THE topic of the year so far has been Covid-19 and the rollout of experimental vaccines to ever-younger age groups. TCW Defending Freedom has been at the forefront of critiquing Government policy, notably by our writers Neville Hodgkinson and Sally Beck. From today until Bank Holiday Monday, we are re-running our top ten most-read articles from the end of 2020 in reverse order. Today is No 2 by TCW, which was first published on April 7 2021.
OVER the next few days we are posting an edited transcript of James Delingpole’s recent in-depth interview with the former Pfizer Vice-President and Chief Science Officer Dr Mike Yeadon, which you can find here.
Dr Yeadon has a degree in biochemistry and toxicology, is a Ph.D. in respiratory pharmacology, and spent 32 years working mostly for large pharmaceutical companies. He left Pfizer ten years ago as the most senior person in charge of respiratory research, with a broad biological, immunology, infectious diseases, inflammation, respiratory understanding and knowledge.
So he is, as Delingpole observes, ‘quite well-qualified to talk about the subject of viral respiratory infections and vaccines’.
In today’s first instalment of the interview, Yeadon explains to James why no one should be taking the new Covid gene-based vaccines for a trivial reason and why we should not trust the Government on this, on testing or on mandatory mask wearing, asymptomatic transmission or on lockdowns:
MY: I would say I have more than a working knowledge of immunology and immunity, including as relates to viral infections of the lung. And, you know, a decent understanding of how you go about setting up tests and critiquing them.
So I can tell there are things wrong with our testing systems in the country, for example. And I can demonstrate why your government and our government is lying to us in a way that I think will be frightening to your listeners.
And if I’m wrong, that would be delightful. But if I’m right, you need to be paying attention, because you may be able to save liberal democracy or not – it’s that straightforward.
JD: So, tell us what we should be worrying about. I have various family members, and I know that this is a problem around the country, who are thinking, ‘Well, you know, I want to go on holiday. I’d better take one of these vaccines.’ Now, is that a wise move?
MY: No, no, absolutely not … even though I have been outside of Big Pharma myself for ten years, all the time I was outside, when I’ve had my own company or was advising other people’s, ultimately the Big Pharma was the buyer.
So, I’ve been in and around and dependent on that industry all of my professional life. So, I can assure you I’m pro their products. But what I’m not – I’m not pro unsafe products. I’m not pro products used in the wrong people in the wrong way.
The reason I said no to your question about should people, frankly, for a trivial reason, risk injection with an experimental, new technology vaccine just so they could go on holiday or worse, down to the pub, is one of the most stupid things I’ve heard.
Unfortunately, I think the Government’s counting on people viewing it as a trivial decision because it’s ‘just a vaccine’. Well, the materials in question, I think they probably just qualify because they do ultimately raise an immune response. But the way they do it is … is completely different from any vaccine we’ve used before.
I think to be fair, they should be called gene-based vaccines, just to emphasise there’s something quite different about them. That difference means you cannot take for granted anything about the profile in your body.
The fact that we’ve got this little word vaccine at the end, that does not mean any of the things you think you understand about vaccines will apply to this one. Not at all.
The way they work is so different, they induce the body, the cells of your body to actually manufacture a piece of this pathogen, of this infective agent. And then you respond to that. That’s kind of Star Trek and interesting, but it’s not the same.
And things could go wrong in the short, medium or long term, and we won’t know what they are. So don’t take one and don’t do it for trivial reason.
On the other hand, if you are a person who’s at risk of perhaps dying, if you catch Sars-Cov-2 and develop the disease Covid-19, then even though these are novel and we don’t have much data yet, you probably are better off taking it than not. There are some risks, but you could die if you don’t.
But if you’re mid-60s, certainly younger and healthy and you don’t have one of the sort of major chronic illnesses, that’s life-shortening, like diabetes, something like that, then you’re not at risk from this virus. There’s almost no one like you that was healthy and youngish and then got ill and died. Tiny number.
More people died falling off motorbikes last year than died with that description, whereas we don’t know, maybe 120,000, mostly older, mostly ill people did.
Those people, I think it’s a wise choice if you want to – it’s a choice, not a requirement – anyone else, please, for goodness sake, take care of your health and don’t be coerced, because what they’re doing to say, ‘Well, you might not be able to travel internationally if you haven’t got a vaccine passport’ or, ‘It’ll be down to the landlords’, says our stupid prime minister.
What they’re doing is applying coercive pressure to you. Now, you should know that it is illegal under various international treaties to coerce somebody to receive a medical treatment. It derives from the trials following the defeat of Nazi Germany, where Josef Mengele and other people performed experiments on living humans who, of course, were not volunteers, sometimes killing them.
And this is a faint echo of that. You must not be put in a position, and our law prohibits it, where you are coercing or mandating someone to take something, certainly that’s an experimental treatment where the outcome is not reasonably certain. And that’s definitely true of these new vaccines.
They’ve not been around long. No one can tell you what will happen. And so instead of taking the vaccine, just say, ‘How about no,’ just say no. So don’t introduce vaccine passports. They are coercive and illegal. So that’s going to be my response.
And I urge you to do that. And I will tell you in a few minutes why it’s more than just a civil liberties matter. It is existential for the nation and possibly the world to take that attitude.
JD: Yes. Before we go down that dark, dark, dark alley, let’s just emphasise what we’re saying here, because I, like you, I spend a lot of time on social media encountering people who … want to marginalise and ridicule people who are worried about the vaccine.
They call us anti-vaxxers, and they invariably invoke polio. They say, well, well, vaccines stopped polio. Are you the kind of person who’d want polio to come back? And also, there seems to be a lot of what I imagine is misinformation about.
A lot of people seem to be under the illusion that this is not an experimental … they seem to imagine that this is just like the yellow fever jab or all those other things, that in the past we’ve had to …
MY: No, of course it isn’t.
JD: … take when going abroad.
MY: No. Okay, well, let me scotch that. Last time I spoke to you James, there was a lot of discussion, I think, about PCR testing, really, and maybe about lockdown.
I would say every one of the major things your government and SAGE advisers have told you is a lie, pretty much everything. Let me just whip through it quickly. PCR testing, Polymerase Chain Reaction – they’ve still not resolved the fact that it has a false positive rate. They simply don’t acknowledge that it does.
And that means they’re able to generate any numbers they like. It’s just a complete waste of time running this billion-pound enterprise because they will not run known virus-free samples through the whole chain of custody to show you how many times does that come up positive.
Is it a tiny number? Is it a bigger number? It could be in any of those. Because they don’t know, you can’t net off the growth. So every single number is unreliable, untrustworthy, scientifically meaningless. And because they’re clever on SAGE, they know that what I’ve just said is true and they’re deceiving you. So we can just forget that.
But I would just say quickly, you can’t trust this government and its advisers. That’s PCR testing. Masks. Any one of you can do a quick Google search ‘effect of masks on respiratory viral transmission’. There are loads of studies out there. They definitely do not reduce respiratory viral transmission and the Government knows that.
So why are they making children wear them in school? Why do they make you wear them when you wander around shops? You can’t trust this government or its advisers.
The reason you don’t need masks is that … what they tell you as well, that one in three people are carrying the virus and can be spreading it without knowing it, that’s a lie. It’s absolutely clear that people without symptoms don’t have enough virus in their body, nor respiratory manoeuvres to get it out of their body.
In order to infect someone, you have to be full of virus and symptomatic. Those two things occur together, and it’s called ‘ill’. If you’ve got this virus and you’ve got enough of it to be able to cough it on other people, you’re going to feel ill. You’re probably staying at home. You might be in bed and if you’re older, you’re probably in hospital.
So, if you don’t have symptoms, it means you don’t have enough virus to spread it on people, which means you don’t need masks anyway, if you’re feeling well.
You can’t trust this government or its advisers. And then maybe the fourth one, lockdowns. Of course, we keep being told lockdowns reduce cases – they don’t. They’ve been studied in least two dozen peer-reviewed journal articles by some of the best scientists in the world.
As you’ll probably know, the states in the United States that locked down, didn’t lock down or locked down harder, there’s no connection whatsoever between lockdown and its stringencies – that’s how much you were meant to stay at home and away from other people – and the outcome in terms of deaths.
I can now explain that to you. And it’s taken me embarrassingly about ten months before I realised it. And it’s back to what I just said – you need to be symptomatic before you can infect others.
Think about as you move around your day waving to people in the street, passing someone at work, slipping past someone in the car park, meeting in the supermarket. All those people are well.
If you notice someone that actually looks quite under the weather, you tend to just spontaneously skirt around, almost the two-metre rule without anyone telling you.
The bottom line is out in the community, you don’t bump into people who are full of virus and symptomatic, because they’re ill and you would avoid them and, anyway, they are at home. Consequently, when you shut down civil society, you do bugger all to transmission.
On the other hand, there is transmission going on. Where might that be? I just said, you have to be full of virus and symptomatic. That might be hospital, mightn’t it? You know, recently in a survey, more than 70 per cent of cases seem to have arisen in hospital, I bet you the balance are in care homes.
Lockdown could never work because I don’t believe there was very much transmission in the community. They’ve smashed civil society and the economy and they know it. You can’t trust this government or its advisers. Are you getting the idea now, audience?
Then finally, all of these things are happening all the way around the world, all at the same time. It’s a stunning set of mistakes. It has to be a coincidence theorist to believe that that was an accident.
So it’s not a conspiracy theory I’m outlining to you, it is clearly a concerted, deliberate attack using four or five plausible things and then they’ve used the power of the mass media to ram it down your neck and they are preventing any coherent alternative voices that think this is wrong and unfair, people like me, they’ll just smear me. And I think if I’m successful enough, they will actually remove me. Anyway, that’s my quick summary.
Tomorrow Dr Yeadon explains why he thinks so few people have spoken out against the Government’s Covid policy.