmissibility but lesser lethality. If this was not the case, at some point in human evolution, we would have expected a respiratory viral pandemic to have killed off a substantial proportion of humanity. There is no historical record for such an event.
I do not rule out the possibility that the so-called vaccines are so badly designed that they prevent the establishment of immune memory. If that is true, then the vaccines are worse than failures, and it might be possible to be repeatedly infected. This would be a form of acquired immune deficiency.
THE NARRATIVE POINT
The only way to end the pandemic is universal vaccination.
IMPORTANCE
This, I believe, was always the objective of the largely faked pandemic. It’s NEVER been the way prior pandemics have ended, and there was nothing about this one that should have led us to adopt the extreme risks that were taken and which have resulted in hundreds of thousands, probably millions, of wholly avoidable deaths.
THE REALITY
The interventions imposed on the population didn’t prevent spread of the virus. Only individual isolation for an open-ended period could do that, and that’s clearly impossible (hospital patients and residents of care homes have to be cared for at very least and additionally, the nation has to be supplied with food and medicines).
All the interventions were useless and hugely burdensome.
Yet we have reached the end of the pandemic, more or less. We would have done so faster and with less suffering and death had we adopted measures along the lines proposed in the Great Barrington Declaration and used pharmaceutical treatments as they were discovered, plus general improvements to public health, such as encouraging vitamin supplements.
CONCLUSION AND VERDICT
FALSE
It was NEVER appropriate to attempt to “end the pandemic” with a novel technology vaccine. In a public health mass intervention, safety is the top priority, more so even than effectiveness, because so many people will receive it.
It’s simply not possible to obtain data demonstrating adequate longitudinal safety in the time period any pandemic can last.
Those who pushed this line of argument and enabled the gene-based agents to be injected needlessly into billions of innocent people are guilty of crimes against humanity.
It quickly became apparent that natural immunity was stronger than any protection from vaccination,²ª and most people were not at risk of severe outcomes if infected.²‘
Even children who were immunocompromised are not at elevated risk from Covid-19, so advice that such children should be vaccinated is lethally flawed.²ª
These agents are clearly underperforming against expectations.²’
THE NARRATIVE POINT
The new vaccines are safe and effective.
IMPORTANCE
I feel particularly strongly about this claim. Both components are lies. I outline the inevitability of the toxicity of all four gene-based agents below.
Separately, the clinical trials were wholly inadequate. They were conducted in people not most in need of protection from safe and effective vaccines. They were far too short in duration. The endpoints only captured “infection” as measured by an inadequate PCR test and should have been augmented by Sanger sequencing to confirm real infection. Trials were underpowered to detect important endpoints like hospitalisation and death.
There’s evidence of fraud in at least one of the pivotal clinical trials. I think there is also clear evidence of manufacturing fraud and regulatory collusion. They should never have been granted emergency use authorisations (EUAs).
THE REALITY
The design of the agents called vaccines is very bothersome. Gene-based agents are new in a public health application. Had I been in a regulatory role, I would have informed all the leading R&D companies that I would not approve these without extensive longitudinal studies, meaning they could not receive EUA before early 2022 at the earliest. I would have outright denied their use in children, in pregnancy, and in the infected-recovered. Point blank. I’d need years of safe use before contemplating an alteration of this stance.
The basic rules of this new activity, gene-based component vaccines, are: (1) to select part of the virus that has no inherent biological action—that rules out spike protein, which we inferred would be very toxic, before they’d even started clinical trials;²8 (2) select the genetically most stable parts of the virus, so we could ignore the gross misrepresentations of variants so slight in difference from the original that we were being toyed with via propaganda—again, this rules out spike protein; (3) choose parts of the virus which are most different from any human proteins. Once more, spike protein is immediately deselected, otherwise unnecessary risks of autoimmunity are carried forward.
That all four leading actors chose spike protein, against any reasonable selection criteria, leads me to suspect both collusion and malign intent.
Finally, let nature guide us. Against which components of the virus does natural immunity aim? We find 90% of the immune repertoire targets NON-spike protein responses.²ª I rest my case.
CONCLUSION AND VERDICT
FALSE
These agents were always going to be toxic. The only question was, to what degree? Having selected spike protein to be expressed, a protein which causes blood clotting to be initiated, a risk of thromboembolic adverse events was burned into the design.
Nothing at all limits the amount of spike protein to be made in response to a given dose. Some individuals make a little and only briefly. The other end of a normal range results in synthesis of copious amounts of spike protein for a prolonged period. The locations in which this pathological event occurred, as well as where on the spectrum, in my view played a pivotal role in whether the victim experienced adverse events, including death.
There are many other pathologies flowing from the design of these agents, including, for the mRNA “vaccines,” that lipid nanoparticle (LNP) formulations leave the injection site and home to the liver and ovaries,³º among other organs,³¹ but this evidence is enough to get started.
See this interview for evidence of clinical trial and other fraud, publicised by Edward Dowd, a former BlackRock investment analyst.³²
See this video for evidence of official data fraud (UK Office of National Statistics): especially at 2min 45sec for the heart of the matter.³³
See here for evidence of manufacturing fraud.³ª The same methodology was used to obtain regulatory authorisations, and so it is my contention that there is also regulatory fraud.
In the Pfizer clinical trial briefing document to FDA, which was used for issuing the EUA (on p. 40 or thereabout), there is a paragraph stating that there were approximately 2,000 “suspected unconfirmed Covid cases”—meaning people were sick with symptoms but were not tested (otherwise, it would be stated that the tests were negative). Of these, in the first seven days after injection, there were 400 in the vaccine arm and 200 in placebo. These subjects were excluded from the dataset used to assess efficacy. It’s as clear evidence of fraud as you can get; they admit to it in the FDA briefing! Nobody paid any attention to this that I am aware of.
There’s also evidence of data fraud in that clinical trial as summarised by Dr. Peter Doshi, associate editor of The BMJ (formerly called the British Medical Journal).
Though many people refuse to accept or even look at the evidence, it is clear that the number of adverse events and deaths soon after Covid-19 vaccination is astonishing and far in excess, in 2021 alone, than all adverse effects and deaths reported to the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) in the previous 30 years. Here is a simplified view of Covid vaccine-related mortality reports from VAERS.³‘
This excellent presentation by a forensic statistician, well used to presenting analyses for court purposes, dismantles the claims that the vaccines are effective and shows how toxicity is hidden (see the second half of the recording).¹º
Another paper published by the same group questions vaccine efficacy.³ª
FULL PAPER AND REFERENCES The Covid Lies
Michael Yeadon is a British anti-vaccine activist and retired pharmacologist who attracted media attention in 2020 and 2021 for making false or unfounded claims about the COVID-19 pandemic and the safety of COVID-19 vaccines. The Times has described him as "a hero of Covid conspiracy theorists" and "a key figure in the antivax movement".
PeterPilot
Diamond Member
- Jan 17, 2023
- 2,315
- 1,537
- 1,938
You did not include Yeadon's tenure at Pfizer or what position he held there. Why did you exclude that information? Does it frighten you, or just undercut your position?
Yeadon is one of the conscientious men who worked for Pfizer who subsequently became a whistleblower.
billyerock123
Gold Member
- Jan 9, 2021
- 2,806
- 979
- 208
Doesn’t matter what you think his tenure is they terminated him because of the inaccurate things he was trying to imply it wasn’t true … you don’t seem to get it … no he wasn’t a conscientious scientists.. he was a nobody trying to make it with the trump administration … he then started his little website …where every scientists every fact checker has said he has no clue in what he is saying … for him to comment on the covid-19 vaccine is any where accurate … he’s a conspiracy theorists not a good scientists …
jc456
Diamond Member
- Dec 18, 2013
- 145,981
- 32,068
- 2,180
You know exactly that? How?
billyerock123
Gold Member
- Jan 9, 2021
- 2,806
- 979
- 208
Michael Yeadon is a British anti-vaccine activist[1][2][3] and retired pharmacologistwho attracted media attention in 2020 and 2021 for making false or unfounded claims about the COVID-19 pandemic and the safety of COVID-19 vaccines.[4][2] The Times has described him as "a hero of Covid conspiracy theorists"[5] and "a key figure in the antivax movement".[6] Until 2011, he served as the chief scientist and vice-president of the allergy and respiratory research division of the drug company Pfizer, and is the co-founder and former CEO of the biotechnologycompany Ziarco.[7][8][9] as you can see he’s not all that and a bag of chips
billyerock123
Gold Member
- Jan 9, 2021
- 2,806
- 979
- 208
billyerock123
Gold Member
- Jan 9, 2021
- 2,806
- 979
- 208
I'm smarter than you that's how...
jc456
Diamond Member
- Dec 18, 2013
- 145,981
- 32,068
- 2,180
I'm sure in your eyes you are, but I let the board make that judgement.
jc456
Diamond Member
- Dec 18, 2013
- 145,981
- 32,068
- 2,180
And?
jc456
Diamond Member
- Dec 18, 2013
- 145,981
- 32,068
- 2,180
false? based on what? The deceptive program designed to harm the citizens by the rigged media? hahahahahahhaaha. You don't get to state what is fact and fiction.
billyerock123
Gold Member
- Jan 9, 2021
- 2,806
- 979
- 208
Michael Yeadon did work for Pfizer but left the company in 2011, according to his biographical information," to which Yeadon has contributed. His title at Pfizer was vice president and chief scientist for allergy and respiratory. he didn't have any kind of degree in vaccines at Pfizer all his work was done in Allergy and respiratory medicines ... so unless you are reacting to peanuts, shrimp, lobster, or bees then he can't help... that's why he was shot down by Pfizer and every vaccine scientist on the planet ... do some dam research on the people before you shoot off your conspiracy theorist on us because that's what he has been branded as his tenure is in Allergy and respiratory medicines get it not vaccines ...
billyerock123
Gold Member
- Jan 9, 2021
- 2,806
- 979
- 208
if you pull your head out of your ass and realize not all information being told to you is some deceptive program designed to harm the citizens ...its kind of what I just stated to a different moron same stupid reply you have ... this is a statement from Pfizer
Michael Yeadon did work for Pfizer but left the company in 2011, according to his biographical information," to which Yeadon has contributed. in other words what he claimed from Pfizer... His title at Pfizer was vice president and chief scientist for allergy and respiratory. he didn't have any kind of degree in vaccines at Pfizer all his work was done in Allergy and respiratory medicines ... so unless you are reacting to peanuts, shrimp, lobster, or bees or anything you are allergic to then he can't help... that's why he was shot down by Pfizer and every vaccine scientist on the planet ... do some damn research on the people before you shoot off your conspiracy theorist on us because that's what he has been branded as his tenure is in Allergy and respiratory medicines get it not vaccines ...
billyerock123
Gold Member
- Jan 9, 2021
- 2,806
- 979
- 208
Did you read anything in front of you ... I claimed Trump was all for the vaccine he took them himself ...this is a video telling you Trump is for the vaccine and is all up on these shots ... where later on because Pfizer said that Donald Trump had nothing to do with Pfizer making this vaccine that they were working on it way before trump asked ... after all of his stupid moves by Trump not stopping people from other countries coming into The U.S. in 2019... like everything trump does you make him look bad he starts attacking you... That is what he did to Pfizer ... you dumb fucks on the right took him as being serious about the vaccine you stopped taking the vaccine meanwhile Trump is taking it and you Republicans are dropping like flies in a cold room ... priceless there are still 500 people dying from covid each month...why they refused to take the vaccine. is their bad .. then watch them begged the doctors to give them a shot while they were dying, when your lungs start filling up with water its lights out buddy...
billyerock123
Gold Member
- Jan 9, 2021
- 2,806
- 979
- 208
you will lose that bet ... stupid people usually do
You apparently read it, you lying moron. And you think no one else will read it? Just how stupid and brain dead are you?
Anyone who has read even one of your posts knows that if you don't like what a post says, you claim with unthinking certainty that it is wrong and the source is wrong. When in fact, you are constantly wrong and prove so with every post you make. Idiot is too kind of a description for your.
Similar threads
