THIS third instalment of James Delingpole’s interview with Dr Mike Yeadon begins with a summation of his argument so far.
Part 1 of this series, published in TCW on Wednesday, is here and Part 2, published yesterday, is here. The full interview can be heard here on The Delingpod.
Mike Yeadon: So that’s the stuff I’m saying about the vaccine. And again, I think I mentioned this phrase four times before regarding the vaccine. You can’t trust this government and its advisers. Regarding these vaccines and your children – the trials are too small.* You can’t trust this government or its advisers. They want to do something that’s not to do with protecting you from this virus. They want to do something that’s to do with benefits for them. And I don’t know quite what they are. But I think . . . so, James, I don’t know whether we want to take a pause before we go down the deepest rabbit hole of all?
James Delingpole: Oh, yes. Before we do, let’s save that climactic moment, for the moment. I wanted to ask you, do you have any theories on . . . because, as I understand it, normally when you make a vaccine, you create a kind of dead version of the thing you’re trying to protect against.
MY: That means you’d have to have some of it [the coronavirus], wouldn’t you?
JD: Yes. Yes. That’s true.
MY: No one’s got any, it seems. Seriously. I mean, it must exist, surely, James, they couldn’t really have fooled the whole world for a year without actually having a bucket of this stuff, surely? But oddly enough, you ask around and no one’s got any. I’m not alleging it’s not there, I’m just observing that despite all of this time, no one seems to have any. Interesting.
JD: Does that mean they haven’t isolated the virus or what?
MY: I don’t know, you would have thought there’d be, you know, so many great labs, government funded, either here or in Germany or America or Sweden or so on. Why hasn’t someone done a, you know, one of these wonderful, whatever they’re called, Horizon programmes, showing the purification of this stuff. It’s just . . . maybe they’ve all been too busy running bad PCR tests and making vaccines that people don’t need. I don’t know.
JD: So . . .
MY: I genuinely don’t know why there hasn’t been a fully described purification.
JD: So, OK, so they haven’t been able to do that, because possibly they haven’t isolated the virus. But why are they doing this thing where it mucks around with your mRNA or your DNA? This is, as you say, experimental.
MY: It’s funny that. I mean, yes, there is an argument for doing this and it’s speed. Once you know the genetic sequence of the virus, you can more or less do a cut and paste in a computer and then, you know, 3D printing effectively. You actually then synthesise a piece of the gene and in this case, it’s the spike protein, which is about 12 to 13 per cent of the genome of the virus, that’s about the proportion it is of the whole virus, the spike. So there is this advantage of speed. As long as you’ve . . . as soon as you’ve sequenced the genome of the virus, then you can begin to design a vaccine. And quite quickly, you can say, ‘Well, I’m already starting to make it’, whereas if you want to do it old school, you have to find good conditions to culture the virus – you don’t really culture the virus. What you do is you culture cells in which it can grow. But we do know how to do that. I’ve seen, they are called monkey Vero six cells, apparently people use those, so I don’t really know why they couldn’t have cultured those on scale. Maybe that is happening, maybe some of the following, not top-up vaccines, but some of the sort of later first gen ones might be whole virus.
So there’s the speed argument, James, that I have heard. But the original technique, certainly the mRNA-based gene-based vaccines that Pfizer BioNTech is using and Moderna, they originated from the anti-cancer field, because these are ways of being able to, you know, turn on or turn off certain genes, which could be advantageous if you want to manipulate, you know, cells that are growing out of control. So that was really the origin of them. So they’re quite an unusual, very unusual application, really. If you think of when you try and treat cancers, you’ve got quite a lot of latitude, because generally we think of the patient as being, you know, at some serious risk of dying. And that means you can use some quite aggressive techniques, and you may need to in order to arrest the growth of the cancer. The patient may be willing to tolerate some significant side-effects because the alternative may be death. But if you think of a public health measure, I really can’t think of very much more, the other end of the line, really, because most people won’t catch the infective agent that you’re vaccinating them against and if they did, they probably wouldn’t die.
So if you’re using it as a public health protective measure, you really want (to be) as close as you can get to zero side-effects. What you don’t want is someone to just be a good citizen, take a vaccine against a disease that’s important for the community, but probably not for them statistically, and then for them to die. That would be awful. So I find it odd that they chose techniques that were really cutting their teeth in the field of oncology.
I’ve thought about, and I continue to think about that. I am worried, for example, that by using gene-based vaccines that have to be injected in the body, spread around the body, get taken up into some cells, and the regulators haven’t quite told us which cells they get taken up into, and then those genes need to be copied and made into protein, and some cells will do that better than other cells. It strikes me you’re just going to be generating a really wide range of responses. So in one person, it might be distributed less well, taken up less well, copied into protein less well. So they might get a little dose of spike. And another person might take up the vaccine in a very concentrated way and then very efficiently transfer it into spike protein, and get a big dose of protein, a big dose of spike protein.
It seems to me the dynamic range of outcomes is going to be wider and that’s not a good thing. You really want to be as tight as you can. That’s like, when we take a dose of a drug, they give you 50 milligrams, not 80 or 28, they give you a defined dose. With these gene-based vaccines, it seems to me that the outcome in terms of what happens in your body is going to be just intrinsically and unavoidably much wider, because there are multiple steps, each of which could go well or badly.
So, again, I’ve always found it an odd choice, but I think there’s a reason. I think there’s a reason, I don’t know if it’s an accident or was the driving reason. If it was the driving reason, then the last rabbit hole I want to go down to is . . . I can just describe it. Let me just describe this, because I’m not certain what they’re going to do, but you will probably all have heard – because it’s in the news every day or every other day – the story of virus variants or mutants. Virus variants. You’ve heard of the Brazilian mutant or the South African mutant. I think there’s a Kent one and so on. The first time I heard this, I thought, ‘Oh, that’s interesting, there must be quite a change for them to have actually called it a name.’ So I went to the molecular biology and I went to have a look. And it was like a one amino acid change. I thought, ‘Well, that’s really quite unlikely to alter its behaviour.’
So, let me just explain why I feel that. This is the largest, if not the largest, it’s one of the largest viruses, you know, ever sequenced. It contains 10,000 amino acids. You know, those are the building blocks of a protein. So if you take the whole protein, it’s 10,000 long. That’s a lot, and what that means is, if you changed, if you changed, I think 100 of them, that would be one per cent. Yes, that’s right. If you changed 100 of them in the string of 10,000. That would be a one per cent change. But I’ve looked and the most different variant, that is the one that’s furthest away from the virus first sequenced in Wuhan, China that has evolved the furthest away, I think it’s 27 amino acids 0.27 – it’s less than 0.3 per cent difference. In other words, it’s 99.7 per cent identical. 99.7 per cent.
Now, I assure you that the human immune system is much cleverer than that. There is no chance, it’s not just implausible, it’s impossible for a variant that differs by 0.3 per cent, so is 99.7 per cent identical, there is no chance that that will evade immunity. So the stuff that you’re hearing about, you hear advisers and so on wringing their hands about, ‘Well, we’re not quite sure if the vaccine will work as well against this one as against the other one’ – bullshit. The amount of difference between these is so minuscule. Let me give you an analogy. A human palm, not the fingers and the thumb, just the palm. About one per cent of your body surface area. So hold it up in front of you and imagine something about a third that size. It’s not even as big as the brim on your baseball cap, right? Get your baseball cap on, you’re exactly the person that you are now. Your family loves you and knows you well. I’m going to make a 0.3 per cent change in your appearance to mimic this change of the virus in your immune system. Take your baseball cap off, rotate it round and put the flap at the back. Ask your family, do they recognise you? Yeah, and of course they do. So I’m just pointing out that a 0.3 per cent change in a complex organism like James Delingpole or Mike Yeadon, there’s no way anyone even faintly familiar with you is going to be thinking, ‘That’s a new pathogen, that’s a different person.’ Well, that’s what the government’s advisers are trying to get you to believe when they talk about variants, because that’s about the scale of the difference.
So here’s where it gets terrifying, because not only are government ministers saying this and they’ve shut the international borders, haven’t they, effectively, and made you quarantine, all to stop bringing home something that’s pretty much identical to what you’ve already got. Why are they doing that? It makes no sense, literally. I knew it. I knew that months ago. And I thought, ‘What are they doing?’ And the grounds they gave us are just not true. They’re not viable. They’re not plausible. So I . . . as soon as I heard them do that, which is like, the turn of the year, I thought . . . that’s when I started to get a really frightened feeling: you can’t trust the government or its advisers, because whatever they’re doing, what they’re telling you is not matching up with the immunology.
But here’s the . . . here’s the really terrifying part. They’re telling you that, ‘Don’t worry, we can tweak these vaccines because they’re mRNA,’ James, as you said, just go into the computer, change the sequence, update your production line and there’s a jab for you to update your immunity. Well, Mike Yeadon’s just told you that the variants are nowhere near different enough to (word or words unclear) to require any kind of different immunity. In fact, I believe they would need to be a hundredfold more different than that, about 30 per cent, maybe there would be a . . . there would be a chance. Even then, I would vote for your immune system will easily recognise it as a brother or a cousin. Easily. Not 0.3 per cent or 3 per cent, maybe 30 per cent and I still would vote for the human immune system every time to not be fooled and not believe it was a new pathogen. You don’t need a new vaccine even for 30 per cent.
The people who had SARS, the original SARS, 2003, seventeen, eighteen years ago, people, volunteers, have given their blood if they survived that infection 17 years ago and they recognised Sars-Cov-2 easily and they are 20 per cent different. So I’ve got empirical evidence. I’ve got theory on my side. And now we’ve got . . . I’m sorry, you’ve been misled by government and its advisers. Here’s two terrifying other bits of information for your listeners. I’ve heard some of the pharmaceutical companies, I don’t know, so I’m not going to name them, I’ve heard some of the pharmaceutical companies are already manufacturing top-up vaccines for you. So once you’ve had your first generation vaccine, you’ve got your vaccine passport and you’ve been to the pub, maybe, you’ll be called up for your top-up vaccine, which I’m telling you, you don’t need.
Now, here’s the last terrifying bit of information. If you guys can’t put it together after this, I really can’t help you. The global medicines regulators, MHRA, European Medicines Agency, the FDA, they got their heads together about a month ago and they put out a statement that said, ‘The top-up vaccines, being so similar to the originals, they don’t require the producers to do clinical safety studies.’ So there’s a conspiracy here, because I know, and I’ve spoken to at least six other immunologists who agree, that the variation, the variants are nowhere near different enough from the original virus to possibly need a different vaccine. And yet you’re told that they’re needed and the country shut its borders because of them. The pharma companies are manufacturing top-up vaccines that you don’t need. So that means people in the company know they’re not needed and they’re making something. And finally, the medicines agencies of the world have said, ‘Go ahead, be my guest.’ So they’re going to go from the whiteboard or computer screen of a drug company into hundreds of millions of arms without passing Go, or any regulator.
So just in brief, why would they possibly want to do that? You asked the question earlier, James, about why did they pick this method of making a vaccine when they could have just used a piece of the dead pathogen? Well, one, they’d need some dead pathogen, maybe that would take a lot of time. But the other reason for using gene-based vaccines is you can put wherever gene you like in. If you wanted to, I don’t know, theoretically, you could give someone . . . you could get someone to express a gene that would have some benefit to them possibly. You certainly could give them a gene that would do them some harm, if you wanted. That harm might be short term, it might be long term. It might be conditional on other factors with which that extra gene would . . . would interact. So . . . but here’s my . . . I can’t think of a benign . . . I cannot think of a benign explanation for the claim that you need top-up vaccines, which I’m sure you don’t, for the manufacture by the drug companies of these things that aren’t needed and for the regulators just to get out of the way and wave them through.
I will point out, actually, just quickly for evidence, that to say that they’re so similar to the original vaccines that we don’t need to do safety trials is really to insult your listeners, because right now the medicines agencies are wrestling with how safe or not are the parent vaccines. So don’t let them just waive top-up vaccines, but they’re not needed anyway. So there’s not a benign explanation for the claim they’re needed, their manufacture, and they’re going right past the medicines regulators without being examined. But if you wanted – and I’ve heard of this – if you wanted, say, to depopulate a significant proportion of the world and to do it in a way that wouldn’t require destruction of the environment with nuclear weapons or poisoning everyone with anthrax or something like that and you wanted plausible deniability whilst you had a multi-year infectious disease crisis, I actually don’t think you could come up with a better plan of work than it seems to be in front of me. And I can’t say that’s what they’re going to do. But I can’t think of a benign explanation for why they are doing it. So I won’t be able to sleep properly until someone comes up with a benign explanation or takes me away, I guess. But I’m not stopping, because there is nothing for me in this world or my children and grandchildren while this stuff is going on. So I don’t care at all what the risks are for me. I’m not going to stop until I can tell this to as many people as possible. And I will pause now, James, you may want to ask some questions.
JD: Yes, there’s a lot to digest there, Mike. What . . . are you suggesting . . . do they have the capability, for example, of killing off particular races?
MY: I don’t know.
JD: But I got the theoretical possibility, isn’t it? I mean . . .
MY: It is. But there are . . . there are quite a few people I have heard during my lifetime, you know, quite thoughtful people, who’ve said that they are worried that, you know, it will be difficult to keep planet Earth in good order and the people on it to have good lives, the standard of living that they aspire to, whilst retaining biodiversity and not destroying all the different habitats and not running out of non-renewable resources. So on the one hand, you know, I would happily try and find the best solutions to problems like that. But I have to say, maybe I’m just a softie, but it would never cross my mind to think, you know, one solution might be to get rid of 90 per cent of the humans. But I wonder . . . I wonder. I’m not saying that they are, right? I’m just pointing out, if you wanted to, this would be a hell of a way to do it.
*The Oxford-AstraZeneca Covid vaccine trial on children has reportedly been paused, though not, worryingly, for the fundamental ethical and scientific concerns that Dr Yeadon detailed yesterday.
In tomorrow’s instalment Dr Yeadon explains antibody dependence enhancement where prior vaccinations can make the course of this disease worse.
