Monday, April 15, 2024
HomeCOVID-19Mike Yeadon on the Covid lies, Part 4: It was mad to...

Mike Yeadon on the Covid lies, Part 4: It was mad to make the vaccines


This is the fourth and final instalment 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, Part 2 here and Part 3 here

JAMES DELINGPOLE:  Tell us about the so-called vaccine. 

MIKE YEADON: Okay. Yes. So [to] the last two lies: that the only way out of this [lockdown] is universal vaccination. Remember Bill Gates saying, ‘We won’t get back to normal until pretty [much] the whole [population is vaccinated]’ [to] which, [my response was] just you don’t vaccinate people who are not at risk, Bill . . . you don’t need to, we’ve never done that. Probably some prophylactic treatments in the Army and so on [might be needed]. But most of the time, if people aren’t at risk of something, you don’t need to treat them for it. And we knew that the risks only became really quite serious when [people are] older than me. I’m 62 next week and I’m not worried about it. So, that was a mad thing. So again, there’s real evidence of lying. At the very least, it’s lying in order to get lots of people, you know, billions of doses, it may be hundreds of millions. 

But then, of course, the other, the final lie is: these vaccines are safe and effective. And I’m afraid they’re neither. And I have to say, I don’t know why I – I do know why – I clung to the last lie the longest, really, and I know why it is, it’s because I worked in that industry. I didn’t work in vaccines. But I think when I finally allowed myself to look at the data and . . . I think it was Professor Norman Fenton’s analysis that shows essentially that the claims . . . arise from data fraud, really. I think they arise from data fraud. So, I don’t think the vaccines do anything good at all and they are definitely dangerous. And I did warn the world, I was the first to do it with Wolfgang Wodarg in December 2020, before any of them were actually launched. We missed several important toxicities, by the way, but we accurately called several of them. And so if people like us could see that these things were inherently dangerous just by . . . what I call ‘toxic by design’, you know, there’s no question that that’s what would happen. 

And furthermore, all four leading companies made the same errors. 

JD:  Yes. How does that work?

MY: Well, it’s collusion and malfeasance. I’ll explain it very briefly, because I . . . haven’t talked about that before. [There’s] another rule of thumb. So while I’m not sure that respiratory viral pandemics sufficient to perturb the global economy are possible . . . you can have them, but if it’s a common cold pandemic, you know, so what? Get your cold. And people do die, you’re all going to die; everyone listening in case you think I’m ruthless, you’re going to die too and so am I . . .  

You know, there’s no escaping this, the end will come. And in the case of SARS-CoV-2, the median age of death looked [to be] about the same as the median age of death in the country in question. So in Britain, it was, like, 79 for men and 83 for women, something like that. Now, it hasn’t really moved very much. It’s moved now. It’s gone down, now. I’m sure you know why that is? It’s because a small but meaningful number of people are being killed by the alleged vaccines. So, yes, so I’ve talked about how I don’t think important respiratory viral pandemics are possible – [only] minor ones. It’s inappropriate to try and treat a novel, moderately serious, respiratory virus using a new vaccine. Why? Because it will take you longer to acquire decent, safe . . . the sort of longitudinal safety data that [allows you to give the vaccine] to lots of people, than the pandemic lasts. And that’s unavoidable, it’s unavoidable. Even using the new technology you can’t.

JD: Tell me about the collusion, evidence of collusion?

MY: Yes, so, collusion, absolutely. So we shouldn’t have been doing this in the first place, is my point. You can’t get the longitudinal safety data in any kind of timescale that would fit with a pandemic of a few months or a couple of years. And again, we knew this before we started. Then why have they all used gene-based technology? There aren’t any public health products that use this technology. So I would say, having been just a few years on the inside, if we were having a conflab, I would say, ‘Folks, we’ve all been around the block a few times and we know that when you do something novel, the chances that it will work are low and the chances that it will require rework, even if it does succeed, are very high. You know, so you’re not going to be able to go from here to the goal quickly.’ And they’d all go, ‘Yeah, that’s absolutely right.’ 

Seriously, it’s no question whatever. That’s our common experience as research scientists. So if you pick as a, like, a chemical starting material, that’s something similar to the one that’s given rise to druglike molecules to affect heart rate or blood pressure, you know, you probably can modify that. And as long as it does what you want it to do, all the rest of the characteristics, like being stable enough to be made into a tablet, being absorbed well enough so you can actually give it as a dose, lasting long enough and so on, those features are probably built in. What I wouldn’t do is suddenly take some completely novel chemical and say, ‘Hey, let’s make a drug out of that.’ Because my peers would have said, ‘Well, what other 19 interesting properties might it have. We won’t bother with that.’ 

So it was a mad thing to do to make vaccines at all [in that time frame]. Second, [it was] mad to use completely novel technology. And then, third, here’s the problem: the deciding – so, I’m not a vaccinologist, but I’ve worked in drug discovery long enough – [to use] what are, essentially, gene-based drugs, aren’t they? You put them in the body and the genetic code is then converted to manufacture whatever is encoded. That’s what they are. So what you would do is . . . they’ve picked a piece of the virus, the spike protein, it’s a very big claimed virus, this thing, like 30,000 molecular weight, and they’ve picked a bit that is, I think, 12 per cent of it, a minority of it.

So, if you’re looking for a piece to put to make some genetic code and get your body to make it, I would say rule one is, make sure that the bit that you’re asking the human body to manufacture is not inherently toxic. And the most inherently toxic part of SARS-CoV-2 is the spike. On its own, it’s capable of causing cells to fuse, initiating blood coagulation, and interfering with certain neuronal properties. And in addition, it marks the cell for execution by your own immune system, because it’s foreign and your body is tuned to not allow that. It’s not allowed. That’s why you reject a tissue graft like a kidney transplant, unless you’re a good family match or you take enormous doses of immunosuppressants. If you don’t do that and you take a kidney from a complete stranger, chances are you’ll just reject it. And even more spooky, sometimes, the graft will reject you, you know, most tissues actually have some components of an immune system of their own, you get graft versus host disease. 

So, definitely (you) don’t want to pick a part of the virus that is intrinsically harmful, because the method of operation is to harness your body’s ability to make lots of copies of the thing that’s in the genetic code. And so . . . if someone’s body efficiently engages and goes off and makes 100,000 or several million copies of this toxic spike protein – in the circulation, because some of it, after you’ve injected it in your shoulder, does get into the circulation, it’s been measured, it does – so you’re now going to have an unknown amount of biologically really dangerous spike floating around. They could have picked any other part of the alleged virus and it would have done just as good a job. So they picked the most dangerous part of the virus, and they all did that. 

The next one is: you want to pick something that’s genetically most stable in the virus, because we know that they make mistakes, typographical errors, what we call variants. So you pick . . . if you could, left with a free hand, you’d pick the thing that was genetically most stable, that’s like a nucleoprotein or the capsid protein. No, they chose the spike protein, which is by far and away the bit that’s changed most quickly after these mutations. That’s why we’ve got Delta and whatever they’re called – media control – Omicron, that’s it, sorry, couldn’t really be ‘media control’ could it, that would just be far too much of a coincidence, wouldn’t it. So you wouldn’t do that. So you wouldn’t pick something that was genetically unstable.

And then finally, yeah, you’d want to pick a part of the virus that was most unlike the human. Because, you know, we’ve got a bit of everything, life bears a lot in common. And some bits of the virus are a bit similar to us, not very, but a bit, and some bits are just, like, completely alien. Well, wouldn’t you want to pick the latter? You want to pick something that’s so different from you that when your immune system takes up cudgels and learns how to fight it, it’s not going to accidentally punch you in the face. But, and what they did is, they picked the bit that was most like human or the least unlike – that’s the spike again. 

So they picked, inherently, the wrong target, because it’s biologically active and could hurt you. Secondly, it’s the least stable, so, as the virus mutates, it could run away from the effects, even of a successful vaccine, which they never ended up with. And then the third one is they’ve forced your body to make an immune response against something that’s so close to several of your other proteins, guess what happens? You get some cases of autoimmunity. Autoimmunity is when you attack self. And this material is likely to prompt that. 

And I would say that to anyone from Pfizer, Moderna, Johnson & Johnson, AstraZeneca. I’m not wrong in every one of those. So they shouldn’t have picked [the] spike . . .

I would love it if some of the people in the drug companies would just . . . they don’t have to address my comments . . . but why haven’t they written a paper explaining the rationale behind the invention? I assure you, you normally do. You normally would see [it. You see] people like to take the credit. And it would be on the design, research and development of ADZ, whatever it was – nobody’s written any of them. It’s astonishing, isn’t it? They always do. They’ve not appeared. 

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.
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.

Kathy Gyngell
Kathy Gyngell
Kathy is Editor of The Conservative Woman. She is @kathygyngelltcw on GETTR and is back 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.