Sunday, April 14, 2024
HomeCOVID-19Mike Yeadon: The proven Covid lies, Part 2

Mike Yeadon: The proven Covid lies, Part 2


A year on from his marathon interview with Dr Mike Yeadon, James Delingpole caught up with him again, to find which of the Covid lies that Dr Yeadon warned about have proved to be just that and whether his own views have hardened. We published the first edited extracts of their conversation yesterday and continue today on the notion of asymptomatic transmission that studies continue to blow apart. But is it just nonsense, Delingpole asked:  

MIKE YEADON: Really [asymptomatic transmission] unlikely. I’ll never say never. Basically, let’s accept for the moment that there is something released from your airways if you’re heavily infected, it’s released in the secretions and you’re breathing it out, coughing it out, so as not to anger the no-virus people, there’s a transmissible agent. 

And the thing is, in order to shed that stuff – wrong word – in order to spray it out, you need symptoms, you know, coughing. That definitely generates aerosols that will contain micro samples of whatever is in your airway surface, like upper airway, you get a really bad cough, central airways and certainly from nose, larynx, mouth. 

But if, like me, right now, [you have] no symptoms whatsoever, that means even if I had viruses in me, I’m not shedding them. And by the way, I don’t have any, because if I did, it would be attacking me and I’d be fighting back and that’s what would make me ill. That’s what causes the common cold. So some infective agent has landed. It’s replicating and doing its best to replicate, to preserve their genetic lineage. And you’re doing your best to get rid of this damn interloper using powerful immunological weapons, some of which can raise your temperature and hurt you, because you end up with a sore throat and swollen lymph nodes in your neck and under your arm. 

But, so, if you’ve got no symptoms, [it means] a number of things. One is you’re not an active sprayer. The more important thing is, if you’ve got no symptoms, you don’t have much by way of viral load in you. So it’s a low level and it ain’t being squirted out. So that’s the logic. And it’s always been true. And empirically, it’s actually been studied and then meta-analyses, where you look at combined studies that are rather similar. And there’s no question that we’re looking at somewhere between 30 to 50-fold less likely to infect someone if you have a so-called positive test and no symptoms, compared with a positive test and you have got symptoms. So, and then, the final proof of the pudding is lockdowns don’t do anything. And the reason they don’t do anything is not much transmission was occurring between the people without symptoms, we call them ‘well’, you know, even if some of them had the virus, there wasn’t much transmission going on, because, for reasons I’ve explained, low (viral) loads and they weren’t spraying the stuff. 

And so when you then stop those people from interacting, nothing happens. So I remember that awful . . . was it Chris Snowdon, who’s like a rather arrogant journalist – I haven’t thought about him from a long time . . . working for a think tank, when, supposedly, the people who work for think tanks are supposed to think. Sort of blue sky thinking and looking at the facts . . . And he helped me. He helped me. Because, he and Toby Young were doing a head-to-head about all the measures. And I remember Snowdon saying arrogantly, puffing away on his fag, he was saying that ‘All the people on the other side must be denying germ theory or whatever, transmission for person to person, because since that’s true, if you reduce the number of contacts, that will reduce transmission.’ 

And in a heartbeat I realised that the silly man hadn’t been thinking [for] it’s not the number of contacts you have per day that matters, Chris, it’s the number of potentially infectious contacts, that’s what matters. It doesn’t make any difference, honestly – you can go and hug someone who’s a positive test result but no symptoms, you won’t get it or give it. So you were wrong, Chris! I thought, ‘I know he’s wrong’ and it’s like, ‘Ah, you’ve just given me the answer. You’ve got the wrong mental model of transmission.’ 

So, but here’s the thing, here’s the magic thing: the people with symptoms who are ill, they don’t need to be told to stay at home and to lock down, because if you’ve ever had flu – and I had flu last year – you don’t need to be told not to go out. It’s hard enough to get out of bed, brush your teeth, go to the loo and have a cup of tea, it’s really tough. 

So, hardly anybody who’s got a raging Covid-19 disease, or influenza for that matter, hardly any of them will be out and about. Now, there will be occasions, there’ll be perhaps some people who are roughty-toughty and manage to somehow have a half decent amount of virus in their airway and not show much by way of symptoms. But if you . . . but the bulk of the work has been done already, naturally, by people who are sick, who are also the best source of infection, instinctively keep away from each other, because they’re ill. 

JAMES DELINGPOLE: Almost as though nature has designed us not to spread it too much. 

MIKE YEADON: Perfect. Perfect. And in fact, I’ve got one more thing that shows you how wonderful evolution is. When you’re wandering around outside, and you’re coming up, you’re walking towards somebody, if you’re male, you – certainly when I was younger – I would assess the person, ‘Are they a threat to me?’ You know, a physical threat, I used to live in Portsmouth, I’m in my twenties, does this person look like they might wreak some violence on me? Nowadays I’m thinking, you know – and you do this automatically – you look without noticing, you’re scanning them for whether they’re potentially a health threat to you. So what’s their . . . what is their gait like? What about their gaze, are their eyes bright and open? If they’re coughing and hunching, you know, really, really coughing, like TB or something, what do you do? You can’t help it, you kind of walk around them, off the pavement and go . . . 

People don’t let other people cough in their faces . . . If you think back, like, 30,000 years ago, where I’m sure we probably had these occasional respiratory infections, if you caught that in the wintertime, say, and say you were the prime breadwinner or deerstalker, whatever it is, you and your family might die if you were ill for two weeks in the middle of winter, if you weren’t in a farming community. So it’s bloody important that you have really good radar and you’re assessing, ‘Is this person an acute respiratory health threat to me?’ And if you are, without even . . . you probably couldn’t force yourself to go up and give them a hug, strangers, you know, you’d go round. 

So that’s why it was all nonsense. And then, as I’ve said, it has been empirically studied, dozens and dozens of times. And there’s lots of peer-reviewed journal articles. So I’m afraid [though] a lot of the people on my side of the fence, who are saying, ‘You shouldn’t be locking people down and definitely never insisting that they get vaccinated,’ I can’t persuade even  to use the L-word – you know, they are lying, they’re not mistaken. 

And it’s not just, ‘We’re working these things through’. Go and have a look, folks, at the, you know, ‘Masks work, lockdowns work, there are no treatments’. All three of those are lies and they knew they were lies. Most of these, they knew they were lies before they were imposed. ‘We’re not sure if you can become reinfected.’ That’s the point about immunology 101 [the fundamentals of immunology], it says you can’t. Yes, there’s the odd one-off, but I’m not even sure that they really are reinfected, or whether they might have a false positive twice.

(Delingpole asks about the debate whether you can have Covid twice)

MIKE YEADON: One: I don’t believe that the symptoms associated with infection by this real or alleged virus, SARS-CoV-2, are so outstandingly different from the symptoms you get when infected by any other alleged virus, [or] that the symptoms alone is going to tell you very much. And, by the way, I’m not sure what the upper limits of estimates are, whatever these infective agents are, but the last time I looked there were at least 60 different entities that can infect the human respiratory tract. Isn’t that amazing? So you could have been infected by any one of a number of other infectious agents. And since the symptoms can overlap, and then all you need in order to spring the trap is for a PCR test to be positive, and then you’ll think you’ve had it twice and you’ll go, ‘Well, look, the test says I have, the symptoms are . . . look, I’ve lost my sense of smell.’ It’s like, ‘Have you not noticed when you’ve had a cold you often can’t taste things?’ It’s, you know, not everybody. But not everybody says that they lose their sense of smell either. 

So it’s just bizarre. Even doctors seem unable to, like, separate these categories. So the PCR tests, you can definitely get a positive result even if you’ve no virus in you, or a different virus. Right? Or it could even be the real virus. Let’s say you’ve got one copy, because that’s what Kary Mullis said. He said it’s such a technique, it’s a technique for making a lot of something out of something. So, and the lowest limit of detection is one unit of the thing you’re looking for. Now, no one thinks you’d be made ill if you had, like, one molecule of RNA? Come on. 

Just to give people an idea, human cells are enormous compared with viruses. And if you had a million cells, human cells, like from your blood, if you get, like, a biro like this, this sort of biro and just make a careful dot on a white piece of paper, that would be about a million cells. If you had them in a little test tube, spun them down in a centrifuge, scraped them out and put them next to the dot, that’s about a million, just to give you an idea of how many there are. Now, these alleged viruses are tiny compared with these cells. So, what, one tiny part of that is enough to sicken the entire body? No, it probably isn’t.

It’s the same with bacteria in water. So, we don’t want any coliform, which is like faecal bacteria, in your drinking water. But if there were one or two per litre or something, it wouldn’t make you ill, it’s not enough. You’ve got wonderful protection, there’s acid in your stomach and so on. But if you had ten per litre or a hundred per litre or it’s turbid, you know, it’s cloudy – don’t drink that. You know, and it’s dose-related, it is dose-related. The inoculant, the size of an infective sort of blog required to really light up an infection in you, it will be dose-related and it’ll vary perhaps with your own robustness, physiological robustness and luck and things like that. And so, back to my point, you could have several copies of this viral material, it could be dead, dead nucleotides as Tony Fauci would say, you know. So you could have a genuine positive that is at a molecular biological level, but you haven’t got the disease. You wouldn’t expect to have any symptoms. 

So, and then, you could have all the symptoms and not have this virus. And that’s because there are scores of other viruses that can produce . . . I’m not saying they all produce the same symptoms, that would be silly, but it is interesting, even when you have a cold, sometimes you’ll say, ‘Oh, it was a really bad cold,’ you know, that’s true. Sometimes it’s, like, 24 hours and you think, ‘Oh, where did that go?’ And other times, certainly when I was a smoker, I would get a hacking cough and it would persist for, like, weeks. But it wasn’t flu, you know, it was mostly the upper respiratory tract and nose and so on. So if the asymptomatic transmission line is the sort of central psychological deceit, I would say the PCR test and belief in it is the central operational deceit. 

Even now people point to it and say, ‘But I’ve got to test, Mike, I must have it.’ It’s actually good science, but it’s being badly used. And also, it’s just so far out of the norm of the way we do biomedical measurements – I can’t remember what the discipline would be – anyway, medical biochemistry, then it’s not being done properly.  

I’ve made the deal eminently clear: my reasoning, my arguments about what’s going on actually don’t require viruses at all. You know, they don’t. It’s mostly psychological. It’s mostly psychological. People following orders and bad testing and then being jabbed by dangerous materials. You don’t actually have to have a virus at all. 


We will continue with Dr Yeadon’s discussion of the proven Covid lies tomorrow. 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.