Sunday, May 26, 2024
HomeCOVID-19Ex-Pfizer science chief on the Covid lies: Part 4

Ex-Pfizer science chief on the Covid lies: Part 4


IN THIS fourth and final instalment of James Delingpole’s interview, Dr Mike Yeadon discusses his fears about the inexorable nature of the Government’s Covid vaccination and passport programme and the implications for our freedom before going into Antibody Dependent Enhancement and other risks of the experimental vaccines.

Part 1 of this series, published in TCW on Wednesday, is here. Part 2, published on Thursday, is here. Part 3, published yesterday, is here. The full interview can be heard on The Delingpod.

Mike Yeadon: It’s unstoppable, folks. It’s this summer and autumn. It’s unstoppable if you allow the government to browbeat and coerce you until everybody but a few per cent are on a vaccine passport, what they’ll do is they’ll gradually tighten the screws, they’ll let you have a normal life. They’ll tighten the screws to coerce and effectively mandate the last few per cent. And then I think they’ll put the rest of them in a prison camp. And then they’ll move on to the top-up vaccine. So you heard it here first. I wish I was wrong. I really badly wish I was wrong, but I don’t think I am.

James Delingpole: Yes, there is, of course, another worrying thing, which is that the people who are refusing to take this so-called vaccine. Tend to be the very sort of independent-minded tricky buggers, that the new authoritarian regime . . .

MY: (speaking over) That the New World Order doesn’t want. Yes, probably. I mean, the funny thing is, I imagine the elites, they’ve probably got their berths already sorted. They won’t be taking vaccines. They won’t be going through QR codes. That . . . did you know, just . . . just to really, really annoy your listeners, because you probably think that no one’s flying anywhere because you can’t go. I only discovered this the day before yesterday, because I hadn’t realised this. But a friend of a friend works for high-end . . . organising itineraries, your journeys and flights and so on – he has done for years – he said he’s never been so busy. He said, ‘Last week I organised an itinerary for ten people. It was like 15 grand.’  You know, people out there, there are wealthy people going off to their holidays in the Caribbean. You don’t see them, they slither down the airport (word unclear) get processed and off they go. It’s just you and I aren’t being able to go unless you’ve got a business reason. But he said he’s organising groups and they’re definitely not going to prepare a house for sale or rent. They’re going on holiday, but they’re rich people.

JD: Tell me a bit about Antibody Dependent Enhancement (ADE) responses, what is that?

MY: I don’t think I’m enough expert at it to be able to explain it coherently. But I do know that there is a concern people have that if you’ve been vaccinated first and you will have raised a lot of antibodies, not just antibodies, by the way, (you) shouldn’t forget (that). It’s very important not to. But yes, you will raise antibodies and they will be circulating in your body, maybe, you know, secreted in various tissues. And the concern is that when you, under certain conditions that are not fully understood, if you’ve already got the antibodies and then you get infected by the pukka original virus, that somehow the antibodies augment the infection, somehow pulling the infective agent into the tissues. And that’s called Antibody Dependent Enhancement. Or, you know, in other words, the antibodies make the infection worse.

JD: Right.

MY: And that has . . . that has been seen. That is the phenomenon of vaccination, followed by exposure to the genuine infective agent that you’re meant to be protected against, actually getting worse. Because, of course, a normal vaccine would protect you, right? That’s the idea. But there have been several occasions, including in humans, where prior vaccinations actually made the course of disease worse. And I don’t think we fully understand why. And when we see that, of course, we just stopped doing it. I know people are worried that that might happen here with coronavirus Sars-Cov-2. And it is certainly true in animal experiments with some other coronaviruses that that phenomenon was seen. So I suppose I can understand why they might be worried about it, but I don’t think I can either reassure you or amplify the worries. It’s not something I have focused on. I can only do so much. And I’ve not read a single paper about it.

JD: What about the longer-term consequences for just human reproduction? Presumably once you’ve had one of these jabs that mucks around with your mRNA or whatever?

MY: I don’t think we really know what happens, James. It’s just simply not been described. I’ve looked through the dossiers, the regulatory dossiers, at least the ones that are available in the US. You don’t have what’s called duty of candour, so you, a member of the public, can go and read the documents that were filed with the FDA, you know, at least the ones that were finally used in the (words unclear ‘permitted termination’?). For any drug that’s approved, you can go and find quite a lot of the documents. That’s just not true in Europe. So I’m not able to see at all what they’ve done. I don’t know how long the message lasts in the cells – I don’t even know which cells it goes into, which is appalling. You know, I’m a drug discovery guy, early development. I can assure you, we do know what’s called PKPD pharmacokinetics-pharmacodynamics. You would normally know that, you better describe it and you’d be looking to see does that happen, the same in animals as in humans, how about cells in a test tube, what’s the longevity of it in culture and so on? I’m not able to find any of that information. So you can ask, you know, 20 questions about how long does it last and where does it go and when does it wear off – I’m afraid I don’t know. The innovator might know and the regulator might know, but I’m unable to find out, so I can’t tell you. But, yeah, that’s one for me one of the uncertainties, when people say, ‘Oh, you’re making a big deal.’ And I say, well, you know, we just don’t have any data beyond a few months, formally, after administering it to a human. So I actually don’t know what’ll happen after, say, six months or a year. And they go, ‘Oh, don’t worry about it.’

You think, you hope, it will be OK. What happens if that’s not right? What happens if it isn’t OK? Some things sometimes happen like thalidomide wasn’t expected. I’m not saying this is thalidomide. But I’m just pointing out that if you’d that same blasé ‘It’ll be all right, why are you worrying?’ then, if you had administered to every person, that could have been quite bad for the species. I’m pointing out yet again, you shouldn’t be giving this vaccine, especially because it’s new technology, you should give it to the people who are at risk of dying if they catch the virus and to no one else. The fact that my government, in what I thought was a civilised, sensible, rational country, is raining it on people who are in their 30s and 40s, even my children in their 20s, they’re getting letters and phone calls. I know this is not right. And any of you doctors and vaccinators that are doing it, you know it’s not right too, they’re not at risk. They’re not at risk from the disease. So you’re now hoping that the side-effect risk is so rare that you get away with it, and it’s not.

So that’s the point. Until you’ve got the data to show how safe it is, you should never assume things are safer than is common. Right? Most vaccines are pretty bloody safe. I’ve had loads of them, my kids had all of them, including the most modern ones that came out in the 90s, you know, I read the label and said, ‘That’s my recommendation. The data would look pretty good.’ But what you don’t do is give new technology things that you don’t understand to 100 per cent of the population, especially when only a few per cent of the population are at risk of dying. So just straight away, you know, it’s unethical. It’s just . . . it’s not done. But everyone’s mute. 

The doctors and the NHS must know that this is not right. And they’re coming into work and injecting people. I don’t know how they sleep at night. I couldn’t do it. I know I couldn’t do it. If I was in that position, I would have had to quit because I know enough about toxicology to know that this is not a good risk benefit. You don’t know that it’s a good risk benefit. And now I’m seeing some risks. This young woman cannot get benefit because she’s not at risk from the virus, but she’s going to carry a risk. And if you multiply this by ten million, you’re going to have . . . you will kill some people for no benefit. Why are you doing that? And James, the reason must be because it’s something bigger than you and it’s not protection against the virus. It’s some bigger project than you. That means that politicians and advisers are willing to do things or not doing things that knowingly result in avoidable deaths. That’s already happened, if you think about lockdown and deprivation of health care for a year. 

People have said to me when I outlined my worry about what could happen with superfluous top-up vaccines that haven’t been tested, they literally shy away when I say, ‘Well, what do you think you could do with it?’ I can see their minds are working. And it kind of occurs to them, again, ‘No, it couldn’t be, could it?’ See, people self-censor. They can’t believe there could be that much evil. And I remind them of Pol Pot and Stalin and Hitler and others. They do exist, I’m afraid. And also I would point something out. There are . . . I won’t name individuals because it’s not fair, but there are people in the government and their advisers in the government and then people who are civil servants, I guess, who have enacted policies which arguably have resulted in avoidable deaths. You know, deprivation of health care is one of them. I believe if you’re the kind of person that can do that, you come into work, you do the (word unclear) calculations, you’ve got three zeros at the end of the number of avoidable deaths, that are going to flow from my pen. And you do it. I think if you can sleep and eat okay for the next few days, when you need to come into work and add, say, three more digits or nine more digits, you’re the kind of person who could sign the paper. I don’t think it makes any difference if you’re prepared to do something that results in the avoidable death of a fellow human being and it not bother you in conscience, I don’t think . . . do you remember that famous phrase, James, of Stalin. He said every death . . . one death is a tragedy. A million a statistic.

That’s how these people think. So don’t self-censor. Just be reasonable, just think of it as a Meccano set or Lego or a jigsaw. Just put it together and you come up with a benign explanation for what I’ve described because I can’t.

JD: The Chinese and the Russians, bizarrely, seem to have developed vaccines which are just vaccines.

MY: I know. Very strange. Unfortunately I don’t believe anything I’m told any more. Seriously. So, yeah, if we could believe what we’re told, I do think that . . . is it Sinovac and then Sputnik, I think are meant to be different, but . . .

JD: We can’t be sure. OK.

MY: I’m afraid almost everything feels like Smiley’s world these days.

JD: So my final question to you, and this  will enable you to sort of really reinforce what you said earlier, is I expect there are lots and lots and lots of people out there, including members of my family. And this has been very divisive within families.

MY: It has, inside mine too.

JD: Awful.

MY: It doesn’t help. Even though they might think you’ve got access to this madman, or at least somebody who knows something. It doesn’t make any difference, there are some people I literally cannot get through to them. They, more or less, they just . . . I wouldn’t say they laugh, but you can see that it’s not going in.

JD: Yes. What would you say to somebody – and I’m sure there are lots of people like this – who say, look, they’ve been brought up in a culture of rampant health and safety. And they’ve been . . . they trust, they believe the BBC, they trust the government. They think, ‘Look, there is no way that our friendly family doctor, there’s no way that our NHS, there’s no way that a Conservative government, there’s no way that a regulated industry . . .’

MY: Hmm. I know.

JD: ‘. . . would make anyone take an unsafe vaccine.’

MY: I know.

JD: What’s your answer to that?

MY: Well, that’s my instinct too. And I’m struggling. I have come to the point and my wife feels the same, we can’t live here. The country we grew up in doesn’t exist. And the signs of it are all around. Every institution that normally protects you, James, the things you just listed, they’re gone. The BBC has lied to everybody all the time. They just don’t give you faintly accurate information. I’m sorry. It’s true. That said, the BBC, you know, there’s no question that the mass media is not giving fair and balanced information to its people. And I could have understood it in the first few weeks and months of a . . . of a crisis whose dimensions we didn’t have. I did understand that, you know the sort of Ofcom coronavirus broadcasting guidelines, but for them to still be in use in a year, which is making sure that there’s simply not a competing voice about what should be happening here, that isn’t normal. We normally do have, you know, quite a rumbustious press. And they’re all just poodles pretty much.

JD: They are.

MY: So, I . . . yes, it’s astonishing, isn’t it? Maybe that’s why we’ve been chosen, because I do think that Britain looks like, other than Israel, and quite a small country, Israel could be a test case. I think they’ve already introduced the vaccine passports. They’re well over 50 per cent vaccinated. You’ll notice that the BBC doesn’t talk about Israel very much. I’ve got a few friends there and they tell me it’s a battle royale both in parliament and on the streets. You know, in the synagogues, people know that something’s going on. And which way to jump?

JD: Well, because there hasn’t been a spike in deaths in all countries where they’ve rolled out the vaccine.

MY: I think that’s true. If there’s one or two examples, if there’s one or two exceptions, then they are the exception. And I can explain why that might be if you were concerned about it, you might just go for placebo for a little bit. But, yeah, there’s been an enormous you know, it’s . . . I’m not (word or words unclear), but I’ve certainly seen other people’s work where you track vaccination rate and then an uptick in cases, there definitely does seem to be a relationship. I have not had time to study it. You know, again, there’s a limit to what one person can do. So I’ve observed there does seem to be something going on. I don’t have an adequate explanation for it.

JD: Well, Mike, it’s been really great talking to you. And look, thank you. Even if . . . even if you stop just one person taking this experimental treatment, it will have been worth it.

MY: A little bit . . . I want a bit more than that. So I think we didn’t quite get to the people, you modelled it, it’s like they won’t believe, they won’t believe. What I would say to you is, let’s just take a step back then to the current generation of vaccines in the vaccine passport under the Nuremberg Code put together after the Second World War to prevent the horrors of human medical experimentation, your government and no agency is allowed to coerce you into accepting a medical treatment you don’t want. So if you’re feeling kind of pressured, that’s coercion. My strong advice when someone’s doing something wrong is not to say, ‘OK, then’, it’s to say, ‘How about No.’ So, I strongly recommend to you: delay your decision. So if you’re youngish and fit-ish and you’re not likely to die from the virus and you’re not thinking about reducing some risk for you from the virus in respect to this vaccination decision, you are thinking about pubs and international travel, can I ask you: do a bit more thinking, just delay your decision. Not indefinitely necessarily, but make an active decision to delay it, see what happens. The reason I want you to do that is I think if a sufficient proportion, probably quite a small proportion, if a sufficient proportion of people don’t get it, it can’t complete. Now, I’m sure if there is . . . if this plan is anything like what I think it is, they’ll probably have a response to that. But, you know, stand fast. You shouldn’t be coerced into accepting something that you don’t want and especially something you don’t need. If ever you’re pressured to accept a medical intervention you don’t need, you must suspect the motive of the person doing it. And since you’re not at risk from the virus, you must suspect the motives of the person doing it. And I’ve offered you a reason why that might be worrying. Even if I’m wrong about that, you should still not give away to coercion. It’s illegal. It’s the Council of Europe, of which we are still a member after leaving the EU, we’re still a member, they issued in January a really long document, that two sections of it said, ‘Member states are reminded that they may not mandate or coerce their citizens to receive medical products.’ And then the next paragraph said, ‘And member states are reminded that they may not discriminate in any way between people who decide whether or not to have a vaccine.’ So the law is quite clear. Obviously, it would need to be used. But make no mistake that the law is there to protect us. But if we are too careless, too easily persuaded and almost everyone gets vaccinated, it’s like, well the law’s irrelevant then, isn’t it? You’ve taken your decision.

JD: Yes.

MY: So the independent thinkers and just people who think this doesn’t feel right, I want that to be the highest possible percentage. Anyone who’s thinking of taking it because they’re at risk of the virus, then take your doctor’s advice. I’m not talking to you. Everybody else, please don’t, for God’s sake, give the country away for a pint. You know, just say no. And then if there’s enough of us, then they won’t . . . they will not be able to introduce some ridiculous, childish scheme that doesn’t protect anyone anyway. Also, remember, vaccine passports don’t protect anybody, you’re not less safe or more safe in a pub garden because you’ve got a vaccine passport. So if enough people don’t have it, eventually they’ll have to open the pubs or there’ll be riots, and then they can just let everybody in. So you’ll still get your pint if you don’t get vaccinated, so take your delay.

JD: Right. Thank you. Thank you so much.

If you appreciated this article, perhaps you might consider making a donation to The Conservative Woman. Unlike most other websites, we receive no independent funding. Our editors are unpaid and work entirely voluntarily as do the majority of our contributors but there are inevitable costs associated with running a website. We depend on our readers to help us, either with regular or one-off payments. You can donate here. Thank you.
If you have not already signed up to a daily email alert of new articles please do so. It is here and free! Thank you.

Edited by Kathy Gyngell

Sign up for TCW Daily

Each morning we send The ConWom Daily with links to our latest news. This is a free service and we will never share your details.