Saturday, June 25, 2022
HomeCOVID-19Mike Yeadon on the Covid lies, Part 3: The WHO pandemic treaty...

Mike Yeadon on the Covid lies, Part 3: The WHO pandemic treaty must not happen

-

This is the third of a series of edited extracts from James Delingpole’s most recent interview with Dr Mike Yeadon, the former Pfizer chief scientist and vice-president of Pfizer’s allergy and respiratory research unit. You can read Part 1 here and Part 2 here. 

MIKE YEADON: Every time the virus replicates, it makes typographical errors. These particular types of agents have inbuilt error detection, error correction software. And so it makes typos, mutations, most of them are corrected. Of the ones that are not corrected, most are lethal, so they don’t get to replicate . . . And let’s face it, if it became an option of more transmissible or more lethal, think about this for a moment, which one is likely to propel the genes of that, of the progeny further? And the answer is: it’s the one that’s more infectious, because it will then get to several more hosts, use you . . . to grow in and then go on again. Whereas if in fact it became more lethal, it would truncate that transmission chain more quickly and they’ll die out. 

So if you’ve got a choice of becoming more infectious or more lethal and then you just run the cycle of life, it always favours the more transmissible, less lethal. And that is, in fact, what we observe. So although on every cycle, it’s not necessarily going to go that way . . . over time, they always do. In fact, if it ever went the other way, James, there would be no human beings. If it ever went the other way. If they ever went more transmissible and more lethal and then kept doing that, humans would be gone and all other animals that can suffer from these viruses. And as far as I can tell, there’s no examples of that. 

So, you know, you can see the sort of genetic logic and then the converse, if what they’re saying might happen, it was true – it just doesn’t occur. In fact, it’s worth me saying this, I’m going to write . . . about, but I just want to put it in people’s minds. I’m not actually sure that global respiratory virus pandemics are possible. If I’m right, it’s so important because the WHO has proposed an amended treaty [which] if it all gets signed off, the WHO, exclusively, and without peer review, gets to decide if a pandemic is occurring. And I assure you, you can make it look like a pandemic just by misuse of PCR tests. 

So, for example, I personally don’t think there’s a bird flu pandemic going through the chicken and turkey and duck flocks. I don’t think so. But they’re using them to damage the supply chain of food. Really, really frightening. So, yes, I’m not sure that a respiratory viral pandemic of any consequence is possible, because if you have a very serious infection, generally the ones that end up killing you generally have shorter incubation times – not always, but it’s a general rule of thumb. So, if you think of toxicology, if you take a little dose of something and it doesn’t make you ill and then you take three times the dose and it makes you ill in a few hours, if you take ten times the dose, it’ll probably make you ill in a few minutes, you know, whatever that is. Not always the case, but usually the severity and the latency or the lag period, they tend to be inversely related. 

So I think, with something like Ebola, I think it’s true that most people become ill the same day they become infected, something like within 24 hours or so. And that means, imagine if you had a respiratory infection like that, so it seems to me that about the time you become infected is about the time you become very ill and stay at home and stop transmitting to the wider public. So, I have to work this out and I have to check it out with some of our British epidemiologists and some others. I’m just not sure what Gates et al are constantly worrying about, I don’t think it’s actually possible. I think really good pandemic respiratory viruses are the ones that are highly transmissible and not very lethal. I think they’re the only ones – and then you don’t need to worry about it, like we didn’t need to worry about this one. One that was actually ten times worse than it actually is still would not warrant the measures imposed, because they don’t work. We would have just had to have taken it on the chin and used best early treatments. But if I’m right, then it makes it even worse, because why are they plotting to put together this pandemic treaty? And the answer is: sorry, folks, they want to take over the world. 

And before you scoff, let me point out something really logical. Let’s say there’s a new respiratory virus, nothing to do with SARS or whatever, and it looks really nasty, and it seems to be transmitting from person to person in the Central African Republic. And then it turns up in, you know, I don’t know, northwest Canada or something like that. And then it breaks out in Mumbai. So, and then you have people on the telly, they’re showing all the PCR tests. Now, at this point, let’s say you’ve got two choices – apart from praying – one is, you let Ghebreyesus at the WHO and that bunch of people funded by, you know, Gates and others. Would you rather, a) they get to decide whether to call whether there’s a pandemic and b) what we all do about it? What, from their hollowed-out mountain while they stroke a white cat? What the f— do they know about how best to manage this virus? It’s a new one, isn’t it? It’s a new one. [Gates] hasn’t got special powers of divination. So they don’t know. My main point here is: nobody would know what the best response would be. Whereas – and I’ve been in this situation all my professional life – it’s called drug discovery. No one has a monopoly on working out where’s the next target. And history has shown, and it will be true in the case of pandemics, success is mostly dependent on the number of innovation units – so, the number of people independently trying to work out what’s the best thing to do and communicating with other nodes. That’s the fastest way. Humans have done this for ever. This is how we find out truly what’s the best thing to do. You need, I think, a diversity of . . . you need independence of response. You don’t want – it’s actually illogical in a novel situation – to give it to one group who we know doesn’t know what to do. Right? Because they’re not going to run 50 experiments. Whereas if you say, ‘Look, we’re under challenge, folks, we need to keep having like nightly telecoms or weekly Zoom meetings or whatever,’ that’s what they should do. ‘And let’s hear what the proposed responses are.’ And some are going to do lockdown, some are going to be – whatever they’re called – Big Whites like they’re doing in Shanghai, it’s very frightening, isn’t it, let’s have half the government officials wearing chemical and biological warfare suits, and then we’ll have Sweden doing whatever the Swedes do.

So it’s, not only is it illogical for the WHO to take charge of the response, it is dangerous, because it’s a novel situation, no one knows what’s the best thing to do. And I’m telling you that humans are good at this, if you allow independent innovation units – that is each country or group of countries – to decide to do what they think best. And then frequent contact, you’d work out within a few weeks or a couple of months and then you’d have the right thing to do. You don’t need the WHO to coordinate that. And so they are going to do that. Why do you think they’re going to do that? Well, they’re bad actors again. It’s a control mechanism. The one thing, if we all sign up to that, I assure you, they will create the impression of a global pandemic. They will declare it and then they’ll tell you what to do. And that will include shutting your economy and probably staying in your home until a paramilitary force comes around and injects you. I’m absolutely serious. I think this is what will happen. 

In the last set of extracts tomorrow Dr Yeadon discusses the final Covid lie – that the mRNA vaccines are safe and effective. You can listen to the whole conversation on James Delingpole’s podcast here.

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.

Kathy Gyngell
Kathy Gyngellhttps://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/the-editors/
Kathy is Editor of The Conservative Woman. She is @KathyConWom on Twitter.

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.