IN THIS second instalment of James Delingpole’s in-depth interview with Dr Mike Yeadon, which can be heard in full here on The Delingpod, he asks about the attempts to silence Yeadon and other reputable scientists, most of whom have succumbed under an active policy of intimidation. Yeadon goes on to discuss the non-medical reasons for the politically promoted experimental Covid vaccines and entirely unethical and dangerous child vaccine trials. Part 1 of this series, published in TCW yesterday, is here.
James Delingpole: You have been smeared, Mike. I’ve seen this. And you had to retreat from Twitter . . . and this has been the case with all the sceptical scientists . . .
Mike Yeadon: Indeed, by sheer coincidence, they just turn out to be absolutely awful people that we have to lock out of social media! It’s just astonishing, really. On the one hand, they seem to be ably qualified to be able to comment. And on the other hand, somehow, they’re all bad people that need to be kept away from the general public. Just coincidence theory striking again . . .
JD: Do you think this explains why so relatively few people within the medical industry, be it the NHS or the Big Pharma or whatever, have spoken out?
MY: Yes, I know it . . . I’m reasonably handy at immunology, but some of the things that I’m going to say are so enormous that, of course, I did want to check. So I’ve spoken to a total of seven or eight UK university professors whose disciplines mean that they understand quite a lot about immunology. Of those, I won’t name them, but there are a couple that you will have heard on your tellies before they got battered and more or less driven into the shadows. All the other ones, even though I implored them to, refuse to say anything in public or even author a newspaper item that would educate the public just about how immunity works. That bad.
I said, ‘Why won’t you?’ And they said, ‘Well, the university administration’s got a policy that we just don’t say anything that counters government policy or that of its medical advisers. And also, we kind of get hints through the grapevine that if we do that, we won’t get grants from the government and its funders, people like the Wellcome Foundation, MRC, things like that. So basically, it’ll be just too difficult for me. I’ll be pummelled from the administration on top. I’ll be pummelled from my peers because I could bring disrepute into the university and I won’t get any grants. So I’m just going to shut up.’
And as a result, sorry, you’re a bunch of moral cowards, because you know something’s wrong and this is about your children’s and grandchildren’s lives and you’ve buggered off and just left it for a handful of people. And I don’t think we’re going to win. I don’t think there’s enough voices. So there you go.
That’s yes, there is an active policy of intimidation. And I also think there’s just a lot of self-censorship. People recoil in horror when I outline, as I’m going to, it’s just really there’s two phases to this, really:
It’s the unreasonable, unrelenting pressure that you will be feeling, you listening to this that you’re feeling, if you haven’t already succumbed, unrelenting pressure to get vaccinated. And I’m going to describe in a minute why you’re feeling that. Why I think they’re doing it.
And then I’m going to describe what I think will happen next if you succumb. And it’s up to you. You can decide, do you want freedom or not, or do you not really care?
So vaccination, these are novel technologies. So they’re either messenger RNA or they’re DNA with a viral vector. They’ve never been used before. And I always found it an amazing coincidence that we didn’t have any coronavirus vaccines at all. And then suddenly we ended up with more or less three sort of similar ones. And they all came through just, you know, spaced by a few weeks – it’s just amazing. Another coincidence theory to deal with, but they are novel and I think there’s something seriously wrong with them. I do think they probably work. Although they’ve really made it quite difficult to tell whether they do. But the thing that I think is wrong with them is that every single one of them expresses what’s called the spike protein, that little stick that you see on the outside of this cartoon coronavirus.
So these gene-based vaccines cause everybody to manufacture either the spike protein or a piece of it. And the reason I think that’s a mistake is that spike protein is not some passive sort of anchor or hook on the outside of the virus that you probably know it sticks to cells via that spike. And so that’s probably why it might make sense to you. But the spike is not just a passive anchor. The damn thing is biologically active. It’s a so-called fusogenic protein. It makes cells stick together and, inconveniently, it’s capable of initiating blood coagulation and activating the immune complement pathway. It’s a bad thing, and you don’t want that stuff inside your body because it might initiate coagulation and blood clots and you’ll probably be thinking now, ‘Funny, I have heard some stuff about blood clots and the AstraZeneca vaccine.’ Well, I think that’s the reason.
I’ve been interacting with the European Medicines Agency for weeks to tell them this, to warn them of this, because I was hearing through medical friends, I’m not a medical doctor, but I was hearing from medical friends that they were seeing bleeding, skin bleeds, massive headaches, things that were worrying. And I said, ‘You do know that spike is capable of triggering coagulation?’ And they were horrified. They didn’t know it. So we wrote to the European Medicines Agency and they more or less ignored us. They just sent a one paragraph reply saying, ‘We have full confidence in our assessment.’ This was before people . . . news reports came out of blood clots. So we thought, ‘This is not good enough.’ So we decided to write an open letter and we sent the open letter and they didn’t respond. But the very week that we sent the open letter, country after country after country temporarily paused the use of the AstraZeneca vaccine, citing blood clots.
I think I’ve described the mechanism and I’ve just seen this very afternoon tentative reports that the German regulator is going to recommend not using it any more in younger people. And that’s because they have seen a number of women aged 20 to 50 who have died of cerebral vein thrombosis, basically a blood clot in the brain. Now, these are women who would never have died of the virus and they’ve been killed by the vaccine. So if any of the people working for those companies or any of you who’ve not thought about this in the medical profession, you’ve just been stabbing this into people who are not at risk from the virus. You should feel thoroughly ashamed of yourselves. Where is your medical ethics? Stop giving these damn vaccines that are experimental and you don’t know what the side-effect profile will be. Stop giving them to people who are not at risk of dying from the virus. Just stop. Can you hear how furious I am?
JD: Yes . . .
MY: These people are dying, James. So back to the question of: should I take it to go on holiday? Please don’t. Now these things are not occurring in a high percentage of people. Right? I’m not saying if everybody takes a vaccine, they’re going to get a blood clot. They’re not. I don’t know what the frequencies are, but it is Russian roulette. We do not know which people will develop blood clots, maybe we’ll later work it out. But maybe it’s the people who are spontaneously likely to get blood clots. Maybe it’s a particular age or gender or ethnicity or maybe it’s some other medicine they’ve got. We just don’t know. It’s Russian roulette with your life. So if you’re at risk of dying from the virus, this is probably a reasonable bet. Have a talk with your physician, understand what the risks are, understand what the choices are, and make an informed decision. But don’t just roll up like this is a measles, mumps and rubella vaccine that we’ve been having for decades. It’s not that at all.
With that aside, I need to point out, I think there’s a really horrible tail behind this. Why in the world do you think well-known medics that you see on TV that belong to the government or their advisers or maybe just in-house doctors that you see on TV, why are they all ramming this stuff down people’s necks? They do seem to, don’t they? They do seem to want everyone to be vaccinated – the young and the old they’re doing . . . believe it or not, they’re doing a clinical trial in children.
Now, there have been no children, zero, who were previously well in this country that caught coronavirus and died. So anyone listening, you might want to think, why would you want to take the risk of a new technology vaccine that’s a few months old and give it to millions of children? Now, of course, the answer cannot be to save them from coronavirus, because they don’t catch it or they don’t get ill. So there must be another reason, mustn’t there, there must be another reason? And why are they giving it to 20million people who aren’t children but they’re not elderly either, like these women in Germany, 25-year-olds who’ve died of cerebral vessel thrombosis, blood clots in the brain?
I think I know what the answer is and I think the answer is vaccine passports. Now, vaccine passports sounds like a sort of reasonable thing, until you think about it. So if you’re 70 and you’ve maybe got high blood pressure and you’ve chosen to be vaccinated and everything has gone well, you haven’t had any terrible side-effects, that’s good. You’re now immune to coronavirus. It doesn’t matter to you whether I’m vaccinated or not vaccinated. I’m going to choose not to have it, thanks very much. You would understand that, given what I’ve just described and also I’m not very old. I’m slim. I have no other risk factors. I’d be mad to take this. And of course, they’re not going to give me a vaccine certificate. But you 70-year-old with high blood pressure, you’re immune. You don’t need to know what my immune status is. So you should hopefully say, ‘No, I don’t want you to have a vaccine passport because it’s clearly not necessary.’ And I clearly don’t want to know whether or not you’ve had a vaccine at all. I don’t care.
So I’ll tell you what, it doesn’t work for the non-vaccinated. It’s not necessary for the vaccinated. Seriously. It’s for someone else, isn’t it? It can only be for someone else. And the someone else I think is the person or power that’s going to operate a database. And what will it have on it, folks? It’ll have your name, a digital identity that’s unique to you in the world. And it’ll have at least one flag which will say you have been vaccinated or you haven’t been. And I think what they’re planning on doing is building a one . . . for the first time in human history, a common platform database with your name, a unique ID and, initially, it’s arbitrary, could have been anything but arbitrarily, it’s going to be your immunisation status and they’re going to change your privileges according to whether or not your flag is up that you’ve had it, or it’s down and not.
And the reason they’ll do that is to coerce the other people who haven’t had vaccination to come on to the platform. If you think about that, that platform provides the perfect tool for totalitarian control of every living being on the planet. That’s what I think they want to do, because I can’t think of any other reason. There is no arguable medical reason whatsoever. So if I was in charge and I was . . . and there was a good reason, having realised what I have now about the awesome abuse power of a common database, I would be saying, ‘We must make sure the database is not common. It must have different formats in different countries, or maybe even just a random different ways of being able to demonstrate it.’ A little bit clunky occasionally for travel, but within a country, if you needed to demonstrate it, there would never be a way of integrating it at the supranational level, because as soon as that happens, someone has complete power.
So what they could do, for example, you could associate with your entry, Mike Yeadon, you need digital ID vaccine status – no. What they could do, is just you could form, say, a new banking credit and say here’s where your money is, Yeadon. And when you use your smartphone, you’ll only be able to spend it through this ID on this common platform, or we’re not going to let you go in that shop because you’ve not been vaccinated. So you could live a bare life outside the system, or you could enjoy yourself in society. But be under no doubt, you’re under complete control of whoever owns and operates that database. So that’s why I think they’re pushing . . . I’ll be honest about it, they’re dangerous vaccines. They’re dangerous in the sense that we don’t – this is the current ones – yet understand their long-term safety profile, but already there’s enough short-term safety worries for several countries to be contemplating changing the mix of people who get it.
If a country – and I think it would be wise – chooses not to give it to people under 50 or under 60, it’s because, as I’ve said, they’re not at risk from the virus. It’s just mad that they would even contemplate taking a risk with their health. And the physicians who have realised this who are ethical are going to stop. And I imagine they’re saying, ‘I’m not doing this any more.’ So the only . . . and then when we got to the children, there’s a study going on of 300 children. I can assure you, 300 children is not going to be enough children to allow you to work out at all whether this would be safe for your child. If there was a, say, a one in a thousand chance of lethality, you’d probably miss it in this study of 300 children. But if it was one in a thousand, you’ll kill . . . I don’t know how many children are there? 10million. So 10,000 children could die. So there could be a side-effect so bad as to kill 10,000 children and we will not detect it in this trial. So don’t take any confidence from it.
Worse than that, they’re playing with you. That trial of 300 children is, it’s a bagatelle that they can say, ‘Oh, we’ve done a trial, it’s okay.’ But it isn’t. It’s not big enough. It’s what’s called underpowered, statistically. You should take no assurance whatsoever from that clinical trial, even if it’s clean as a whistle. Don’t bring your child for vaccination. Don’t let them do it, because your children are not at risk from the virus. They won’t infect anybody else. And even if they did, it wouldn’t matter because the vulnerable will have been vaccinated. So use your brain, you might have worked this out. Don’t let them be vaccinated.
I’ve just described awful, awful behaviour. We’re exposing 300 children, an inadequate number, I think, to get a political result that will be used for PR purposes to coerce you to bring your children in. So don’t do it, because the study is massively underpowered. There’s even a study in newborns that’s going on somewhere in America. Why would you want to get every single person on the planet vaccinated? Well, maybe Mike Yeadon’s right then, maybe he’s not quite so stupid after all. Maybe . . . maybe I’m wrong. But even so, if you all get vaccinated, there will be a common database. The Tony Blair Institute has been talking about that since before we had vaccines, suspiciously enough. I don’t trust that man. I don’t trust him at all. I think he wants to be king of the world.
In tomorrow’s instalment Yeadon delves further into the science behind the novel gene-based vaccines and the myths surrounding the Covid variants.