Former Pfizer VP, Dr.. Michael Yeadon PhD
#4 Former Pfizer VP, Michael Yeadon
I'm a qualified Life Science Researcher. I have a first degree in Biochemistry in toxicology and have a research-based PhD in respiratory pharmacology and then I worked for 32 years mostly in big pharmaceutical companies and ten years in the biotechnology sector. So my last job in Big Pharma was… as president and chief scientist of Allergies and Respiratory Research,
I left Pfizer in in 2011.
[I am now] an independent advisor to over 30 startup biotechnology companies. So, as you would expect from that, that I am pro new medicines.
“
Our goals always were to address unmet medical need and to do so with acceptable safety. And I'm in favor of all modes of new medical treatments, whether they are biological or vaccines, small, molecules cream sprays… whatever. But I'm fervently against unsafe medicines or medicines used in an inappropriate context.
One of the things I started doing early on, because I understood it quite well, was to publicly criticize the PCR Polymerase Chain Reaction test. You should disregard all announcements about case rates.
Certainly [the lives] of my children and grandchildren have been stolen from us by a systematic process of fear and control that's going to culminate, I think, in some very horrible times.
And I'm here today to tell you that there's something very very bad happening. And if you don't pay attention, you will soon lose any chance to do anything about it.
Now take your normal society back. You can take it back tomorrow. Don't need masks, they don't work. Forget lockdowns, they never slow transmission, which took place mostly in institutions like hospitals and care homes. You don't need to be vaccinated by an inadequately tested and somewhat dangerous gene-based spike protein.
Government policy from the beginning - before even the virus arrived in our country - has turned decades of understanding of how to protect people from infectious diseases on its head. We've never used lockdown before and a good reason for that is it's not effective.
What we do is we quarantine the sick. We've always done that. Because that's how you avoid infecting the wider population. So the idea of quarantining the well - the so-called lockdown - is a new invention and it has no foundations whatsoever either in science or in the history of controlling epidemics.
Also mass testing of people without symptoms has no underpinning science at all, and it's just a way of frightening people.
And this idea, for example, that you can be ill even though you have no symptoms, and you can be a respiratory virus threat to someone else, even though you have no symptoms - that's also invented in 2020. There is simply no history of it and it defies common sense, as well. So most people probably are aware when I tell them you've got an incredibly good facility for noticing as you walk towards somebody, whether they represent a health threat to you.
You can tell just from the way their posture, how they're moving, you know, (have they) got symptoms - eyes nose and so on. And if they do, you instinctively move around. And if you think about it, that goes right back to prehistory where one of the things that could kill you and wintertime would be catching a respiratory virus. Being disabled for a few days - that might be enough to kill you.
And so it's a an evolutionary advantage for us to be highly aware of whether or not someone represented a threat to us. And the fact is, we're very good at that. I think that should tell you that there are real, reliable guides as to whether someone is a threat to you. So though they might stab you or hit you on the head, they're not going to give you a chest infection that could kill you. And yet time and time again: lock down a city.
The misleading, kind of things that you hear very often is the implication - perhaps, even the statement - that what gives you immunity to something, some infectious diseases, is whether you've got antibodies to that thing.
And I think they have done that because most people think that antibodies are what confers immunity, and certainly antibodies are quite important against certain infections. Bacterial infections, if you don't have antibodies, it can be very difficult.
That's not the only part of your immunity and importantly, immunity to viruses doesn't really rely on antibodies at all. And I'll just explain why.
A virus is a really tiny thing, really tiny, and their businesses is to get as quickly as they can inside your cells. So they bind to a receptor on the surface and inject themselves into your cell. They're inside.
Here's our big [antibody] molecules, and they're generally outside yourself. So, just think about that for a moment. Antibodies and viruses are in separate compartments. The virus is inside the cell, the antibodies outside, the cell. So, I'm not saying antibodies have no role but they're really not very important.
And this has been proven on some people in whom an actual experiment has occurred. They have a defect and actually don't make antibodies, but they're able to fight off Covid-19.
And the way they do that is they have what's called T Cell immunity - cellular immunity And there are cells that are that are trained as it were to detect a virus, infected cells, and to kill those off. And that's how you defend yourself against a virus. So all of these dimensions of antibody levels, it's just bunk. It is not a good measure of whether or not you're immune.
It does give the evidence that you you've been infected. But their persistence is not important to whether you've got immunity. And so I've noticed the emphasis on antibodies, I think, is really a psychological operation to convince you, member of the public, that you do know that it's antibodies that confer immunity. And so, when they fall away, while you must be losing immunity.
I'm sorry. It's not true. There are multiple arms of your immune system and what is never talked about is T-cell or cellular immunity. It's not a new thing either. We've known this for decades. They were clearly in my undergraduate textbooks and we've known about their importance in defending you from respiratory viruses since probably the 1970s. Certainly the 1980s.
Your immune system has multiple components to it because it’s susceptible to infectious threats of various kinds: parasites, fungi bacteria, viruses - those would be the main categories. Well, obviously, they invade and threaten you in completely different ways. It would not be surprising then to learn you've got four or five different arms of the immune system.
You can establish that quite easily by doing some searching. And therefore, once you establish that for yourself, then you'll probably realize why they keep telling us about antibodies when they're probably not very important at all. And why aren't they talking T cells, which maintains the fence of your tissues?
It was never necessary for us to have done anything. We didn't need to do anything - lockdowns, masks masks, testing, vaccines even. There are multiple therapeutic drugs, that are at least as effective as that.
So why do I know that? 17 years ago, 18 years ago, there was a virus called SARS. It’s 80% similar to SARS COV2.
And there was some experiments done last year where they found people who have been infected by SARS 17 years earlier and asked them to donate blood, and they did. And there were tests done on their cells. They wanted to know, were the circulating immune cells still able to recognize SARS 17 years later? And they were. They all still had memory T cells circulating around their body. That's great! That's what I would have expected.
They also did a really important experiment. They showed those same people's T-cells the new virus SARS CoV2. And unsurprisingly to me, they recognized that new virus. And that's because the new virus is 80% similar to the old one - 20% different.
Again, a 20% difference was not enough to kid these people's immune system that it was a new virus. It easily recognize it as a sibling or brother, a cousin of something they've conquered already.
So when your government scientists tell you that a variant that’s 0.3% different from SARS could masquerade as a new virus and be a threat to your health, you should know, I'm telling you, they are lying. They're lying.
They all are.
Why is the pharmaceutical industry making top-up vaccines? They are making them. You should be terrified at this point, as I am, because there's absolutely no possible justification for their manufacture. But they're being made. And the world's medicine regulators have said, because they are quite similar to the original vaccines - the ones that have been given now, we won't be asking them to do any clinical safety studies.
So, let me just say, again, the variants are not different enough to represent a threat to you.
I have heard a lot of people worry about the origins of this SARS CoV2. But it's very important that you know that it's not true that we don't know a lot about it. We do know an enormous amount about it. It's very similar to a virus that people have been infected and survived before. In fact, it’s a lot less lethal than SARS. It spreads more easily. [But] it’s a lot less lethal. And we know that the people it injures and kills are only people who are elderly and or ill. [Kissinger’s “useless eaters” who must be disposed of.]
Usually both. And so, we're talking about less than 0.1% [fatality rate]. It's been moving through our communities now for well over a year.
It's easy to repel it and once you've been infected, you're immune. There's no uncertainty about it. Lots of literature is being published.
So once you've been infected often, you [will] have no symptoms. You are now immune, probably for decades. That would be my default expectation for decades. It's simply not true that the variance that it throws off as it replicates are sufficiently different from each other to (be) any threat at all.
Not even unlikely. It's impossible, based on the thousands and thousands of variants have been formed. They're all very, very similar to the original.
It's not true that you need a top-up vaccine. Most of you don't need a vaccine at all. Most of you would be well advised to stay away from experimental vaccines, unfortunately, that do come with a blood clot risk. Why would you take a risk with your health? For something that's not a threat to you? ” LINK