DR MIKE YEADON has described how creating lethal pathogens that can kill at different points in time is “easy” and says this is being used for “mass global extermination”. He fears vaccine passports is the next step in the plan and is now looking to leave the UK.
Dr Yeadon, a former vice-president and chief scientific officer of the Allergy and Respiratory department at Pfizer, who has also provided a simple explanation of why lockdowns could never have worked, went on to explain that there is “zero” chance of incessantly reported new variants escaping immunity.
The 60-year-old, convinced the UK reached herd immunity last May, is now looking to move to Florida, where he hopes to work alongside Governor Ron DeSantis. He has expressed his severe concern over vaccine passports, saying that not only do healthy people under 60 not need a Covid 19 vaccine, but that the introduction of certification could lead to a society whereby, without such a pass, you may not even be permitted to leave your house.
In a passionate exclusive interview with The Daily Expose, he also criticised former Conservative MP Edwina Currie for her “uninformed” scattergun comments on Good Morning Britain in which she said she would not want anyone unvaccinated anywhere near her.
Dr Yeadon said: “I know enough about biotechnology to know that you can easily create, shall we say, pathogens, which don’t look like they’re related to what you’ve done. And what’s even more horrifying is you can separate them in time, so an injection which will later make you ill or kill you can be separated by design in time from that event. So you might die a year later of liver cancer or something and you wouldn’t connect that. And if you can imagine making a smorgasbord of different pathogens so not everybody is going to die of the same thing, you literally could do away with big slices of the population if you want. And we could all be running around like headless chickens. This is an attempt on global depopulation.
“I think vaccine passports are a gateway to numerous things and it is my belief that it will be a gateway to mass killing, in the billions. And the reason I say that is many of the key players, including Bill Gates and his father and Boris Johnson and his father, have all been maniacal – and possibly correct – about earth being overpopulated. Even if we said to people can you stop having children, the population would only start to fall in about 100 years. If you got birth rates down below replacement, it would still take a century given each new birth will probably live out 100 years.
“I accept the argument that, if we are on the verge of destroying the planet, the ecosystem and its non-renewables and biodiversity, if these things are true then, I’m not saying I endorse it, I can see the argument of ‘do you know what, the only possible way to save the earth is to get rid of 90 per cent of the people and then it will be a nice place to live’.
“I think a group of people over decades have said to each other, ‘this is an awful task that has fallen to us, which is to rescue the human species and its planet and there is no other way of doing it except for mass extermination. And it’s not something that anybody would want to do but we have to do it and it’s got to happen in this generation and these are the technological advances required’.
“There are some clever people who have taken it upon themselves to basically do God’s work and to do a violent readjustment of the population of the world to put it into a position where, once it sorts itself out from this utter bloody disaster, will be a place where 500million people maybe will be living on the planet and they can have comfortable sustainable lives with plenty of space, plenty of room for the animals. I will not support what they’re doing but that would provide a justification for those who are doing it.”
Dr Yeadon believes the proof lies in the correlation between deaths and the rollout of vaccines which have been rushed through via an Emergency Use Authorisation. He said: “If you look at every regional health authority, they tick up on the same day, they peak at the same day and drop back in the same way and that’s because they’re sycned to vaccination. If it was the spreading of an epidemic, it could not possibly occur in Auchtermuchty on the same day as Aldershot. It can’t, it has to move.
“But the thing that moved was the vaccination squads. They started on December 8 everywhere in the NHS and then in the care homes, so that was the strong clue for me that what was correlating with the time and cause of deaths was not a geographical history and neither were the differences in timing, it was just the date of vaccination.
“Can it be stopped? I am not optimistic about the UK because as time has gone on there are fewer of me and most people have just put their heads down. I am fortunate in a number of ways, I have the breadth of a full career behind me and I love science and biology. There is nothing I can be fired from and I’m not doing it for money, so I can only be stopped if they arrest me or kill me.
“But I don’t fear for my life. It’s over anyway. This is not going to return to normal. It would be pointless. There is no way, with the amount of damage that has been done deliberately, would it then just be left. It would just be dumb. It would make no sense at all to have marched people up to the top of the hill and then say, ‘you can go back now’. And remember the drum beats for vaccine passports are very strong. And once that’s in then if they can transition an absolute majority that they already have who will be so delighted with their privileges, beeping their phones when they go in and out of shops, they are not going to pay any attention to someone like me who says, ‘excuse me what about the unvaccinated’?
“They will say, ‘well don’t you know, you’re the unclean people, you’re the ones brewing the variants, you’re going to kill us. Can you just go away or I might feel that I have to kill you’. I expect vaccine passport will come in and those who have already been vaccinated will whoop for joy, a large number of people yet to be vaccinated will rush to get vaccinated because they will see their horizons will be shrunk and they simply won’t realise they are being herded like cattle into a pen.
“I would fear next winter being an unvaccinated person in this country, there will be additional orchestrated events. They will need that in order to drive people to top-up vaccines. I’ve decided I’m not going to stop the fight, I’m going to leave the country. I’ll go wherever I have to because it’s not going to be safe for unvaccinated people indefinitely.”
Top-up vaccines is another thing that frightens Dr Yeadon, who highlighted the fact that these too will forego any further safety checks. He added that the driver for these will come in the form of new variants, which he says are barely any different from the original sequence.
“As soon as they started talking about it [new variants] I went to look at the source material and found that the variants most different from the Wuhan sequence are still 99.7 per cent identical,” said Dr Yeadon. “And I can assure you that there is zero – not just implausible, but zero – chance something that would escape the immunity of someone who was immune from natural infection or vaccinated. It’s absolutely impossible, no matter what they tell you.
“We know for example that Sars 2003 is 20 per cent different – not 0.3, 180 times different – and the immune system has absolutely no trouble in recognising the two as brothers. I have empirical evidence, theoretical evidence and yet, countering that, we are being told by Sage, politicians, people around the world that you need these variant vaccines. We’ve closed our borders, we’re smashing our economy and depriving people of their liberty over the theoretical concern about variants, which is a lie. And now we are making variant vaccines. I became terrified when I knew they were actually making them and not just talking about it – and when all the large medicine regulators of the world put out a joint statement saying that, because vaccine variants are so similar to the parents from which they’re derived, we will not require the manufacturers to conduct any clinical safety studies.
“I have spoken to eight professors in the UK whose discipline includes immunology and they all agree with my analysis in terms of the technical side of it. Three months ago my fear levels went into the red and I begged them, ‘people like you have go to start writing letters to editors and getting pieces into the papers that this b******t about variants is fake because people are going to believe it’. Carl Heneghan [director of evidence based medicine at Oxford University] said that the world is in such a sort of panic at the moment, anything he could say would not have any breakthrough power at all.
“We’ve been trained to think that if anyone raises any question at all about vaccines, you automatically think ‘anti-vaxxer’. I’ve spent my entire professional career in the industry that produces these things. I would say I’m extremely pro innovative medicines. I don’t have an anti bloody anything in my body except I’m anti unsafe medicines. Why have we got vaccines that clearly are much more dangerous than other public health prophylactic vaccines, because they are if you just compare the number of people that have died within a month with the number of reported deaths after all other vaccines – it’s like 10 times worse.
“There have been 10 times more deaths from within a couple of months of any covid vaccination than in the entire year for all other vaccines combined. Most vaccines are very safe but there are rare idiosyncratic responses including fatal ones and I’m afraid that does happen. You might just drop dead tomorrow going out to your car. But as long as the numbers are very, very small it’s tolerable, because there is a benefit to it. But what we have here is that, even if the people being given the vaccines were at risk – and a lot of them are not – anyone 60 or younger who is in good physcial shape and does not have serious prior chronic conditions is not going to be killed by this virus, they’re just not. It’s unethical even to bloody offer it to them. There is no logic to the statement that we need to vaccinate everybody in order to stop this, it’s just nonsense.
“Now if Edwina Currie is vaccinated then she is fine. She might sincerely believe what she’s saying in which case she’s just uninformed and nuts. I’m sure lots of MPs have just been given the brief and they’re not very clever. I’ve personally spoken to about 60. Several get it reasonably well but some of them are just embarrassing.”
Reports have surfaced in the past week that trials mean venues might be able to open to capacity audiences on June 21, in keeping with the Government’s roadmap – but only if people agree to Covid passports. Dr Yeadon believes that introducing such a system will create a two-tier society and one which can be tweaked at a moment’s notice depending on the Government’s wishes.
Dr Yeadon said: “There is absolutely no chance whatsoever that Westminster will save the people. They are the tools of our destruction. They will vote vaccine passports through, even those who know these are horrible things. They’ll be told it’s temporary and get their pat on the shoulder. But of course they won’t be temporary.
“For example, you might even be told as from next month it will be illegal to leave your house without a valid vaccine passport. That’s how easy it would be. We are following “the science”, capital T, capital S. I’m not saying they will do that but they can exclude non-vaccinated people from civil society wholly and that is what is happening in Israel. Once this system comes in I cannot see a way in which it can be undone. They might say initially you can’t enter a sports ground or a large shopping complex, but then in a couple of weeks they might say, ‘as of Tuesday all large supermarkets will use vaccine passports on the door’, so that’s them out. And eventually they can say, ‘as from Wednesday week, all cashless transactions must be preceded by demonstration of a vaccine pass’ – so you can’t even fill your car with petrol. It could happen.
“The idea would be for me to be in America, educating and essentially immunising populations and politicians against what is happening, so that when they’re told next time that you need to lock down your businesses and your state, they won’t. That’s the goal. My preferred one would be to go and work for either Governor DeSantis or his scientific advisory team.”
Dr Yeadon has criticised his peers for failing to speak out against the problems he sees with following only one line of enquiry. He explains that the UK’s official figures of 4,395,703 positive cases and 127,000 simply cannot be believed due to the countless levels of contamination in testing and the unprecedented change in how deaths are certified.
He said: “I am disappointed that almost no one in the scientific community has said anything. What about recently retired professors, people who are not being paid by universities, why aren’t you saying something? Is it cowardice? Death certification has been radically changed in a way that has never been done anywhere for any disease. And we have never used PCR on an industrial scale and it is my opinion – confirmed by people who do this professionally – that it could never be done reliably. So whatever they tell you it’s a lie. You cannot run three quarters of a million PCR tests and not have cross contamination all over the place.
“Why were the doctors not complaining about the death certification? If you have a positive in this ropey test at any time 28 days up to your death then that is on your death certificate. It’s just not even logical. It’s like saying if you had biro on your finger at any point 28 days prior to your death, we’ll say you died of biro ink poisoning. It’s absurd. But they went along with it.”
And he has a message for those who no doubt once would have agreed that you cannot trust a politician but who know hang on their every word.
“If you spot an inconsistency, something you think, ‘that doesn’t sound right’, pursue it, because if you pursue it to a point where you think, ‘I’m not being told the truth’ – which you’re not – once you spot that, then the question would be, ‘if your Government has lied to you about one thing, don’t you think it’s quite likely it has lied to you about other things?’ I believe they are lying to you about everything.
“Let’s look at pubs; you can only take a drink outside and you can only pay for it outside. Hold on, have the supermarkets not been open continuously through this process? Sometimes it’s really busy and you might be in the shop an hour. Isn’t that an inconsistency? And why are we OK with that? I don’t believe that any outbreaks have ever been linked to a supermarket. And that is another odd one. That’s about the only place you meet. Surely all the outbreaks that aren’t linked to hospitals and care homes must be linked to common places of commerce and they are supermarkets and essential shops – there aren’t any others, none.”
And he uses supermarkets in his insight as to why lockdowns are pointless; in a nutshell, if you are full of virus, you feel very ill, so you would be at home, curled up on the sofa, in bed or in hospital. If not, you do not have enough virus in your body to be a threat of transmission. Indeed, a global study, cited by Jay Bhattacharya, Professor of Medicine at Stanford University and co-author of the Great Barrington Declaration, to a court in Manitoba, found that asymptomatic transmission is close to zero in an outside setting, given it is about 0.7 per cent inside.
Dr Yeadon says: “We will lock down again. They will want to do it as early as possible, so October.
But the reason why lockdowns could never have worked is combined with one of the other lies, asymptomatic transmission. The reason it’s a lie is that, in order to be a good source of infection, you need to have lots of virus in your body. If you’ve only got a little bit, the chances that you would infect another person is very low, even if you were close to them – maybe even if you kissed them – you just don’t have that much virus in and around your body.
“But if you had a thousand times more virus, maybe you could put a droplet on a person and they might inhale it or whatever. But if you have lots of virus you must have symptoms. You cannot have a situation where your body is growing huge amounts of virus in the airwaves and producing no symptoms and this is because the virus will attack you, it’s damaging your tissues, every cell it multiplies in and then escapes from is destroyed. It’s not just a theory, it’s inevitable you will have symptoms. And furthermore you need symptoms like coughing in order to propel infected droplets out of your body. They don’t come out when you’re just passively breathing. If you have lots of virus and it’s attacking you and making you ill and your immune system is fighting it back, which is also making you feel ill, those symptoms are called ‘I don’t feel well’.
“So if you’re a good source of infection, you’re symptomatic, you don’t feel well, you probably feel very ill, possibly bad enough to be in your bed and we’re giving you chicken soup and cups of tea every few hours. And if you’re a bit older you might be in hospital. But what you’re not going to be doing is dashing up and down the aisles in Sainsbury’s. Or sitting in the pub. You’re ill. So that’s the whole point. In the general community, almost no one who met the conditions to be pretty sure of infection was out there. It’s just simply not possible. You need to be full of virus, you need to get the symptoms to get the stuff out of your body but you need to be completely unwell despite those two things.
“And those things do not overlap, you can’t have ‘feeling fine out and about, looking normal but full of virus’. And we are trained to notice if someone has a cold or they look ill. We have known this stuff for tens of thousands of years. You can spot someone who is a respiratory threat to you. It’s very uncommon for people with good sources of infection to be walking about in the community and, even if they were there, you would usually avoid them. And as a result hardly any transmission occurred in the general population. And as a result shutting down the general population made f**k all difference to transmission. And that is why lockdowns don’t work and they never did. They never worked anywhere because lockdown isn’t really lockdown, it just smashes the economy.”
Source: The Daily Expose
Pfizer and Moderna are both running clinical trials for their experimental mRNA shots on 11,000 children as young as six months old. Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca are also using children as guinea pigs. The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) is a website run by the CDC and FDA where people can report vaccine reactions, injuries and deaths. A common bias is that anyone can report the problem to the VAERS site. However, serious cases should be investigated, such as a report about a two-year-old girl who was hospitalized for 17 days, and then received a second dose of the experimental Pfizer mRNA shot on February 25, and had a serious adverse reaction on March 1. The baby was dead on March 3. No further details were provided. -GEG
Just when you thought this whole COVID-19 “vaccine” agenda couldn’t go any lower, it has now set a new precedent.
Pfizer and Moderna are both running clinical trials for their experimental mRNA shots on 11,000 children as young as six months old. Both trials began in mid-March. Moderna calls its study KidCOVE. Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca are also using children as guinea pigs. These companies have no moral fiber and are driven solely by profits. That is a given. But the parents are something beyond surreal.
It was unknown to The COVID Blog prior to this article that something called the “Dr. United States of America pageant” existed. Women with doctorate degrees are judged based on evening gowns, how photogenic they are, etc. It’s like Miss America for doctors. The reigning Dr. United States of America is Michelle Lynam. She is an anesthesiologist in Midlothian, Virginia. Lynam posts videos on Facebook fawning over experimental shots. This woman is also subjecting her children to these experimental shots.
Lyman enrolled her two teenage daughters into the Pfizer clinical trials. She enrolled her six-year-old daughter into the Moderna clinical trial. Clinical Research Partners in Richmond, Virginia is facilitating the Moderna child guinea pig trials in the state.
The public is unlikely to ever know about any negative results from these unethical trials. But the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) is providing glimpses of what happens to babies injected with experimental mRNA.
Death of a two-year-old
A common confirmation bias is that “anybody can report to VAERS,” thus the information is unreliable. But this story is alarming. It should be immediately investigated by the CDC and made national news. Mainstream media are silent, as is the CDC.
A two-year-old girl received her second (Dose 2) experimental Pfizer mRNA shot on February 25. She apparently developed some sort of serious adverse reaction on March 1. The baby was dead on March 3. No further details were provided.
No one knows how many people the experimental covid vaccines are killing – or how many they will kill.
But although I haven’t seen the mainstream media mention most of these deaths, people have already died or been injured after being given the jab:
SHOCKING – The latest covid jab deaths and injuries from VAERS
Latest release of VAERS data (please share widely)
openvaers.com covid data (it is estimated that only 1% of vaccine adverse events is reported)
EXPOSED – Pfizer jab in the UK. Deaths and injuries include: strokes, heart attacks, miscarriages, Bell’s Palsy, nervous system disorders, immune system disorders, psychiatric disorders and blindness.
Deaths and injuries
Many people are now blind after the covid jab – Latest AstraZeneca deaths and injuries. As well as blindness, some of the many injuries include: strokes, heart attacks, miscarriages, sepsis, paralysis, Bell’s Palsy, deafness and covid-19.
Latest AstraZeneca figures
European database of suspected adverse drug reaction reports
1) Two-year-old girl dies after being given two covid shots (video)
Two-year-old girl dies
2) Vaccine left girl fighting for life (video)
Fighting for life
3) Pfizer vaccine injury – Angelia Deselle (video)
Pfizer vaccine injury
4) 33-year-old woman paralyzed 12 hours after getting the first shot of the Pfizer vaccine (video)
33-year-old woman paralyzed
5) Adverse reaction from Johnson & Johnson vaccine (video)
6) Canadian doctor shares his concern about covid vaccine after lifelong patients develop side effects (video)
Canadian doctor shares his concern
7) Man emotionally affected because his aunt was injured by the covid-19 vaccine (video)
Man emotionally affected
8) Bell’s Palsy from the first dose of the Moderna vaccine (video)
9) Pfizer covid-19 vaccine injury – transverse myelitis (video)
10) Frontline workers’ testimonies vaers reports (video)
Frontline workers’ testimonies
11) Death by vaccine – man drops dead after vaccine (short video)
Death by vaccine
12) Covid jab injury from AstraZeneca vaccine (short video)
Covid jab injury
13) Young, healthy man suffers stroke after getting the covid vaccine (short video)
Young, healthy man suffers stroke
14) Family testimonials of covid vaccine deaths (short video)
15) Woman suffers adverse reaction to the Johnson & Johnson vaccine (short video)
16)Severely injured 12-year-old girl after covid vaccine – Maddie’s story (short video)
17) 21-year-old student dead 24 hours after covid injection
18) 34-year-old mother of two dies 10 days after AstraZeneca jab
34-year-old mother dead
19) Woman suffers terrible reaction after getting the covid vaccine
Woman suffers terrible reaction
20) 20-year-old dead 12 hours after the covid jab (video)
21) 48-year-old woman dies after covid vaccine (video)
48-year-old woman dead
22) Teen diagnosed with Guillain-Barré weeks after first covid vaccine
Teen diagnosed with Guillain-Barré
23) Number of covid vaccine injuries reported to VAERS surpasses 50,000, CDC data show
Number of covid vaccine injuries
24) 22-year-old dead following experimental injection
25) Young lady injured after vaccine (short video)
Young lady injured
26) 65-year-old woman dead 30 minutes after AstraZeneca shot
65-year-old woman dead
27) Finally, mainstream news reports on vaccine fatality (video)
28) We need to ask questions – dad died after vaccine (video)
We need to ask questions
29) The harsh reality of vaccine adverse effects – Nicola describes her husband’s condition
The harsh reality
30) No smoke without fire part 3: vaccine adverse reactions (video)
No smoke without fire
31) Georgian nurse dies of allergic reaction after receiving AstraZeneca covid-19 vaccine, Tbilisi to continue rollout of British jab
Georgian nurse dies of allergic reaction
32) Jeanie M. Evans 68, of Effingham, Kansas died unexpectedly on Wednesday, March 24, 2021 at the Stormont-Vail Hospital from a reaction to the covid vaccine
Jeanie M. Evans
33) The covid blog
34) Woman dies from brain haemorrhage in Japan after having Pfizer jab
Woman dies from brain haemorrhage
35) 70+ miscarriages in US and UK after vaccines (video)
70+ miscarriages in US and UK
36) Healthy Mother Died of Cardiac Arrest Just Hours after Taking First Dose of the Vaccine (short video)
Healthy mother died of cardiac arrest
37) Teacher dies hours after getting AstraZeneca jab in Italy – Manslaughter Investigation Launched
Teacher dies hours after getting AstraZeneca jab
38) Boxing Champion Marvin Hagler Dead At Age 66
Boxing champion Marvin Hagler
39) Woman suffering from Bell’s Palsy after covid jab (short video)
Another Bell’s Palsy victim
40) 39-year-old woman dies after 4 days after second Moderna vaccine, autopsy ordered
39-year-old woman dies…
41) 34 cases of spontaneous miscarriage and stillbirth reported after experimental mRNA vaccines
34 cases of spontaneous miscarriage…
42) 9 European nations suspend experimental AstraZeneca covid vaccines due to fatal blood clots
9 European nations suspend…
43) Whistleblower reveals many pregnancy complications following experimental covid injections leaving a trail of devastated mothers
Whistleblower reveals many pregnancy complications
44) Whistleblower: 25% of residents in German nursing home died after Pfizer vaccine
25% of residents in German nursing home
45) 45-year-old man dies after getting second dose of covid-19 vaccine
45-year-old man dies…
46) Number of injuries to CDC after covid vaccines climbs by nearly 4,000 in one week
Number of injuries to CDC
47) The second dose killed my dad and many others. Latest reports coming in (video)
The second dose killed my dad
48) Man in Greece died 8 minutes after vaccination against covid-19
Man died 8 minutes after vaccination
49) A 60-year-old woman dies hours after taking second covid-19 vaccine
A 60-year-old woman dies hours…
50) 67-year-old dies days after second dose of covid vaccine
67-year-old dies days after…
51) CA woman gets covid vaccine then suddenly dies of something else
CA woman gets covid vaccine
52) 59-year-old health worker dies hours after covid vaccine
59-year-old health worker
53) One-third of all deaths reported to CDC after covid vaccines occurred within 48 hours of vaccination
One-third of all deaths
54) Volume 1: Social media posts about covid-19 vaccine deaths and severe injuries (video)
Volume 1: Social media posts
55) 22 elderly with dementia dead in 1 week after the experimental mRNA covid injection in the Netherlands
22 elderly with dementia dead in 1 week
56) Covid vaccine side effect – tremors, my life is upside down – Angela Lynn Story (video)
Angela Lynn Story
57) Covid-19 vaccine effects on my army husband’s heart (video)
Covid-19 vaccine effects
58) Nurse develops Bell’s Palsy after receiving the covid jab (video)
Nurse with Bell’s Palsy
59) A 28-year-old mother from Winconsin is brain dead after the second dose of the covid injection
28-year-old mother from Winconsin dies…
60) 58-year-old woman dies hours after getting first dose of Pfizer vaccine
58-year-old woman dies…
61) 46 nursing home residents in Spain die within one month of getting covid vaccine
46 nursing home residents…
62) Video of woman injured by covid vaccine
Video of woman injured…
63) 36-year-old doctor dies after second dose of covid vaccine
64) German nursing home whistleblower says elderly are dying after covid vaccine
Nursing home whistleblower
65) ‘They’re dropping like flies’ – Video of courageous nursing home CNA
Courageous nursing home whistleblower
66) Short video showing that many people in Israel are dying after the covid jab
Many people in Israel are dying
67) Man drops dead in New York 25 minutes after receiving vaccine
Man drops dead in New York
68) FDA and CDC officials are investigating 36 cases – including one death – of immune thrombocytopenia
Rare blood disorder could be linked to covid vaccine
69) Gibraltar: January ends with 71 dead in one month (vaccination rollout began on the 10th January 2021)
71 dead in one month
70) Miscarriages and stillbirth shortly after being given the covid vaccine
Miscarriages and stillbirth
71) 19-year-old hospitalised with heart inflammation after covid vaccine
72) 39-year-old nurse aide dies within 48 hours of receiving the covid jab
39-year-old nurse aide dies…
73) Seniors dying of covid vaccine labelled as natural causes
Seniors dying of covid vaccine…
74) Californian dies hours after receiving covid vaccine as investigation into the cause of death gets underway.
Californian dies hours after covid vaccine
75) Covid infects 35 vaccinated staff and residents at care home
Covid infects 35 vaccinated…
76) Vaccine injury video deleted from facebook
Vaccine injury video…
77) X-ray technician dies two days after getting the second dose of the covid vaccine
Man dies after second dose
78) 22 residents dead in three weeks in Basingstoke nursing home
Basingstoke nursing home 22 dead (‘It is understood the outbreak started as residents began to have their first coronavirus vaccines though this is thought to be unrelated, according to the agency.’)
79) A 41-year-old Portuguese mother of two who worked in paediatrics died at a hospital in Porto just two days after being vaccinated against covid-19
Portuguese health worker 41 dies
80) Norway is investigating the deaths of two nursing home residents who died after being vaccinated against covid-19
Norway investigating death of two people who…
81) Chinese health experts call to suspend the use of mRNA-based covid-19 vaccines following the deaths of 23 elderly people in Norway.
Chinese health experts call to suspend Pfizer’s mRNA vaccine…
82) In Florida, U.S., a doctor died after suffering a stroke after receiving a covid-19 vaccination.
Death of Florida Doctor
83) A 32-year-old medical doctor suffered seizures and was paralysed after receiving the covid-19 vaccine.
Doctor is paralyzed after…
84) A 46-year-old healthcare worker dies 24 hours after receiving the covid-19 vaccine but government says death is not related to the jab
A 46-year-old healthcare worker…
85) German specialists are looking into the deaths of 10 people who died after being vaccinated against covid-19
German specialists probing 10 deaths of people vaccinated against covid-19
86) Norway warns frail patients over 80 of vaccine risks after deaths
87) Norway investigates 23 deaths in frail elderly patients after vaccination
88) Doctors in California call for urgent halt of moderna vaccines after many fall sick
Doctors in California…
89) Two people in India die after receiving the covid jab
Two people die…
90) Coronavirus vaccine put on hold as volunteer suffers serious adverse reaction
Coronavirus vaccine put on hold…
91) California pause some covid vaccinations after reactions
California pause some…
92) Baseball legend dies of ‘undisclosed cause’ 18 days after receiving covid vaccine
Baseball legend dies…
93) Woman injured by vaccine (Warning: disturbing video)
94) Mother seriously injured by covid vaccine
Mother seriously injured
Those are just some of the possible deaths and injuries that have followed vaccination.
I have no doubt that the authorities will claim that these deaths were coincidental.
And let us remember if a patient dies within 28 days of being tested positive for coronavirus (and the test doesn’t mean that the patient even has the disease since most tests are false positives) then the death will be listed as a covid-19 death and the patient will be said to have died ‘with’ covid-19. So by the same token, it is perfectly reasonable to say that if a patient dies or falls ill within 28 days of being vaccinated then the death or illness was related to the covid-19 vaccine.
Will the mainstream media ever start recording these deaths or illnesses? Or are journalists going to continue to promote the official government line – and to deny, distort or suppress the truth?
How many people have to die before the media wakes up?
Deaths Shortly After Covid Jab – Yet Another Coincidence
1) A 46-year-old man died a day after taking the covid vaccine – “No relation with corona vaccine”
2) A Northern California man died several hours after the covid vaccine – “My first inclination is that it’s probably not related to the vaccine”
A Northern California man…
3) 236 Brits died after covid jabs – but vaccines “didn’t play a role”
236 Brits died…
4) Woman dies from brain haemorrhage in Japan days after vaccine – “link uncertain”
Woman dies from brain haemorrhage
5) 63-year-old man dies 2 days after covid-19 vaccination – “it’s too early to tell whether the jab was related to his death”
63-year-old man dies 2 days…
6) 56-year-old woman dies days after covid vaccine – “no link established so far”
56-year-old woman dies…
7) Virginia woman dies shortly after receiving coronavirus vaccine – “no link has been found”
Virginia woman dies shortly…
8) 88-year-old dies hours after covid vaccination in second such incident – “in both cases, medical professionals do not believe the deaths were connected to the vaccines”
88-year-old dies hours…
Other Important Covid Vaccine Information
1) NHS whistleblower exposes vaccine policy (hugely important video, please share widely)
2) Sudden adult death syndrome – or how to cover up vax deaths (short video)
Sudden adult death syndrome
3) Johnson & Johnson vaccine halted (The Highwire with Del Bigtree – video)
4) We put a code inside the vaccines (short video)
Code inside vaccines
5) Tanzanian president who was sceptical of western vaccines dead after missing for two weeks
Tanzanian president dead
6) Norwegian Doctor AstraZeneca’s Covid Vaccine Triggers Blood Clots
AstraZeneca covid vaccine
7) Before Covid, Gates Planned Social Media Censorship of Vaccine Safety Advocates With Pharma, CDC, Media, China and CIA
Gates planned social media…
8) Bill Gates: Vaccines Are ‘Phenomenal’ Profit Makers
Phenomenal profit makers
9) Coronavirus vaccine deaths aren’t covered by life insurance because jabs are “experimental medical intervention”
Coronavirus vaccine deaths aren’t covered by life insurance…
10) Pfizer demands nations put up collateral to cover vaccine injury lawsuits
Pfizer demands nations…
11) Investigation: MPs and SAGE heavily invested in vaccine industry
Investigation: MPs and SAGE
12) What the covid-19 vaccine AstraZeneca contains
Covid-19 vaccine AstraZeneca
13) Covid-19 vaccine trials to include participants as young as 6 months
Covid-19 vaccine trials
14) Experienced care home manager deeply concerned about the effects of covid-19 and vaccinations, on both staff and the elderly, within care facilities across the country (video)
Experienced care home manager deeply concerned…
15) How those who die following covid jabs are treated in the media
How those who die…
16) Belgian regulators advise against giving AstraZeneca to over 55s
17) Germany says Oxford/AstraZeneca should not be given to over 65s
Germany says Oxford/AstraZeneca…
18) Flu almost wiped out and at lowest level in 130 years
Flu almost wiped out
19) Switzerland delays approval of AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson covid-19 vaccines due to ‘insufficient data’
Switzerland delays approval…
20) Covid-19 vaccine side effects world map
vaccine side effects
21) Pathogenic priming in older adults yet another concern with covid-19 vaccines
Pathogenic priming …
22) Top coronavirus official warns that second dose of covid vaccine tends to cause even worse side effects than first dose
Second dose of covid vaccine
23) CDC: Anaphylaxis rate with covid vax 10 times greater than for flu shots
24) Warning: mixing coronavirus vaccines
25) UK draws up plans to mix coronavirus vaccines
UK draws up plans…
26) Helsinki Committee to declare Pfizer performing unauthorized human experiment in Israel
27) 12,400 people in Israel tested positive for coronavirus after being injected with the Pfizer vaccine
12,400 people in Israel…
28) Australian vaccine abandoned over false HIV positive results
Australian vaccine abandoned…
Covid-19 Vaccine – Possible Vaccine Side Effects
The pro-vaxxers like to tell you that vaccines are perfectly safe and perfectly effective. Even when they wouldn’t be considered safe enough to use as oven cleaner, the fanatics enthuse about them. Young people and those who know little about medicine or science, talk about vaccines with reverence because they’ve been indoctrinated into believing the pro-vaccine lies.
And the pro-vaxxers are lying, of course.
Vaccines cause a lot of illness and quite a few deaths and they don’t always do what they’re supposed to do. Governments around the world have paid out many billions of dollars to patients who have been made ill by vaccines – or to the relatives of patients who were killed by a vaccine.
There are, for example, grave doubts about what the covid-19 vaccine actually does. Since the vaccine is a new type of vaccine and is being given before the usual tests and observations have been completed no one knows what will happen to the people who have the stuff injected into an arm.
What side effects will there be? How many will die?
Well, I don’t know and nor does anyone else.
What if a woman is pregnant when she has the vaccine or gets pregnant after being given the vaccine? The vaccine isn’t supposed to be given to pregnant women but not all pregnancies are planned.
Will the vaccine interfere with essential life-saving drugs? Many elderly patients already take a number of prescribed drugs. Will the vaccine interfere with them? No one knows. The covid-19 vaccine is the biggest experiment in history. And, unlike a proper clinical trial, it is largely unregulated. As with all vaccines most of the problems which develop will never be reported or recognised.
It is estimated that in the U.S., only 1 in 100 vaccine side effects is reported.
The best we have is a working list of possible adverse event outcomes which the FDA has published in the US. (Here is the link to the draft working list)
Since I believe everyone is entitled to know what side effects there could be with a heavily promoted vaccine, I’m going to read you the official list of possible side effects. This is, remember, not my list but a draft list compiled by the FDA – the Food and Drug Administration in the US.
Acute disseminated encephalomyelitis
Acute myocardial infarction (heart attack)
Pregnancy, Birth outcomes
Other acute demyelinating diseases
Non anaphylactic allergy reactions
Disseminated intravascular coagulation
Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children
Vaccine enhanced disease
You aren’t necessarily going to get all of those or even any of them if you have the vaccine. But those are the possible side effects that the FDA has listed. They’re all unpleasant, most of them very serious and you can’t get more serious than death.
And if you are mad enough to have the vaccine then you and your doctor should keep a look out for the symptoms of all the diseases on the FDA’s list.
Your government won’t tell you about these dangers – they don’t believe in fully informed consent as far as vaccines are concerned.
Indeed, most governments are now doing everything they can to ensure that all criticisms of vaccines are banned. Depending on where you live it is, or soon will be, illegal even to mention that vaccines might not always work or might make you ill.
Finally, if your government really cared about you they would conduct a very simple, cheap trial.
They would keep a note of all the health problems affecting 20,000 patients who had the vaccine and compare that list with a list of all the health problems affecting 20,000 patients who didn’t have the vaccine in the same period. They make the comparisons every 3, 6 and 12 months.
Of course, they’d have to find some honest doctors to oversee the trial because it would be very easy to fiddle.
But it would give some very interesting results so I doubt if they’ll be doing it.
Please share this article with everyone you know.
Vernon Coleman’s book, Anyone who tells you vaccines are safe and effective is lying: here’s the proof is available on Amazon as an ebook and a paperback.
Copyright Vernon Coleman January 2021
Rosemary Frei, MSc rosemaryfrei.ca Wed, 03 Feb 2021
According to what we hear from officials and the mainstream media, the new variants are the most dangerous and unpredictable beings since Osama bin Laden.
Everyone needs to stay safe from these invisible but murderously mighty microbes by shunning contact with the unwashed, unmasked and unvaccinated. But is that drastic approach — which is accompanied by severe curtailment of civil liberties and constitutional rights — warranted?
It turns out that the case for the variants’ contagiousness and dangerousness centres largely on the theoretical effects of just one change said to stem from a mutation in the virus’s genes. And, as I’ll show in this article, that case is very shaky. I also have an accompanying nine-minute ‘explainer’ video.
That one change is known as N501Y — scientific shorthand for the substitution of one protein building block (amino acid) for another at position 501 in the part of the virus called the spike protein. Specifically, position 501 lies in the portion of the spike protein that’s responsible for the intimate coupling between the virus and cells that lets the virus slip inside and multiply.
[Note that any such amino-acid switcheroo is correctly called a change, not a mutation.Mutations occur only in genes. For some reason many scientists and scribes who ought to know better are mistakenly calling N501Y and other amino-acid changes ‘mutations.’ ]
A very preliminary study published Dec. 22, 2020, suggested that N501Y also is present in the South African variant named 501Y.V2. And another very preliminary study, published January 12, 2021, asserted it was also present in the new strain emerging from the Brazilian jungle, dubbed P.1.
On top of that, the South African variant is being reported as evading immunity and B.1.1.7 sharing this escape route. And scientists are depicting new variants with N501Y on board as spreading very fast. Some say they make herd immunity impossible, so every single person on earth has to be vaccinated. The models also suggest B.1.1.7 is up to 91% deadlier than the regular novel coronavirus.
(Yet so far it seems the main basis for officials saying it’s more deadly is shown in the minutes of the Jan. 21, 2021 meeting of an influential UK committee called New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats Advisory Group [NERVTAG ]. There, they cite modeling papers which haven’t yet been published – which means that until they’re published there’s no way to check their work.)
Three Non-Peer-Reviewed Theoretical-Modeling Papers Catapulted Variants into the Spotlight
Public-health officials, politicians and the mainstream media around the world turned their collective headlights on the variants right after the publication of three theoretical-modeling papers on B.1.1.7, a variant originating in the U.K. The first was a Technical Briefing by Public Health England published Dec. 21 (it’s the first of an ongoing series of reports on the variant authored by people working at the agency and at other institutions), the second a paper published Dec. 23 by a mathematical-modeling group at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, and the third a theoretical-modeling manuscript posted Dec. 31 by a large group of UK scientists.
None of the three papers was checked over for accuracy by objective observers – a process called ‘peer review.’ Nonetheless, all three were portrayed as solid science by many scientists, politicians, public-health officials and the press. (I reached out for comment to Public Health England, as well as to the first author of the second paper Nicholas Davies, and to the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. The only reply I received was from a media-relations person at Public Health England; she told me no one was available for an interview.)
(Neil Ferguson was a co-author of the first and third papers. The UK government has relied on Ferguson’s mathematical modeling for many years. This is despite his work turning out to be highly inaccurate time after time. He also supposedly stepped down from his government-advisory role last May after being caught secretly meeting with his married lover during a time when it was illegal to make contact with anyone outside of one’s household, thanks in large part to his modelling. But he was quickly restored to positions of influence. In an article and accompanying video coming out next week, I describe the connections and conflicts of interest surrounding Ferguson and the modeling papers’ other authors.)
What Effect Is N501Y Said to Have?
In N501Y, the amino acid that’s swapped out at position 501 in the spike protein is asparagine; by scientific convention it’s represented by the letter ‘N.’ The amino acid that’s swapped in in its place is tyrosine, and it’s represented by the letter ‘Y.’ Hence ‘N501Y.’
Position 501 in the amino-acid sequence sits in the part of the spike protein that protrudes from the surface of the virus. Specifically, it’s said to lie in the region of the spike protein that latches or ‘binds’ to the mechanism that is the gatekeeper for whether the virus can enter the cell. That gate-keeping mechanism is known as the ‘ACE2 receptor.’
This region of the spike protein – known as the ‘receptor binding domain’ (RBD) — binds to the gate keeping mechanism, the ACE2 receptor. When the RBD and the ACE2 receptor bind, the cell membrane, which is the circular barrier between the area outside the cell and the cell contents, opens up and allows the virus to enter.
N501Y is posited to make the spike protein bind tighter to the ACE2 receptor. Influential theoreticians have performed mathematical modeling based on this hypothesis. This modeling suggests that this tighter binding allows the virus to enter more easily, and that therefore this makes the virus more transmissible.
Yet as far as I’ve been able to find, there is still no concrete, direct proof of this. And note that epidemiological data cannot be used to definitively detect the effect of an amino-acid in a virus. Only experiments involving direct observation of the virus’s interaction with the body can determine that.
The main evidence that the top three theoretical-models cite as proof of stronger bonding between the N501Y form of the novel coronavirus and the RBD is from just three scientific manuscripts, and these describe experiments with the virus in mice or petri dishes,not observation of whether in fact the variants are truly more contagious or more deadly.
Details of the Three Papers That Underpin the Assertion that N501Y Bolsters Contagiousness
The researchers found a large amount of the virus in the mice lungs right from the first round of division. Based on this, they pronounced the virus to have “enhanced infectivity.” However, they didn’t actually test whether the virus is more transmissible/contagious – that is, whether it moves from mouse to mouse more easily.
They performed ‘deep sequencing’ and reported that they found the N501Y change in the ‘mouse-adapted’ virus. Next they did ‘structural remodeling’ on it and wrote that this analysis “suggestedthat the N501Y substitution in the RBD of SARS-CoV[-2] S protein increased the binding affinity of the protein to mouse ACE2.” All of this is very different than direct observations of the variant virus’s behaviour in mice or humans.
The second paper was posted on bioRχiv on Dec. 21, 2020.It describes an “engineered decoy receptor for SARS-CoV-2.” The complicated series of molecular-biological manoeuvers in vitro were performed that is hard to follow and understand – there is no ‘Methods’ section laying out the details and sequence what they did; rather, the researchers’ approach to their experiments is scattered across all sections of the paper including in the accompanying Supplementary Material. This is many steps removed from real-life situations.
The authors conclude from their manoeuvers that laboratory-mutated novel coronavirus with the N501Y mutation seems to bind more tightly to their ‘engineered decoy’ form of the RBD receptor than the RBD receptor that normally occurs in nature. (The idea, it seems, is that this ‘engineered decoy’ could be injected into people with the goal of getting the new variant to bind to it rather than to cells, thereby stopping it from gaining entry into cells and reproducing.)
bioRχiv is an online-only journal. (It’s pronounced ‘bioarchive’; that’s because the Greek letter χ is pronounced ‘kai.’ I presume the letter χ is used in the journal’s title because the χ2 [‘chi-square’] test is a widely used form of statistical analysis in scientific papers.) The journal has tagline ‘The Preprint Server for Biology.’ ‘Preprint’ means non-peer-reviewed. bioRχiv focuses entirely on Covid-19-papers and is sponsored by the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative. It has a sister publication medRχiv that also focuses on Covid-19,
The Initiative is the creation of Facebook head Mark Zuckerberg and his wife Priscilla Chan. Facebook has been among the very active censors of information including scientific papers that diverge from the official narrative about Covid.
Like the other two papers, it is extremely removed from direct observation of the virus’s behaviour in live animals or humans. In fact, the third paper doesn’t even use human or animal cells. It involves a ‘yeast-surface-display platform’ as a basis for performing ‘deep mutational scanning’ of the novel coronavirus’s RBD. That ‘platform’ is an artificial structure the paper’s authors constructed for measuring binding between antibodies and various RBD regions containing an array of mutations.
According to this paper, the N501Y amino-acid change results in stronger binding of the virus to the RBD. However, the papers’ authors state in the last section of their paper that
“It is important to remember that our maps define biochemical phenotypes of the RBD, not how these phenotypes relate to viral fitness. There are many complexities in the relationship between biochemical phenotypes of yeast-displayed RBD and viral fitness.” Translation: “Just because our biochemistry experiments showed that the presence of N501Y or other changes in the RBD seems to make the RBD bind tighter to the ACE2 receptor, we don’t know whether any of these changes make the virus more ‘fit’/transmissible.”
And note also that one of the authors of the third paper, Allison Greaney, is quoted as saying in an August 2020 article from the Fred Hutchison Cancer Research Center where she and several of the other authors work, that
“The virus already has a ‘good enough’ ability to bind to ACE2. There’s no reason to believe that going beyond that level will make it more pathogenic or transmissible. [And] [b]ut the RBD may be able to tolerate a number of mutations.”
As another note, the third paper was first published in bioRχiv and then published three months later in the peer-reviewed journal Cell. In Cell the paper is labelled ‘Elsevier-Sponsored Documents’ (see image below)(Elsevier is the publishing empire that owns Cell, among hundreds of other journals). I couldn’t find anything online about what ‘Sponsored’ means, nor about what or who sponsored this particular paper; and I couldn’t find any other papers with this designation. So I emailed Cell’s PR manager John Caputo on the evening of Jan. 18 and followed up by leaving him a voicemail message on Jan. 19. I haven’t heard back from him.
A Brief Word About Another Amino-Acid Change in B.1.1.7
I’ll quickly turn to another of the key change said to be present in B.1.1.7. This change, the deletion of three amino acids was described in a paper published on the website of medRχiv on November 13, 2020. (Earlier in this article I mention that medRχiv is creation of the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative.)
The mutation purportedly makes B.1.1.7 invisible to one of the three key functions of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test. That function is detection of the gene that has the genetic code for one of the two main spike proteins on the outer surface of the novel coronavirus.
However, that conclusion is based on only sequencing of the virus in a mere six people who tested positive for the novel coronavirus. On top of that, the paper was not subjected to scrutiny by other scientists (a process known as ‘peer review’) before it was published.
In addition, the Covid diagnoses of those six people were themselves determined by PCR. And PCR has been shown to have a very high rate of false positives — that is, to very frequently give a positive result in people who in fact do not harbour the novel coronavirus at all.
The authors of that paper themselves conclude that
“this result should be interpreted with caution. As a limited number of samples with the S-negative profile [i.e., tests that were positive for two of the three portions of the PCR test but not for the third, S-gene, portion] were sequenced, we could not exclude the presence of other S mutations associated with this profile…. Moreover we could not determine whether the deletion affected the primer or other probe-binding region as their coordinates were not available.”
What’s the lesson from all this? That the pronouncements about the dire danger posed by the new variants aren’t based on solid science.
They appear to be aimed more at scaring the public into submitting to harsher and longer restrictions than helping to create truly evidence-based policies.
So follow the golden rules. Read the primary scientific-paper sources. Analyze them and think for yourself. Don’t let your reasoning be swept away by the 24-7, fear-filled news cycle.
About the Author:
Rosemary Frei, after obtaining an MSc in molecular biology from the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Calgary, she pivoted and became a freelance writer. That led to 22 years as writer and journalist focusing on medicine. She pivoted again in early 2016 to full-time, independent activism and investigative journalism. Her website is RosemaryFrei.ca.
16 Facts Proving Covid Emergency Is A Hoax. Undercover Epicenter Nurse blows the lid off the COVID-19 pandemic.
Preface excerpt from Undercover Epicenter Nurse
[Ed. Note: The full Preface by J.B. Handley, expanding on all his points, is found in the book—complete with all source footnotes.]
For anyone willing to look, there are so many facts that tell the true story of COVID-19. Can you handle the truth? It goes a little something like this: Knowing what we know today about COVID-19’s Infection Fatality Rate, asymmetric impact by age and medical condition, non-transmissibility by asymptomatic people and in outdoor settings, near-zero fatality rate for children, and the basic understanding of viruses through Farr’s Law, locking down society was a boneheaded policy decision so devastating that historians may judge it as the all-time worst decision ever made.
Worse, as these clear facts have become available, many policymakers haven’t shifted their positions, despite the fact that every hour under any stage of lockdown has a domino effect of devastation to society. Meanwhile, the media—with a few notable exceptions—are oddly silent on all the good news. To put it simply, for the time being we’re screwed.
Luckily, an unexpected group of heroes across the political landscape—many of them doctors and scientists—has emerged to tell the truth, despite facing extreme criticism and censorship from an angry mob desperate to continue fighting an imaginary war. Erin Marie Olszewski is one of those heroes.
In this book, Erin lays out the straight facts. A brave nurse, veteran, and mother, she goes far beyond the cold data of any study to share the human tragedy that she witnessed inside of New York City’s COVID-19 epicenter, Elmhurst Hospital.
As you read her story, and consider what you know so far, who should you believe? You may be reading this in lockdown. You may be reading it on a beach if you’re lucky enough to be in a reopened state. With the media, government, and your Facebook feed filling your head with conflicting information, how can you cut through the noise to hear the truth of what real Americans like Erin are seeing on the front lines? Her words—and her evidence—speak for themselves. I invite you to read them and digest it all with an open mind.
Erin is a warrior for the truth, but she alone cannot tell this entire story. Her experience is an integral part of the true story of COVID-19. I will leave her to tell you about the negligence, greed, and mismanagement that she has experienced at Elmhurst Hospital. In the meantime, allow me to share several other undisputed facts—proven by scientific research studies and expert analysis—that constitute the setting for her powerful tale.
Fact #1: The Infection Fatality Rate for COVID-19 is somewhere between 0.07–0.20 percent, in line with seasonal flu.
The Infection Fatality Rate (IFR) math of ANY new virus ALWAYS declines over time as more data becomes available, as any virologist could tell you. In the early days of COVID-19—where we only had data from China—there was a fear that the IFR could be as high as 3.4 percent, which would indeed be cataclysmic.
On April 17, the first study was published by Stanford researchers that should have ended all lockdowns immediately, as the scientists reported that their research “implies that the infection is much more widespread than indicated by the number of confirmed cases” and pegged the IFR as low as 0.12–0.2 percent. The researchers also speculated that the final IFR, as more data emerged, would likely “be lower.” For context, seasonal flu has an IFR of 0.1 percent. Smallpox? 30 percent. COVID-19, to reiterate? 0.12 to 0.2 percent.
Fact #2: The risk of dying from COVID-19 is much higher than the average IFR for older people and those with comorbidities, and much lower than the average IFR for younger healthy people, and nearing zero for children. (Source: CDC)
In January 2020, Los Angeles had an influenza outbreak that was killing children. The LA Times reported that “an unlikely strain of influenza has sickened and killed an unusually high number of young people in California this flu season.” COVID-19 is the opposite of that. Stanford’s Dr. Ioannidis said, “Compared to almost any other cause of disease that I can think of, it’s really sparing young people.”
Italy reported in May that 96 percent of Italians who died from COVID-19 had “other illnesses” and were, on average, eighty years old.
Fact #3: People infected with COVID-19 who are asymptomatic (which is most people) do NOT spread COVID-19.
On January 13, 2020, a twenty-two-year-old female with a history of congenital heart disease went to the emergency room of Guangdong Provincial People’s Hospital complaining of a variety of symptoms common to people with her condition, including pulmonary hypertension and shortness of breath due to atrial septal defect (hole in the heart). Little did she know her case would set off a cascade of events resulting in a recently published paper that should have ended all lockdowns around the world simultaneously.
Three days into her hospital stay, her condition was improving. Routine tests were run, and to the clinician’s alarm and surprise, she tested positive for COVID-19. As the physicians noted, “the patient had no fever, sore throat, myalgia, or other symptoms associated with virus infection.” Said differently, she was completely asymptomatic for COVID-19.
Fact #4: Emerging science shows no spread of COVID-19 in the community.
We just learned that asymptomatic people infected with COVID-19 are very unlikely to be able to spread the infection to others. Emerging and published science shows transmission of COVID-19 in retail establishments is extremely unlikely, as well. Professor Hendrik Streeck from the University of Bonn is leading a study in Germany on the hard-hit region of Heinsberg, and his conclusions, from laboratory work already completed, is very clear: “There is no significant risk of catching the disease when you go shopping. Severe outbreaks of the infection were always a result of people being closer together over a longer period of time.”
Fact #5: Published science shows COVID-19 is NOT spread outdoors
No. Just no.
In a study titled “Indoor Transmission of SARS-CoV-2” and published on April 2, 2020, scientists studied outbreaks of three or more people in three hundred and twenty separate towns in China over a five-week period beginning in January 2020. The goal was to determine WHERE outbreaks started: in the home, workplace, outside, or wherever. What’d they discover? Almost eighty percent of outbreaks happened in the home environment. The rest happened in crowded buses and trains.
Fact #6: Science shows masks are ineffective to halt the spread of COVID-19, and the WHO recommends they should only be worn by healthy people if treating or living with someone with a COVID-19 infection.
In March, the World Health Organization announced that masks should only be worn by healthy people if they are taking care of someone infected with COVID-19. The guideline stated:
“If you do not have any respiratory symptoms such as fever, cough, or runny nose, you do not need to wear a mask. Masks should only be used by health care workers, caretakers, or by people who are sick with symptoms of fever and cough.”
Fact #7: There’s no science to support the magic of a six-foot barrier.
Iceland has already made the two-meter (six-foot) rule optional. The reason for the apparently random recommendation to keep six feet of distance from your fellow citizens during the pandemic dates back to 1930. Back then, scientists established that droplets of liquid released by coughs or sneezes will either evaporate quickly in the air or be dragged by gravity down to the ground. And the majority of those droplets, they reckoned, would land within one to two meters. That is why it is said the greatest risks come from having the virus coughed at you from close range or from touching a surface—and then your face—that someone coughed onto. How conclusive is that?
Fact #8: The idea of locking down an entire society had never been done and has no supportable science, only theoretical modeling.
In fact, the first time the idea was ever raised to lock down everyone was in 2006, in a paper titled “Targeted Social Distancing Designs for Pandemic Influenza.” The paper detailed “how social contact network-focused mitigation can be designed” and modeled various outcomes based on how people behaved. At the time, cooler heads prevailed and dismissed the ideas in the paper, as represented this critique from Dr. D.A. Henderson, the man who led the public effort to eradicate smallpox. According to the New York Times, “Dr. Henderson was convinced that it made no sense to force schools to close or public gatherings to stop. Teenagers would escape their homes to hang out at the mall. School lunch programs would close, and impoverished children would not have enough to eat. Hospital staffs would have a hard time going to work if their children were at home.”
Fact #9: The epidemic models of COVID-19 have been disastrously wrong, and both the practice of modeling and the people behind it have a terrible history.
While many disease models have been used during the COVID-19 pandemic, two have been particularly influential in the public policy of lockdowns: that of Imperial College (UK) and that of the IHME (Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, Washington, USA). They’ve both proven to be unmitigated disasters.
Fact #10: The data shows that lockdowns have NOT had an impact on the course of the disease.
This is certainly the fact that people will have the hardest time with: Who wants to believe that all this suffering and isolation was for no reason? However, there are more than enough states and countries that didn’t lockdown, or locked down for a much shorter time, or in a much different manner, to provide sufficient data. Perhaps the simplest explanation for why lock downs have been ineffective is the easiest: COVID-19 was in wide circulation much earlier than experts thought. This alone would explain why lockdowns have been so ineffective, but whatever the final explanation, let’s see what the data says.
Fact #11: Florida locked down late, opened early, and is doing fine, despite predictions of doom.
The best article I have read about Florida’s Governor Ron DeSantis comes from the National Review on May 20. I was pleasantly surprised by what a rational student of history Governor DeSantis was, as he explained, “One of the things that bothered me throughout this whole time was, I researched the 1918 pandemic, ’57, ’68, and there were some mitigation efforts done in May 1918, but never just a national-shutdown type deal. There was really no observed experience about what the negative impacts would be on that.”
Fact #12: New York’s above-average death rate appears to be driven by a fatal policy error combined with aggressive intubations.
This brings us to the crux of Erin’s incredible investigation. The evidence you are about to review is irrefutable. Even if you don’t believe her at first, others are reaching similar conclusions.
Massive deaths of elderly individuals in nursing homes, nosocomial infections, and overwhelmed hospitals may explain the very high fatality seen in specific locations in Northern Italy, New York, and New Jersey. A very unfortunate decision of the governors in New York and New Jersey was to have COVID-19 patients sent to nursing homes.
Fact #13: Public health officials and disease epidemiologists do NOT consider the other negative societal consequences of lockdowns.
If you asked me for a suggestion for how to lose a few pounds and I said, “Stop eating or drinking anything,” would you take my advice? It would work to achieve your goals, but you may not like the side effects. That’s basically what has happened here. Rather than being ONE input on policy, public health officials were handed the keys to the convertible without their license, and off they sped!
Fact #14: There is a predictive model for the viral arc of COVID-19, it’s called Farr’s Law, and it was discovered over one hundred years ago.
Dr. Lass, in the interview mentioned above, also made a point that we already knew, long before the lock downs, how COVID-19 was likely to behave, because we’ve been dealing with new viruses since the dawn of man.
If you look at the coronavirus wave on a graph, you will see that it looks like a spike. Coronavirus comes very fast, but it also goes away very fast. The influenza wave is shallow, as it takes three months to pass, but coronavirus takes only one month.
Fact #15: The lockdowns will cause more death and destruction than COVID-19 ever did.
My final fact is the most depressing. Of course, it’s impossible today to find all the data to show how destructive unnecessary lockdowns have been, but many people are already trying. Economically, the costs to the United States will be measure in the multitrillions. It didn’t have to be this way: Sweden just reported that GDP grew in their first quarter!
Fact #16: All these phased reopenings are utter nonsense with no science to support them, but they will all be declared a success.
Still waiting for your Phase 1 or Phase 2 reopening? Trust me, whoever conjured up your state’s plan is quite literally making things up as they go along. Given the extreme range of plans taking place—even in neighboring counties—the odds that they have ANYTHING to do with the arc of the virus is exactly ZERO, but you already knew that if you read this far.
June 23, 2020
Simon & Schuster
WHY THIS IS HAPPENING
HERE ARE JUST A FEW OF THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE THIS IS HAPPENING TOO. NON-JABBED PEOPLE GETTING SYPMTOMS AFTER BEING AROUND A JABBED PERSON:
PLEASE SHARE ANY EXPERIENCE YOU HAVE HAD IN THE COMMENTS BELOW OR FEEL FREE TO COME SHARE THEM ON THE THREAD ON THE “STAY AWAY” HIGHLIGHT OF MY INSTAGRAM : CLICK HERE
AFLDS by Mordechai Sones
America’s Frontline Doctors (AFLDS) spoke to former Pfizer Vice President and Chief Science Officer Dr. Mike Yeadon about his views on the COVID-19 vaccine, hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, the regulatory authorities, and more.
At the outset, Dr. Yeadon said “I’m well aware of the global crimes against humanity being perpetrated against a large proportion of the worlds population.
“I feel great fear, but I’m not deterred from giving expert testimony to multiple groups of able lawyers like Rocco Galati in Canada and Reiner Fuellmich in Germany.
“I have absolutely no doubt that we are in the presence of evil (not a determination I’ve ever made before in a 40-year research career) and dangerous products.
“In the U.K., it’s abundantly clear that the authorities are bent on a course which will result in administering ‘vaccines’ to as many of the population as they can. This is madness, because even if these agents were legitimate, protection is needed only by those at notably elevated risk of death from the virus. In those people, there might even be an argument that the risks are worth bearing. And there definitely are risks which are what I call ‘mechanistic’: inbuilt in the way they work.
“But all the other people, those in good health and younger than 60 years, perhaps a little older, they don’t perish from the virus. In this large group, it’s wholly unethical to administer something novel and for which the potential for unwanted effects after a few months is completely uncharacterized.
“In no other era would it be wise to do what is stated as the intention.
“Since I know this with certainty, and I know those driving it know this too, we have to enquire: What is their motive?
“While I don’t know, I have strong theoretical answers, only one of which relates to money and that motive doesn’t work, because the same quantum can be arrived at by doubling the unit cost and giving the agent to half as many people. Dilemma solved. So it’s something else.
Appreciating that, by entire population, it is also intended that minor children and eventually babies are to be included in the net, and that’s what I interpret to be an evil act.
“There is no medical rationale for it. Knowing as I do that the design of these ‘vaccines’ results, in the expression in the bodies of recipients, expression of the spike protein, which has adverse biological effects of its own which, in some people, are harmful (initiating blood coagulation and activating the immune ‘complement system’), I’m determined to point out that those not at risk from this virus should not be exposed to the risk of unwanted effects from these agents.”
AFLDS: The Israel Supreme Court decision last week cancelling COVID flight restrictions said: “In the future, any new restrictions on travel into or out of Israel need, in legal terms, a comprehensive, factual, data-based foundation.”
In a talk you gave four months ago, you said
“The most likely duration of immunity to a respiratory virus like SARS CoV-2 is multiple years. Why do I say that? We actually have the data for a virus that swept through parts of the world seventeen years ago called SARS, and remember SARS CoV-2 is 80% similar to SARS, so I think that’s the best comparison that anyone can provide.
“The evidence is clear: These very clever cellular immunologists studied all the people they could get hold of who had survived SARS 17 years ago. They took a blood sample, and they tested whether they responded or not to the original SARS and they all did; they all had perfectly normal, robust T cell memory. They were actually also protected against SARS CoV-2, because they’re so similar; it’s cross immunity.
“So, I would say the best data that exists is that immunity should be robust for at least 17 years. I think it’s entirely possible that it is lifelong. The style of the responses of these people’s T cells were the same as if you’ve been vaccinated and then you come back years later to see if that immunity has been retained. So I think the evidence is really strong that the duration of immunity will be multiple years, and possibly lifelong.”
In other words, previous exposure to SARS – that is, a variant similar to SARS CoV-2 – bestowed SARS CoV-2 immunity.
The Israel government cites new variants to justify lockdowns, flight closures, restrictions, and Green Passport issuance. Given the Supreme Court verdict, do you think it may be possible to preempt future government measures with accurate information about variants, immunity, herd immunity, etc. that could be provided to the lawyers who will be challenging those future measures?
Yeadon: “What I outlined in relation to immunity to SARS is precisely what we’re seeing with SARS-CoV-2.
The study is from one of the best labs in their field.
“So, theoretically, people could test their T-cell immunity by measuring the responses of cells in a small sample of their blood. There are such tests, they are not “high throughput” and they are likely to cost a few hundred USD each on scale. But not thousands. The test I’m aware of is not yet commercially available, but research only in U.K.
“However, I expect the company could be induced to provide test kits “for research” on scale, subject to an agreement. If you were to arrange to test a few thousand non vaccinated Israelis, it may be a double edged sword. Based on other countries experiences, 30-50% of people had prior immunity & additionally around 25% have been infected & are now immune.
“Personally, I wouldn’t want to deal with the authorities on their own terms: that you’re suspected as a source of infection until proven otherwise. You shouldn’t need to be proving you’re not a health risk to others. Those without symptoms are never a health threat to others. And in any case, once those who are concerned about the virus are vaccinated, there is just no argument for anyone else needing to be vaccinated.”
My understanding of a “leaky vaccine” is that it only lessens symptoms in the vaccinated, but does not stop transmission; it therefore allows the spread of what then becomes a more deadly virus.
For example, in China they deliberately use leaky Avian Flu vaccines to quickly cull flocks of chicken, because the unvaccinated die within three days. In Marek’s Disease, from which they needed to save all the chickens, the only solution was to vaccinate 100% of the flock, because all unvaccinated were at high risk of death. So how a leaky vax is utilized is intention-driven, that is, it is possible that the intent can be to cause great harm to the unvaccinated.
Stronger strains usually would not propagate through a population because they kill the host too rapidly, but if the vaccinated experience only less-serious disease, then they spread these strains to the unvaccinated who contract serious disease and die.
Do you agree with this assessment? Furthermore, do you agree that if the unvaccinated become the susceptible ones, the only way forward is HCQ prophylaxis for those who haven’t already had COVID-19?
Would the Zelenko Protocol work against these stronger strains if this is the case?
And if many already have the aforementioned previous “17-year SARS immunity”, would that then not protect from any super-variant?
“I think the Gerrt Vanden Bossche story is highly suspect. There is no evidence at all that vaccination is leading or will lead to ‘dangerous variants’. I am worried that it’s some kind of trick.
“As a general rule, variants form very often, routinely, and tend to become less dangerous & more infectious over time, as it comes into equilibrium with its human host. Variants generally don’t become more dangerous.
“No variant differs from the original sequence by more than 0.3%. In other words, all variants are at least 99.7% identical to the Wuhan sequence.
“It’s a fiction, and an evil one at that, that variants are likely to “escape immunity”.
“Not only is it intrinsically unlikely – because this degree of similarity of variants means zero chance that an immune person (whether from natural infection or from vaccination) will be made ill by a variant – but it’s empirically supported by high-quality research.
“The research I refer to shows that people recovering from infection or who have been vaccinated ALL have a wide range of immune cells which recognize ALL the variants.
“This paper shows WHY the extensive molecular recognition by the immune system makes the tiny changes in variants irrelevant.
“I cannot say strongly enough: The stories around variants and need for top up vaccines are FALSE. I am concerned there is a very malign reason behind all this. It is certainly not backed by the best ways to look at immunity. The claims always lack substance when examined, and utilize various tricks, like manipulating conditions for testing the effectiveness of antibodies. Antibodies are probably rather unimportant in host protection against this virus. There have been a few ‘natural experiments’, people who unfortunately cannot make antibodies, yet are able quite successfully to repel this virus. They definitely are better off with antibodies than without. I mention these rare patients because they show that antibodies are not essential to host immunity, so some contrived test in a lab of antibodies and engineered variant viruses do NOT justify need for top up vaccines.
“The only people who might remain vulnerable and need prophylaxis or treatment are those who are elderly and/or ill and do not wish to receive a vaccine (as is their right).
“The good news is that there are multiple choices available: hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, budesonide (inhaled steroid used in asthmatics), and of course oral Vitamin D, zinc, azithromycin etc. These reduce the severity to such an extent that this virus did not need to become a public health crisis.”
Do you feel the FDA does a good job regulating big pharma? In what ways does big pharma get around the regulator? Do you feel they did so for the mRNA injection?
“Until recently, I had high regard for global medicines regulators. When I was in Pfizer, and later CEO of a biotech I founded (Ziarco, later acquired by Novartis), we interacted respectfully with FDA, EMA, and the U.K. MHRA.
Always good quality interactions.
“Recently, I noticed that the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) had made a grant to the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA)! Can that ever be appropriate? They’re funded by public money. They should never accept money from a private body.
“So here is an example where the U.K. regulator has a conflict of interest.
“The European Medicines Agency failed to require certain things as disclosed in the ‘hack’ of their files while reviewing the Pfizer vaccine.
“You can find examples on Reiner Fuellmich’s “Corona Committee” online.
“So I no longer believe the regulators are capable of protecting us. ‘Approval’ is therefore meaningless.
“Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg and I petitioned the EMA Dec 1, 2020 on the genetic vaccines. They ignored us.
“Recently, we wrote privately to them, warning of blood clots, they ignored us. When we went public with our letter, we were completely censored. Days later, more than ten countries paused use of a vaccine citing blood clots.
“I think the big money of pharma plus cash from BMGF creates the environment where saying no just isn’t an option for the regulator.
“I must return to the issue of ‘top up vaccines’ (booster shots) and it is this whole narrative which I fear will he exploited and used to gain unparalleled power over us.
“PLEASE warn every person not to go near top up vaccines. There is absolutely no need to them.
“As there’s no need for them, yet they’re being made in pharma, and regulators have stood aside (no safety testing), I can only deduce they will be used for nefarious purposes.
“For example, if someone wished to harm or kill a significant proportion of the worlds population over the next few years, the systems being put in place right now will enable it.
“It’s my considered view that it is entirely possible that this will be used for massive-scale depopulation.”
LockDownSceptics by Dr Mike Yeadon
30 November 2020 / Updated 25 December 2020
How a novel virus met a partly-immune population
In Spring 2020 a novel coronavirus swept across the world: novel, but related to other viruses. In the UK, unknown at the time, around 50% of the population were already immune. The evidence for this is unequivocal and arose due to prior infection by common cold-causing coronaviruses (of which four are endemic). This prior immunity has been confirmed around the world by top cellular immunologists. There is even a very recent paper from Public Health England on the topic of prior immunity and a wealth of other evidence from studies on memory T-cells, studies on household transmission and on antibodies.
Because of the extent of the prior immunity, and as a result of heterogeneity of contacts, once only a low percentage of the population, perhaps as low as 10-20% had been infected, “herd immunity” was established. This is why daily deaths, which were rising exponentially, turned abruptly and began to fall, uninterrupted by street protests, the return to work, the reopening of pubs and crowded beaches during the summer. (See this explainer by the data scientist Joel Smalley.)
Immunity to ordinary respiratory viruses occurs mainly through T-cells which ‘take a picture of the invader’ at a molecular level, ‘reproduce’ it on certain immune cells and essentially ‘never forget a face’. This T-cell immunity is robust and durable. Those exposed to the highly related SARS virus in 2003 still have this immunity 17 years later. In relation to SARS-CoV-2, the pattern of immunity to date is identical and after around 800 million infections across the world, there is no convincing evidence for significant levels of re-infection. Not only are those who’ve been infected and have now recovered immune (they cannot get ill again with the same virus), but importantly they do not participate in transmission. (See my article on what SAGE got wrong for Lockdown Sceptics.) Furthermore, because the immune response is diverse, a proportion of them will also be immune to novel but similar viruses in the future.
In Spring, however, this virus did kill or hasten the end for approximately 40,000 vulnerable people, who were mostly old (median age 83, which is longer than that cohort’s life expectancy when born) and many of whom had multiple other medical conditions. There were some rare and very unfortunate younger people who also died, but age is clearly the strongest risk factor.
But due to extraordinary errors in modelling created by unaccountable academics at Imperial College, the country was told to expect over a half a million deaths. Three Nobel prize-winning scientists wrote to that modelling team in February correcting their errors. This was done confidentially. This expert, third-party estimate was remarkably accurate – it predicted that there would be a total of 40k deaths from COVID-19. I believe this is in fact correct and is what has happened. While I have no proficiency in modelling, I can distinguish predictions that are biological plausible from those which are literally incredible. When inputs to a model are wrong or missing, their outputs cannot be trusted. The Imperial model made the extreme assumption that there was zero prior immunity in the population or social contact heterogeneity.
It is now appreciated that this virus is less of a threat to those under 70 than seasonal flu, even with a flu vaccine, which routinely provides <50% effectiveness and usually much less.
The ease with which humans develop immunity to this virus is striking. Incidentally, it is this immune adeptness which has probably played an important role in why, against prior pessimism, many vaccines for SARS-CoV-2 have apparently ‘worked’ (though there is much to criticise about how efficacy has been defined, because a reduction in the propensity to become PCR positive has not previously been regarded as a leading indicator of the degree to which a vaccine will protect a population against severe illness).
Available evidence suggests that herd immunity at a national level (in England) was attained as early as May. (Joel Smalley again.) There have been no alternative explanations promulgated for the force which bore down on infections and deaths during the largely unmitigated spreading of the virus early in Spring. As an example of evidence that we are at herd immunity, London is relatively peaceful in relation to the virus now, having been the national epicentre in Spring, with hundreds of deaths daily in the capital.
Government actions have been nothing but peculiar from the very beginning
In any other year, that would be the end of the tale. Neither the existence of prior immunity nor that herd immunity can be readily reached without us noticing are new.
What was new was the belief that forcing citizens to run and hide from a respiratory virus with greater contagiousness than ‘flu was other than a fool’s errand. Acts of Parliament giving the executive a degree of power more suited to a war, and with it, a budget 10 times larger than any previous such emergency, were also deemed necessary, none of these being justified by the situation or by science. (See Jonathan Sumption make this point.)
We were invited to “Save the NHS” by not attending hospitals or seeing our doctors: soon both were heavily restricted and have remained so ever since. Most corrosively, broadcasters were and still are heavily constrained from free expression by innocent-sounding Ofcom guidelines.
I am of the view that the effect of these guidelines approximates censorship. When scientific debate is stifled, people die. Science requires the airing of opinions and debate to allow the evolution of ideas. Censorship has meant that nothing has been learnt, no model adjusted and errors compounded.
The Government was told to expect a ‘second wave’, and a huge one at that. This was mystifying. Virus don’t do waves and no reason to expect an exception on a truly unprecedented scale has ever been forthcoming. I hasten to distinguish what I have termed a secondary ripple from what SAGE means by a ‘second wave’.
The secondary ripple term recognises that not everyone will have been infected by mid-summer. As an important aside, I’ve invited many to consider how long it takes for an influenza epidemic, which we experience most years, to criss-cross the country before apparently burning out, only to occur the next year, because it’s one of the few respiratory viruses which mutates so quickly that, by the time a year has gone by, it’s sufficiently different from what our immune systems have seen before that it can wreak brief havoc upon us once again. The answer to that time question is variously given as three to four months.
I ask readers to consider how long might it be expected to take for a more contagious respiratory virus like SARS-CoV-2 to thoroughly criss-cross the country. It seems hard to credit that with taking longer than four months. We know the virus was in the UK at least by February 2020 (potentially earlier) and so by June it’s not at all unlikely that it had travelled almost everywhere. It has been argued that perhaps lockdown was very effective and so many people will still be susceptible, as SAGE claims. We know that is not correct. Lockdown was started far too late to repress the spread of the virus, as even Professor Whitty agreed in giving testimony to a parliamentary select committee in the summer. As he said, the lockdown began after the peak of infection – the outbreak was already in retreat by Mar 23rd.
Remember also that just because we were in ‘lockdown’ doesn’t mean much changed when it came to the transmission of the virus. Many people continued to go to work, other people still shopped almost every day, supply chains for all essential goods continued with few interruptions. Hospitals were open and, for the most part, extremely busy, as were care homes. The virus travelled along these routes and did not need to travel far, having reached every major urban centre before anyone even thought of locking us down or any other measures. When lockdown was lifted, there wasn’t the slightest alteration in the long, slow decline in the number of daily deaths. Personally, I don’t think there’s any evidence that the spring lockdown achieved anything in terms of saving lives from SARS-CoV-2, but there is evidence it contributed to some deaths, including deaths from non-COVID-19 causes. Reflecting back, months after, its main effect was to condition us to accept SAGE’s guidance as this was followed by the Government and echoed by media. This doesn’t mean locking people down is a sensible policy. The onus remains on its advocates to persuade us that it is, and I’m afraid they’ve not persuaded me.
So, no: there’s no good reason to think that large proportions of the nation were spared exposure to the virus as a result of the first lockdown. But it is true that some regions did experience less deaths in spring than others and while some are almost certainly due to more extensive prior immunity, others probably were incompletely exposed. That’s what I mean by secondary ripple: as transmission was increased by cooler weather, a limited amount of disease did reappear. But this was always going to be local, self-limiting and under no circumstances a public health emergency for a city, let alone a nation. This secondary ripple started at the beginning of September and was over by the end of October. Symptom-tracking data, NHS triage data and notified disease data all support that hypothesis. After this ripple, immunity levels in the underexposed pockets of the country have been topped up to herd immunity levels. From now on, COVID-19 outbreaks will be a feature of winter but will not be able to spread beyond small outbreaks.
No, what SAGE meant by a ‘second wave’ was a really big one, with twice as many deaths as in spring 2020. This is completely without precedent.
Planning for a ‘second wave’ might have led to its very creation
Viruses don’t do waves (beyond the secondary ripple concept as outlined above). I have repeatedly asked to see the trove of scientific papers used to predict a ‘second wave’ and to build a model to compute its likely size and timing. They have never been forthcoming. It’s almost as if there is no such foundational literature. I’m sure SAGE can put us right on this.
The post-WW1 “Spanish flu” appears to be all there is where it comes to evidence of waves. Most scholars accept that what most likely happened was that more than one infectious agent was involved. It was 102 years ago and no molecular biological techniques indicate multiple waves of a single agent then or anywhere else. In any case, that was influenza. There have been no examples of multiple waves since and the most recent novel coronavirus with any real spread (SARS) performed one wave each in each geographical region affected. Why a model with a ‘second wave’ in it was even built, I cannot guess. It seems completely illogical to me. Worse, as far as the public can discern, the model fails to account for the unequivocally demonstrated population prior immunity, to which must be added the recently-acquired immunity arising from the spring wave. This is why I’m reasserting what I’ve been argued for months – a ‘second wave’ cannot happen and must, perforce, not be happening as described
Despite the absence of any evidence for a ‘second wave’ – and the evidence of absence of waves for this class of respiratory virus – there was an across-the-board, multi-media platform campaign designed to plant the idea of a ‘second wave’ in the minds of everyone. This ran continually for many weeks. It was successful: a poll of GPs showed almost 86% of them stated that they expected a ‘second wave’ this winter.
As research for this piece, I sought the earliest mention of a ‘second wave’. Profs Heneghan and Jefferson, on Apr 30th, noted that we were being warned to expect a ‘second wave’ and that the PM had, on Apr 27th, warned of a ‘second wave’. The Professors cautioned anyone making confident predictions of a ‘second’ and ‘third wave’ that the historical record doesn’t provide support so to do.
I looked for mentions by the BBC of a ‘second wave’. The following report was on June 24th and at least two of the three scientists interviewed were SAGE members. The strange thing though is that SAGE minutes (brought into the public domain by Simon Dolan’s judicial review) early in the year made no mention of a sizeable ‘second wave’. Not one. On February 10th, there was a mention of multiple waves for post-WW1 flu. On Mar 3rd and 6th, there is mention of a single SARS-CoV-2 wave with most (95%) of the impact early on. What looks to be the final document, Mar 29th, still just refers to one wave. This is what history and immunology teaches. So, what happened later in the year to alter the clearly held view of SAGE that the virus would manifest itself in a single wave? We need SAGE to tell us.
PCR is a powerful tool, but has weaknesses when used on an industrial scale
Despite this bothersome oddity about a ‘second wave’ and almost as if there was a plan for one, the PCR (polymerase chain reaction) testing infrastructure in the UK began to be reshaped.
PCR is a quite remarkable technique, which has unparalleled ability to find truly tiny quantities of a fragment of a genetic sequence, right down to the level of finding a single, broken fragment of a virus in a messy biological sample. There are notable limitations, well known to those who’ve personally used PCR in a research context. The most important one is its propensity to suffer from contamination, and the integrity of a PCR is very easily destroyed by invisible levels of contamination even in the hands of an expert, working alone and on a small handful of samples.
This is a good moment to mention that the PCR test protocol for SARS-CoV-2, which everyone in the world is now using, was invented in the lab of Prof Drosten in Berlin. The scientific paper in which the method was described was published in January 2020, two days after the manuscript was submitted. One of the authors of the paper is on the editorial board of the journal that published it. There is concern that this extremely important article, which contains a PCR test protocol that has been used to run hundreds of millions of PCR tests across the world, including the UK, was not peer-reviewed. No peer review report has been released, despite many requests to do so. Furthermore, as a method, it contains numerous technical weaknesses, some of which are serious and highly complex. Suffice to say that a very detailed dissection of the paper and of the Drosten protocol has been made by Drs Borger and Malhotra, experienced and concerned molecular biologists. A group of other medics and scientists (of which I am one) have put their names to a letter, which accompanies the dissection, to the whole editorial board of the journal, Eurosurveillance, demanding that the paper be retracted. This was submitted on Nov 26th.
In addition, the Portuguese high court determined two weeks ago that this PCR test is not a reliable way to determine the health status or infectiousness of citizens, nor to restrain their movements. Other countries are also receiving legal challenges, one being submitted earlier this week in Germany by Reiner Fuellmich, a lawyer who successfully sued VW in relation to diesel emissions (The YouTube video in which Fuellmich sets out the principal points of concern about the misuse of PCR has been removed). I am aware of other legal challenges being assembled in further countries, including Italy, Switzerland and South Africa. With the scientific validity of this test under severe challenges, I believe it must immediately be withdrawn from use.
There are deep concerns internationally about the reliability and selectivity of this PCR test protocol and this should be borne in mind through the rest of this article.
NHS labs ran PCR competently in spring
In spring, the relatively constrained amount of PCR testing was at least conducted independently by very many, experienced labs and I am of the view that it was trustworthy, reaching more than adequate numbers of tests by the end of May (50k per day). Now it’s being run in newly-established large, private labs and most of their current staff are far less experienced than those in the NHS labs. We have no idea why this has happened. Regardless of any concerns about testing capacity, the need was and should have been expected only to be of limited duration. Remember, viruses don’t do waves and we’d already been fully exposed to the virus. Of course, it was argued that “a second wave was coming”, so we’d need more capacity. But as I’ve already shown, the certainty of expectation of a ‘second wave’ was bizarre and unaccountable.
So why was PCR testing removed from NHS labs? One answer is because they didn’t have the capacity to cope with testing requirements for a ‘second wave’. But this is circular: it was simply impossible to claim with certainty that there’d be such a wave. Also, it’s not true that the NHS labs couldn’t cope. As a staff member there pointed out: “I want to know why the new super-labs have been set up, because if they gave the NHS labs the (consumables) resources they could easily do the tests. Our lab has been ready for ages to do large numbers of tests. We have the equipment and we have staff. We lack only the test kits and these are not available to any new labs, either.”
It wasn’t just NHS lab staff who were perturbed by the move. I’m quoting extensively from this article because it contains crucial information. The President of the Institute of Biomedical Sciences (IBMS), the leading professional body in the field of biomedical science, said:
It concerns me when I see significant investments being made in mass testing centres that are planning to conduct 75,000 of the 100,000 tests a day. These facilities would be a welcome resource and take pressure off the NHS if the issue around testing was one of capacity. However, we are clear that it is a global supply shortage holding biomedical scientists back, not a lack of capacity. The profession is now rightly concerned that introducing these mass testing centres may only serve to increase competition for what are already scarce supplies and that NHS testing numbers will fall if their laboratories are competing with the testing centres for COVID-19 testing kits and reagents in a ‘Wild West testing’ scenario. The UK must avoid this for the sake of patient safety. It is clear that two testing streams now exist: one delivered by highly qualified and experienced Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC) registered biomedical scientists working in heavily regulated United Kingdom Accreditation Services (UKAS) accredited laboratories, the other delivered mainly by volunteer unregistered staff in unaccredited laboratories that have been established within a few weeks. This has presented another key concern – in that we have not been involved in assuring the quality of the testing centres and are now being kept at arm’s length from their processes, even when they exist close to large NHS laboratories.
On proof reading this article, I was struck at how powerful the case was for keeping things under the quality control of the NHS. What could the motives against this sensible plan have possibly been?
These testing facilities were presumably expected to be temporary. If so, why would it make sense to spend large sums of money and to displace equipment and consumables, which were the sole key missing item when the Lighthouse super-labs were announced, instead of using existing, keen, accredited staff who knew what they were doing? Those new labs would be as limited by consumables as the NHS labs.
We never really needed mass testing of those without symptoms
Arguably, we would never have been short on capacity if we had limited the testing to those with symptoms. The only reason one might even consider mass testing of those without symptoms is if you were convinced that those without symptoms were significant sources of transmission. This has always seemed to me to be a very tenuous assumption. Specifically, respiratory viruses are spread by droplets of secretions and generally the expulsion of these is linked to the symptoms of infection – coughing in particular. Humans have evolved over millions of years to recognise threats to health by close observation of the health status of others. It works well. We’re familiar with avoiding those with flu-like symptoms in winter and behaving responsibly by staying away from work and vulnerable people when we are symptomatic. The burden of proof rests with those claiming something very different in the case of SARS-CoV-2 to show conclusively that asymptomatic people are indeed major sources of transmission. I don’t think that case has at all been made. The medical literature on this is contradictory but almost all the papers claiming such transmission originated in China.
Consequently, there is simply no need to get into the business of mass testing the population. Indeed, as we will see, such mass testing brings with it, when using PCR as the method, a severe risk of what we call a “PCR false positive pseudo-epidemic”. This could never happen if we were not using PCR mass testing of the mostly well. So, for whatever reason and against all historical precedent and immunological reasoning, a major initiative was launched with the goal of reaching 500,000 tests a day by year’s end. Again, unaccountably, the Government didn’t just get on and build these new labs, working in parallel with the available NHS capabilities. Instead, responsibility for testing was swept out from 44 NHS labs, with skilled and accredited staff who’d already been running SARS-CoV-2 PCR. In their place, new labs were created, outside the help and control network of the Institute of Biomedical Sciences. These Lighthouse Labs are still not all fully accredited under UKAS to ISO 15189, a quality management system accreditation relating to medical laboratories.
There is a reliable test, fully-characterised and already validated with real-world use
At the end of October, the British Army was called in to help Liverpool City Council find the cases which the ONS PCR testing survey predicted should be there but which were no longer being found in the numbers expected. It was possible that people were no longer coming forward to be tested, though there is no way to be sure of this. Despite not having sought consent from the parents of school children and the absence before the survey began of proper protocols and ethics review, scores of thousands of people were tested using a lateral-flow test (LFT). (See here and here for more details on the LFT.) These look rather like the familiar pregnancy test kits you can purchase over the counter. They look similar, because they use related tried and trusted technology to detect virus proteins in the swab, not RNA. All tests have limits and weaknesses. However, the LFTs are not subject to the same flaws as PCR – specifically the risk of over-amplification and of cross-contamination before the test is actually run. LFT has similar sensitivity and specificity in the lab to PCR. It is certainly capable of identifying the same proportion of those truly infected as PCR.
In brief, the army found very few people with positive LFT results, only slightly higher than the background operational false positive rate: just over 0.3%, values expected when the tests are used in the real world. Since testing began, the positive rate has tended to a mean of 0.7% which might mean a few people were positive. My own experience of reading around this area is that this (around 0.7%) is almost certainly the true false positive rate when, in the real-world, careful but inexpert people administer the LFT. It meant that, in the city in the centre of the national hotspot for COVID-19, almost no one had the virus. This experiment has been repeated for 8,000 people in Merthyr Tydfil resulting in 0.77% testing positive. That these two test series have returned such similar values suggests that this is indeed the true, operational false positive rate for the LFT, though another test series will be helpful in refining that possible interpretation. Some leapt to criticise the LFT, as if it was its fault that it couldn’t find the expected cases. Of course, to many of us, the results were exactly what we’d expected, because we were by then sure that PCR was wildly over-reading. PCR has gone wrong before and Occam’s razor indicated that this was by far the most likely explanation for the otherwise inexplicable failure of PCR “cases” to correlate with symptomatic disease. These are the kind of results expected in populations protected by herd immunity. They’re completely inconsistent with a city and town in the grip of a highly-infectious respiratory virus.
To the Lighthouse
By September, the great bulk of PCR testing was being run by large, private labs, some of which are called Lighthouse Labs, and I’ll use this term as a coverall for all such labs. It was as September began that literally incredible things started to happen. Students returning to University towns were all required to submit to swabbing and PCR testing. We were then told there was an epidemic running through young people and it was just a matter of time before it reached the elderly and that would be that. The percentage of tests which were returning positive started skyrocketing, reaching in some towns values that were close to those in A&E at the peak of the pandemic in April. Strong linkage was observed between numbers of tests run and their positivity. This is most odd and can happen if the error rate increases with the pressure on the testing system.
Now, in late November, we are told there are sometimes 25,000 new “cases” daily and that several hundred daily “COVID-19 deaths” are occurring. How can this be happening if I’m right and the population has achieved herd immunity (as supported by large numbers of scientific papers detailing extensive T-cell immunity, as well as careful examination of the profile of deaths in spring vs recently, and the examination of patterns of deaths around the country recently as compared with spring)? It’s a conundrum.
As the numbers of daily PCR tests conducted began to climb very steeply, reaching 370,000 per day in mid-November, many of us have had the uncomfortable feeling that the chances of PCR testing on this scale returning accurate results are vanishingly small. To avoid cross-contamination and to have such high throughput flies in the face of decades of relevant experience for some of us. The classic triad of speed, throughput and quality always has one of them as the lead, limiting factor. In this case, my entire career experience tells me that the limiting factor is quality.
How we can square these claims of tens of thousands of daily “cases” and an unprecedented ‘second wave’ of deaths with the unfeasible quantity of testing using a technique considered by bench experts difficult to perform reliably even on a small scale?
A PCR false positive pseudo-epidemic looks just like a real epidemic, but isn’t
It’s important to appreciate while digesting this counter-narrative which, unlike the official line, is at least internally consistent, that the only data suggesting a ‘second wave’ is upon us are PCR results. Everything is dependent on this. A “case” is a positive PCR test. No symptoms are involved. A “COVID-19 admission” to a hospital is a person testing positive by PCR before, on entry or at any time during a hospital stay, no matter the reason for the admission or the symptoms the patient is presenting. A “COVID-19 death” is any death within 28 days of a positive PCR test. If there is any doubt about the reliability of the PCR test, all of this falls away at a single stroke.
I have to tell you that there is more than common-or-garden doubt about the PCR mass testing that purports to identify the virus. We have very strong evidence that the PCR mass testing as currently conducted is completely worthless.
At this point, it’s appropriate to give the game away and invite you to read the explanation that the team of which I’m part have assembled.
In brief: the pandemic was over by June and herd immunity was the main force which turned the pandemic and pressed it into retreat. In the autumn, the claimed “cases” are an artefact of a deranged testing system, which I explain in detail below. While there is some COVID-19 along the lines of the “secondary ripple” concept explained above, it has occurred primarily in regions, cities and districts that were less hard hit in the spring. Real COVID-19 is self-limiting and may already have peaked in some Northern towns. It will not return in force, and the example again is London. Even here, certain boroughs, e.g. Camden and Sutton, have had minimal positive test results. I’ve explained a number of times how this happened – the prominent role of prior immunity is often ignored or misunderstood. The extent of this was so large that, coupled with the uneven spread of infection, it needed only a low percentage of the population to be infected before herd immunity was reached.
That’s it. All the rest is a PCR false positive pseudo-epidemic. The cure, of course, as it has been in the past when PCR has replaced the pandemic itself as the menace in the land, is to stop PCR mass testing.
In case you’re still not convinced and think several hundred people are dying of COVID-19 each day, please watch this 10 min explainer video, created by data scientist Joel Smalley. By the end you will appreciate how the difference between reporting date and date of occurrence in relation to deaths and the large difference in this regard between COVID-19 deaths, most of which occur in hospital, and non-COVID-19 deaths, many of which happen at home, gives at any moment an impression of excess deaths which, when corrected for this differential delay, collapses into nothing or into such a small signal that surely it’s not faintly a public health concern. It’s also important to be aware that, for the best of intentions, physicians are too quick to assign COVID-19 as the cause of death, partly because the death sometimes has the right kind of elements, but mostly because the rules require them to: any death within 28 days of a positive test has to be recorded as a COVID-19 death, no matter what the circumstances. The degree of misattribution is so large that the number of deaths from the top 10 leading causes have been pushed far below normal levels, which is highly suggestive of these deaths having been mislabelled. Do note, you should at this point expect some excess deaths, if from nothing else, a number of people dying – mostly at home – from non-COVID-19 causes, a result of restricted access to healthcare for eight months.
I think the evidence is unequivocal that we are in a PCR false positive pseudo-epidemic
It’s happened before, with whooping cough (caused by a bacterium, but the technique for diagnosing the disease was the same, PCR). Hundreds of apparent “cases” were diagnosed at a hospital in New Hampshire using PCR and physicians fitted the symptoms of various coughs and colds to what the “gold standard test” was telling them. In fact, not a single person had the disease. The positivity in the PCR test was around 15%, but no actual infection was found. 100% of the PCR positives were false. Unrealistically high positivity and no recent, independent confirmation of infection is now the situation in UK.
To the Lighthouse (again)
How can this PCR false positive pseudo-epidemic be occurring? A false positive is simply a positive outcome of a test when the item sought was absent from the original sample (there are a variety of sources of false positives and they are often ignored or confused). Most false positives in PCR occur due to cross-contamination. This can occur if a sample containing the virus is even briefly in contact with a sample not containing the virus. Contamination can and does happen at any of the stages from sample acquisition all the way into the reaction vessel in which the cyclical amplification of PCR takes place. This contamination can include the reference material used to confirm the test run is working, the so-called positive control, itself a piece of synthetic viral RNA. Such positive controls are potent sources of error as they are an intensely concentrated supply of the very material sought in miniscule amounts by the test, right down to a single, broken fragment of virus. Other common sources of contamination are a small number of samples which actually do contain the virus, which almost certainly continues to circulate at low levels and may already have become endemic (like the four, common cold-inducing coronaviruses, OC43, HKU1, 229E and NL63).
It is my opinion, and I am not alone, that industrialized molecular biology PCR mass testing is and always was unfeasible on the scale it’s currently being conducted. With high speed and throughput, something has to give and in this case it’s quality. Here are just a few of the reasons why you should no longer have any faith or confidence in the PCR testing in use in UK. As the drive to industrialize the process proceeded, responsibility for PCR testing was mostly moved into one centralised set of facilities called Lighthouse Labs. I shall describe testimony (for Milton Keynes) and video evidence (Randox in Northern Ireland) which are concordant.
We have horrifyingly clear evidence that the work processes, staffing, lack of quality control and external validation means that this facility cannot work reliably and produce trustworthy testing results. I have spoken at length to the brave scientist who’s blown the whistle on the Milton Keynes super-lab, Dr Julian Harris, who is one of the most experienced lab PCR scientists in the UK. He was been involved in high biosecurity level labs since 1987 and has operated PCR for decades. What’s been missed in the expose is that his concerns are not only with health and safety (though these are important). Almost any building can be adapted to carry out a highly sensitive assay such as PCR, while keeping contamination issues down to a minimum. The problem with the Milton Keynes site is the lack of thought that went into minimising thr risk of contamination of the COVID-19 PCR Assay. To this should be added the fact they have no appropriate biosafety level 2 and contagion expertise on site (as clearly stated in the HSE reports that can be viewed at the foot of Julian Harris’s article for Lockdown Sceptics here). It is this that is a recipe for disaster in terms of the inflation of positive test results by the generation of false positives.
No-one competent is inspecting these facilities, staff processes and results. The only person capable of looking from stem to stern who’s actually done so is Dr Julian Harris and he unequivocally condemns the operation. He highlighted overcrowded, bioinsecure workspaces, the absence of health and safety training, poor safety protocols and a lack of suitable PPE, such as the enforcement of wearing paper-visitor lab coats when handling swab samples in Class II BSCs – was this to cut down on laundry expenses? Handwashing facilities were available, but as the HSE discovered, they were often out of soap, sanitizer and towels, a consequence of personnel not knowing where to go to replenish these supplies.. The Health and Safety Executive was called in (by Dr Harris). Management of the facility failed to answer requests to set up a visit, so eventually, they made unannounced visits in late-September (see letters from the HSE at the base of Dr Harris’s piece). Their visits, which most unusually (and tells us of the degree of concern they felt) were accompanied by HM Inspector of Health and Safety, uncovered safety breaches at the Lighthouse Lab in Milton Keynes.
“I found they’ve got no experience with this sort of facility or handling bio-hazardous materials, and then they’re just launched into this activity,” Dr Harris says of the Milton Keynes team. Dr Harris was so troubled by what he saw that he contacted the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). He saw two people using biosecurity cabinets – enclosed, ventilated workspaces where scientists open the tubes containing the contaminated swabs – which were only calibrated to have protective airflow for one person. “Once you disrupt that [airflow] by overloading plus too much disruption of the veil nearest the operator, you might as well be working on an open bench. It just disrupts the whole reason for a cabinet to protect the operator. And it is really disturbing,” Dr Harris says. He alleges that the lab recruited local young people to work long shifts.
Dr Harris says he saw mobile phones being used in the labs and then taken to the canteen. The HSE visited the Milton Keynes lab and found five material breaches of health and safety legislation. A UK Biocentre manager admitted to the HSE that the training in place did not look “robust enough” for these new recruits. Dr Harris tells me that there was little or no Health and Safety training at all, despite the facility being rated BSL2.
It’s not only procedural issues in the labs that are concerning. With individual PCR tests, the scientist views the change in signal vs cycle and determines whether a test is positive, negative or indeterminate. In high throughput mode, this can only be done by software. Thus, the choice of provider is absolutely crucial to the accuracy and trustworthiness of the output, not only for an individual sample but also at a population level. For reasons not explained, the facility chose a software product which was apparently inferior to another. Why did the Lighthouse Lab choose an inferior product? In the example given, it ‘under-called’ positives but that doesn’t tell you that’s what it does now. What it does tell us is that it’s less reliable at ‘calling’ results. Surely the firm whose product performed better and had already passed regulatory standards would have been the better choice?
Underscoring their problems with staffing, the Lighthouse Lab did have a quality management system (QMS) specialist while Dr Harris worked there. However, that person resigned and, as far as I know, has not yet been replaced with someone of equivalent experience. This will undoubtedly have contributed to continuing failure to be UKAS accredited to ISO 15189, quality and competence in medical laboratories. While this can be seen as voluntary, the customer (Her Majesty’s Government) determines whether or not such accreditation is essential. Given there has never been a medical diagnostic test of such importance in the entire history of the nation, HMG must surely have specified ISO 15189 accreditation. If they have not, that is in my view a severe dereliction of duty. In any case, its absence does not in any way reduce the need to run these critical PCR tests to the highest standards and for the output to be trustworthy.
Separately, though the HSE accreditation doesn’t prove quality and accuracy of the end product, the test results, and that the facility is still not so accredited, indicates a continuing failure to get to grips with the overlapping issues in the lab which directly pertain to end-to-end sample integrity.
This detailed recounting of evidence is not designed to be a teach-in on health and safety, important though that is. It is instead to demonstrate that neither management nor staff have the scrupulous attention to every detail required to ensure sample integrity from end-to-end, which is merely the starting point to have any chance at all to successfully run this delicate and powerful technique, which is notoriously susceptible to cross-contamination of the smallest kind. Although the integrity of the laminar airflow is preserved in the cabinets – simultaneously protecting operator and sample – it does not cater for the overloading of the working area and clogging up the back grates that is dangerous for sample integrity and contagion exposure of personnel.
Micro-pipetting (dispensing volumes ranging from 1ml down to 0.0005ml) relies on highly accurate pipetting devices and their proper use is crucial in any application of molecular biology technologies and it is therefore the case with PCR. These micropipettors are used by personnel throughout the COVID-19 testing process. If misused, that can result not only in the incorrect volume of sample being withdrawn and dispensed into another receptacle, but can be the cause of contaminating test samples. As most staff had little to no PCR experience and in many cases, no experience of professional laboratory work at all, this would contribute to the inaccuracy of the end product – the COVID19 test results. As a hallmark of how low the hiring bar has been set, the Milton Keynes facility has a staff member who carries out ‘pipette training’. Dr Harris commented that even this individual had difficulties in understanding the standing operating procedure used for the pipette training, having come from their previous role of stacking shelves in Tesco’s. Micropipetting is a fundamental skill usually learnt at the beginning of a scientific career. I’ve never heard of such a role anywhere before in 39 years of conducting and supervising laboratory work in UK.
It is imperative that those performing liquid handling in a biofacility comprehensively understand how liquid biosamples can spread by droplets and aerosols. Most importantly, how they can inadvertently contaminate the sample(s) as well as expose the personnel to contagion. These skills must become second-nature – acquired over many months to years – before anyone is allowed to step foot in such a biohazardous environment.
Finally, I asked Dr Harris when, in the sequence of steps, the ‘negative control’ samples were placed. The most vulnerable part of the task to cross-contamination is the bag opening to sample placement in the final, racked tubes, which are then placed into the automated workflow, finally dispensing sample for testing into the PCR plate. Therefore, I expected to be told that there were at least two negative control swab samples (unused with their own bar codes) that were included at this initial stage of the process. One should insert some unused tubes early on, so that, if there was cross-contamination, it would be detected in the final, PCR step.
But no. The sole, negative control that is used at Milton Keynes is virus-free medium, carefully placed into a designated well as part of the first stage of the automated liquid handling process, where simultaneously 0.2ml of each sample is transferred to a well of a 96-well plate, each well containing the virus inactivation buffer. But this bypasses the first steps where cross-contamination may occur – that is, during the initial processing of samples. That’s not only bad scientific technique but, in my view, bad scientific acumen. If I was teaching an undergraduate student, and they came up with this as an experimental design, I would fail them. It’s no wonder that the positivity rate – the percentage of tests which come up positive – is so high as to be literally unbelievable. I’m sure the Lighthouse Lab tells its client that there’s no evidence of cross-contamination, as the negative controls are consistently free of virus. Yet we drive our entire national policy on the strength of this?
There are a small group of large labs which were set up at speed to become “Lighthouse Labs” or “Superlabs”. A second one, the Randox facility in Antrim, Northern Ireland, has been the subject of a Channel 4 Dispatches program. This detailed documentary film centres on this very large, private contract lab testing over 100K COVID-19 samples per day using PCR. Watching this program with an eye of someone experienced in lab procedures related to mass testing (though not this technique) I observed: workers cutting open plastic bags containing swab samples in tubes, some of which had leaked. The scissors were then used to open the next bag and so on. Tubes were wiped externally using a wipe, but the same wipe was used to mop the outsides of several tubes in a row. The tubes were then placed on their sides in a tray, where they were free to roll around and touch other tubes. Workers kept on the same pair of disposable gloves while opening a large number of such bags, one after another. A worker commented that just under 10% of tubes with red caps leaked. Randox stated that it didn’t make the tubes and that a fix was in progress.
Firstly, using scissors or any sharp instruments shouldn’t be used with biohazardous samples in BSL2/3/4 facilities. The exposure of the biosample contents to the air-conditioned room environment, plus the sample fluid contaminating cardboard boxes, is a recipe for disaster and could lead to:
- Cross-contamination between samples
- Cross-contamination between samples and personnel
- Cross-contamination between sample and the room environment
- Exposure of personnel to contagion of unknown origin(s)
A consultant microbiologist, who’d run an NHS pathology lab for 1- years, commented for the film: “If you have a tube which has leaked and is in your unpacking environment, it’s then quite easy for that to get onto other tubes. If the leaked sample was positive, it would cause the other tubes to become positive. These are very sensitive tests we’re using and it’s very easy to get (contamination-related) false positives. We would be shut down if we performed that way”.
Taking Milton Keynes and Randox together, I contend that there was a policy decision to create an expectation in the minds of most people that a ‘second wave’ was expected, and that this would require increased testing capability. The conditions which resulted from these industrialisation attempts (Lighthouse Labs and similar) by virtue of the poor sample handling evidenced in two examples (Milton Keynes, in the same building which houses the U.K. Biobank, and Randox, on a former military base) actively created that ‘second wave’ (of misdiagnosed cases, admissions and deaths). I believe the unavoidable conclusion is that the mechanism whereby large numbers of “cases” were and still are being created is insidious, uncontrolled and undetected cross-contamination during the swab sample processing stages.
I have no doubt that those conducting the manual steps of pipetting are doing their best. But they do not have the skills and experience of this technique, which must be performed repetitively and for hours, while never creating a burst of micro-aerosol as they drive the thumb plunger on the pipette slightly too fast, or creating a micro-splash as they change the disposable tip. They must never contaminate a fingertip of a glove as they open a potentially leaking tube and then touch another. They must never disturb the laminar airflow in the hoods so as to facilitate invisible levels of contamination from one tube to another. There are so many ways in which miniature levels of contamination compromise sample integrity and increase the number of positives, and no one has taught them to avoid them all.
In these two PCR mass testing factories, among the largest, there is now strong evidence of completely inadequate effort to ensure that end-to-end sample integrity is maintained. These are, in my view, simulacra of proper testing facilities. Meanwhile, daily testing capacity has grown considerably, approaching the goal of conducting 500,000 tests by PCR daily.
Criticisms of PCR (again)
Even if the Lighthouse Labs did work from a technical perspective, the Government has admitted that PCR’s characteristics as a test are literally out of control. Lord Bethel confirmed in a written answer that the UK Government does not know the operational false positive rate (OFPR). While the Government claimed it could adopt as an estimate a range from prior related tests (0.8-2.3%) this is tendentious. These earlier tests were done by highly experienced lab scientists working at relatively small scale. Each PCR test will have a unique false positive rate dependant on the design of the test and it cannot be deduced from other tests. The Lighthouse Labs are mostly staffed by young and inexperienced people, many of whom have never previously worked professionally in a lab. It is absurd to suggest the combination of inexperienced staff, coupled with an industrialized process of a technique so sensitive to cross-contamination that such cross-contamination is a routine problem in research labs performed by careful, knowledgeable scientists, could yield reliable, trustworthy results.
I maintain that lack of knowledge of the OFPR alone renders this PCR test in this configuration completely incapable of providing trustworthy results. If this was a diagnostic test in use in the NHS today, no physician would submit a patient sample to it, because it would be impossible to interpret a positive result. Of course, it is a diagnostic test in use today.
In summary, I argue that it is criminally dangerous to drive policy based in any way on this test (set up the way it is) and its results. No amount of argument or prevarication can alter these damning facts.
The entire ‘second wave’ is supported solely on the back of a flawed mass PCR test, which at industrialized scale was never, in my view and the views of others skilled in PCR, capable of delivering trustworthy results. I have detailed the evidence supporting the claim that the autumn PCR test results are not reliably detecting COVID-19 infection. It may seem a leap to damn the PCR test and claim that there isn’t an epidemic but a pseudo-epidemic. But even in the hands of skilled and careful people, the strange phenomenon of the PCR false positive pseudo-epidemic has occurred several times before. In large, industrialised labs, it is very likely that significant and unmeasured cross-contamination related false positive rates are occurring.
The key sign of a PCR false positive pseudo-epidemic is the relative paucity of excess deaths equal to the deaths claimed to be occurring as a result of the lethal infective agent. This key sign is present.
The unprecedented “’second wave’ conundrum is solved. It’s of course not happening, but why a ‘second wave’ was talked up, months before unreliable PCR testing data was brought into service, demands deeper investigation. It’s not a science matter: not unless the team predicting the wave can produce the scientific literature upon which the prediction and modelling was based.
As a reference, I spent over an hour consulting with the owner-manager of a well-run facility in another country, which mainly serves private clients. This person only hires staff to do this kind of work who have at least four years’ experience of PCR, not just of highly competent laboratory experience. These will in almost all cases be post-doctoral students, having already obtained a research-based PhD involving use of PCR techniques.
Those who observe that PCR testing at scale elsewhere seems to run well tell us only that it can be done acceptably if it’s set up carefully. That’s assuming you can trust their results, something to which my research cannot extend. In any case, in no way does that observation undermine any of what I’ve written.
Until we end the use of PCR mass testing, there is no chance that “cases” will reduce to very low levels. Lateral flow tests must become the gold standard test for COVID with PCR only used for confirmatory diagnosis. This will minimise the number of PCR tests that need to be performed allowing testing to return to competent NHS laboratories. Without such an intervention, even if the virus stopped circulating, I believe we’ll still hear of tens of thousands of “cases” every day, and several hundred deaths.
As the above graph clearly shows, there was a notable peak of excess deaths due to SARS-CoV-2 in the spring, but it has not returned. As noted earlier, some excess deaths are now to be expected at very least as a consequence of prolonged and widespread restricted access to the NHS.
So, just one wave, as expected. The ‘secondwave’ of “cases” and even “COVID-19 deaths” are an artefact of flawed testing.
All COVID-19 pandemic propaganda is based on saving old people’s lives, but turns out that they are used as test animals. The idea about it came after I found out that people in care homes are forced to take the COVID-19 vaccine and many die after it. The video below reports that about 25% of the people in care home died while 36 % have severe adverse effects.
There are reports that this is happening in other care homes in Germany and all over the world. https://twitter.com/VanessaGray158/status/1358403396932431881
What is strange from the first look here is that it’s like about 50% die or have severe adverse reactions and 50 % are fine. It has an explanation – the unaffected 50% had a placebo. This is clinical research. All COVID-19 vaccines are in the early clinical trial stage.
The army presence, the lack of care from doctors who administer vaccines and who don’t ask if the person has allergies or takes medications, the force shows something even more dangerous.
Old people weren’t killed, they were culled.
Their eyes were full of fear as a cattle. They weren’t treated as humans. They were violated in the most disgusting way. Their last days were spent in fear and the ones who survived saw it. Care homes personnel are forced to be robots who feed the lab rats or the cattle.
We don’t save the lives of old. We let governments and the World Health Organisation to cull them and deny their basic human rights!
After months of isolation (sterile environment is best for the experiments) and dehumanization, the last point of the plan is done by the help of military in case someone decides to not obey.
People should think about the fact that vaccines for COVID-19 bring billions to many key figures in this world. For them we, the regular people are nothing. Our life is nothing.
We are more than them. We should speak up because the vaccine passports are coming. Forced vaccination is around the corner.
Don’t be fooled by the official reports about the vaccines. Mass vaccination is more than 50 % placebo. To cover up death rate and adverse effects from one side, and to show that since the first “dose” may not work people need second or third.
This is well planned but as every plan has weak points. Every person who questions it is one.
Don’t be afraid! Speak up. Show the video, show the reports, show the links from clinicaltrials.com which you could find below. All COVID-19 vaccines clinical trials will end in 2023!
Janssen COVID-19 vaccine https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04505722
AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04516746
BioNTech – Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04368728
As I explained in a previous blog there is a reason that vaccine research takes time. Several months are not enough. Well tested vaccines are good. I am all for all medical treatment that helps but what happens with COVID-19 vaccines is the opposite. It is criminal!
If you don’t want to be a cattle don’t let it be treated like cattle. Protect vulnerable, but not by staying home. That is what is wanted by the people who earn billions from vaccines: No contacts. No action. Go to the nearest care home and ask questions. Speak up now because soon there wouldn’t be anyone who will for you!
Dr. Michael Yeadon Former Pfizer VP: ‘Your government is lying to you in a way that could lead to your death.’
‘Look out the window, and think, “why is my government lying to me about something so fundamental?” Because, I think the answer is, they are going to kill you using this method. They’re going to kill you and your family.’
Wed Apr 7, 2021 – 8:47 am EST
By Patrick Delaney FOLLOW PATRICK
April 7, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) – Dr. Michael Yeadon, Pfizer’s former Vice President and Chief Scientist for Allergy & Respiratory who spent 32 years in the industry leading new medicines research and retired from the pharmaceutical giant with “the most senior research position” in his field, spoke with LifeSiteNews.
He addressed the “demonstrably false” propaganda from governments in response to COVID-19, including the “lie” of dangerous variants, the totalitarian potential for “vaccine passports,” and the strong possibility we are dealing with a “conspiracy” which could lead to something far beyond the carnage experienced in the wars and massacres of the 20th century.
His main points included:
- There is “no possibility” current variants of COVID-19 will escape immunity. It is “just a lie.”
- Yet, governments around the world are repeating this lie, indicating that we are witnessing not just “convergent opportunism,” but a “conspiracy.” Meanwhile media outlets and Big Tech platforms are committed to the same propaganda and the censorship of the truth.
- Pharmaceutical companies have already begun to develop unneeded “top-up” (“booster”) vaccines for the “variants.” The companies are planning to manufacture billions of vials, in addition to the current experimental COVID-19 “vaccine” campaign.
- Regulatory agencies like the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency, have announced that since these “top-up” vaccines will be so similar to the prior injections which were approved for emergency use authorization, drug companies will not be required to “perform any clinical safety studies.”
- Thus, this virtually means that design and implementation of repeated and coerced mRNA vaccines “go from the computer screen of a pharmaceutical company into the arms of hundreds of millions of people, [injecting] some superfluous genetic sequence for which there is absolutely no need or justification.”
- Why are they doing this? Since no benign reason is apparent, the use of vaccine passports along with a “banking reset” could issue in a totalitarianism unlike the world has ever seen. Recalling the evil of Stalin, Mao, and Hitler, “mass depopulation” remains a logical outcome.
- The fact that this at least could be true means everyone must “fight like crazy to make sure that system never forms.”
Dr. Yeadon began identifying himself as merely a “boring guy” who went “to work for a big drug company … listening to the main national broadcast and reading the broad sheet newspapers.”
Continuing, he said: “But in the last year I have realized that my government and its advisers are lying in the faces of the British people about everything to do with this coronavirus. Absolutely everything. It’s a fallacy this idea of asymptomatic transmission and that you don’t have symptoms, but you are a source of a virus. That lockdowns work, that masks have a protective value obviously for you or someone else, and that variants are scary things and we even need to close international borders in case some of these nasty foreign variants get in.
“Or, by the way, on top of the current list of gene-based vaccines that we have miraculously made, there will be some ‘top-up’ vaccines to cope with the immune escape variants.
“Everything I have told you, every single one of those things is demonstrably false. But our entire national policy is based on these all being broadly right, but they are all wrong.”
‘Conspiracy’ and not just ‘convergent opportunism’
“But what I would like to do is talk about immune escape because I think that’s probably going to be the end game for this whole event, which I think is probably a conspiracy. Last year I thought it was what I called ‘convergent opportunism,’ that is a bunch of different stakeholder groups have managed to pounce on a world in chaos to push us in a particular direction. So it looked like it was kind of linked, but I was prepared to say it was just convergence.”
“I [now] think that’s naïve. There is no question in my mind that very significant powerbrokers around the world have either planned to take advantage of the next pandemic or created the pandemic. One of those two things is true because the reason it must be true is that dozens and dozens of governments are all saying the same lies and doing the same inefficacious things that demonstrably cost lives.
“And they are talking the same sort of future script which is, ‘We don’t want you to move around because of these pesky varmints, these “variants”’— which I call ‘samiants’ by the way, because they are pretty much the same — but they’re all saying this and they are all saying ‘don’t worry, there will be “top-up” vaccines that will cope with the potential escapees.’ They’re all saying this when it is obviously nonsense.”
Possible end game: vaccine ‘passports’ tied to spending allowances, thorough control
“I think the end game is going to be, ‘everyone receives a vaccine’… Everyone on the planet is going to find themselves persuaded, cajoled, not quite mandated, hemmed-in to take a jab.
“When they do that every single individual on the planet will have a name, or unique digital ID and a health status flag which will be ‘vaccinated,’ or not … and whoever possesses that, sort of single database, operable centrally, applicable everywhere to control, to provide as it were, a privilege, you can either cross this particular threshold or conduct this particular transaction or not depending on [what] the controllers of that one human population database decide. And I think that’s what this is all about because once you’ve got that, we become playthings and the world can be as the controllers of that database want it.
“For example, you might find that after a banking reset that you can only spend through using an app that actually feeds off this [database], your ID, your name, [and] your health status flag.”
“And, yes, certainly crossing an international border is the most obvious use for these vaccine passports, as they are called, but I’ve heard talk of them already that they could be necessary for you to get into public spaces, enclosed public spaces. I expect that if they wanted to, you would not be able to leave your house in the future without the appropriate privilege on your app.
“But even if that’s not [the] true [intent of the vaccine campaign], it doesn’t matter, the fact that it could be true means everyone [reading] this should fight like crazy to make sure that [vaccine passport] system never forms.”
“[With such a system], here is an example of what they could make you do, and I think this is what they’re going to make [people] do.
“You could invent a story that is about a virus and its variations, its mutations over time. You could invent the story and make sure you embed it through the captive media, make sure that no one can counter it by censoring alternative sources, then people are now familiar with this idea that this virus mutates, which it does, and that it produces variants, which is true [as well], which could escape your immune system, and that’s a lie.
“But, nevertheless, we’re going to tell you it’s true, and then when we tell you that it’s true and we say ‘but we’ve got the cure, here’s a top-up vaccine,’ you’ll get a message, based on this one global, this one ID system: ‘Bing!’ it will come up and say ‘Dr. Yeadon, time for your top-up vaccine. And, by the way,’ it will say ‘your existing immune privileges remain valid for four weeks. But if you don’t get your top-up vaccine in that time, you will unfortunately detrimentally be an “out person,” and you don’t want that, do you?’ So, that’s how it’ll work, and people will just walk up and they’ll get their top-up vaccine.”
Gov’t lies, Big Pharma moves forward, medicine regulators get out of the way, and possible ‘mass-depopulation’
“But I will take you through this, Patrick, because I am qualified to comment. I don’t know what Vanden Bossche is about. There was no possibility at all, based on all of the variants that are in the public domain, 4000 or so of them, none of them are going to escape immunity [i.e. become more dangerous].
“Nevertheless, politicians and health advisers (to loads of governments) are saying that they are. They’re lying. Well, why would you do that?
“Here’s the other thing, in parallel, pharmaceutical companies have said, several of them, it will be quite easy for us to adjust our gene-based vaccines, and we can hasten them through development, and we can help you.
“And here’s the real scary part, global medicines regulators like [the U.S. Food and Drug Administration] FDA, the Japanese medicines agency, the European Medicines Agency, have gotten together and announced … since top-up vaccines will be considered so similar to the ones that we have already approved for emergency use authorization, we are not going to require the drug companies to perform any clinical safety studies.
“So, you’ve got on the one hand, governments and their advisers that are lying to you that variants are different enough from the current virus that, even if you’re immune from natural exposure or vaccination, you’re a risk and you need to come and get this top-up vaccine. So, I think neither of those are true. So why is the drug company making the top-up vaccines? And [with] the regulators having got out of the way — and if Yeadon is right, and I’m sure I am or I wouldn’t be telling you this — you go from the computer screen of a pharmaceutical company into the arms of hundreds of millions of people, some superfluous genetic sequence for which there is absolutely no need or justification.
“And if you wanted to introduce a characteristic which could be harmful and could even be lethal, and you can even tune it to say ‘let’s put it in some gene that will cause liver injury over a nine-month period,’ or, cause your kidneys to fail but not until you encounter this kind of organism [that would be quite possible]. Biotechnology provides you with limitless ways, frankly, to injure or kill billions of people.
“And since I can’t think of a benign explanation for any of the steps: variants, top-up vaccines, no regulatory studies… it’s not only that I cannot think of a benign explanation, the steps described, and the scenario described, and the necessary sort of resolution to this false problem is going to allow what I just described: unknown, and unnecessary gene sequences injected into the arms of potentially billions of people for no reason.
“I’m very worried … that pathway will be used for mass depopulation, because I can’t think of any benign explanation.”
‘Absurdly impossible’ variants will escape immunity, ‘just a lie’
“If I can show you that one major thing that governments around the world are telling the people is a lie, you should take my 32 years of experienced opinion that says, most of it, if not all of it, is a lie.”
“The most different variant is only 0.3% different from the original sequence as emailed out of Wuhan in … January 2020. 0.3% [is] the one [variant] that is the most different on the planet so far. And now another way of saying it is, ‘all of the variants are not less than 99.7% identical to each other.’
“Now, you might be thinking, ‘hmm, .3%, is that enough [to escape immunity and become more dangerous]?’ The answer is no. Get away, ya know, get out of here …
“The human immune system is a thing of wonder. What it does is when it faces a new pathogen like this, you’ve got professional cells, they’re called professional antigen-presenting cells —they’re kind of rough tough things that tend not to succumb to viruses. And their job is to grab foreign things in the near environment and tear them limb from limb [inside the cell]. They really cut them up into hundreds of pieces. And then they present these pieces on the surfaces of their cell to other bits of your immune system, and amazingly, because of the variability that God and nature gave you, huge variability to recognize foreign things, and your body ends up using 15 to 20 different specific motifs that it spots about this virus. They’re called epitopes, basically they’re just like little photographs of the details about this virus. That’s what they do. And that is what is called your repertoire, your immune repertoire is like 20 different accurate photographs, close-ups, of different bits of this virus.
“Now, if a tiny piece of the virus changes, like the .3% I’ve just described, if you are reinfected by that variant, your professional cells tear into that virus and cut it into pieces, present them again, and lo and behold, most of the pieces that you have already seen and recognized, are still there in the variants.
“There is absolutely no chance that all of them will fail to be recognized and that is what is required for immune escape, to escape your immunity. It must present to you as a new pathogen. It must be sufficiently different that, when it is cut up by your professional checker cells, it won’t find mostly the same thing it has seen before. And that is just absurdly impossible when you have only varied .3%, so it is 99.7% (similar).
“And before them, coming from my theoretical understanding of multi-locus immunity, which is what I just badly tried to describe, to what actually happens … If your [immune system] is presented with something that contains even half of those similar pieces, there is no way your body will say, ‘that’s a new pathogen.’
“And, so, the idea that 0.3% could even have a chance of getting around immunity is just a lie. It’s not [even] like an opinion difference.
“I don’t think 3% would be enough. That’s 10 times more variation than has occurred in 16 months [with this virus]. I don’t even think 30% difference would be enough. So, I’m saying that 100 times more variation than has actually happened, would still leave me putting a big bet on the human immune system not being fooled that these are new pathogens.
“I’ve chatted this over with several professors of immunology and they agreed with me, it’s like, ‘why are you asking me this?’
“So, I think that what I’ve just said is that governments and their advisors in multiple countries are lying about variants. That’s a massive thing! You should check it out. Your readers should check it out. If it’s true, don’t you think it’s terrifying?! It was when I realized it.
“So, they’re lying about variants, and then, of course, since [the variants] are not really different, you do not need a ‘top-up’ vaccine. Now you should be getting the hairs on the back of your neck up, because they are making them right now!”
“They are making billions of vials of it. And they will be available by the end of the year.
“And I think they’ll require people to first, be on the vaccine passport one-world database, and then it will roll up into the top-ups, and if it takes a bit longer it will take a bit longer.
“But this is not going away. It won’t go away until enough people, if they ever do, say ‘you’re a bunch of frauds and we are taking our freedoms back, so you can just stop doing this.’
“Because one person shouting into the wilderness and all of the other academics looking the other way, will have us just going down this pipe maybe a week later than if I hadn’t said anything, but we’re still going down to hell.
“So, that’s why I’m frightened.
“The variants aren’t different. I call them ‘samiants’… they’re pretty much the same. They’re not different. Therefore, you don’t need a top-up vaccine, so don’t go near any of them.”
‘Why is my government lying to me?’ Because ‘they are going to kill you.’
“[And if you recognize that our governments are involved in a major verifiable lie], don’t just turn your computer off and go to supper. Stop. Look out the window, and think, ‘why is my government lying to me about something so fundamental?’ Because, I think the answer is, they are going to kill you using this method. They’re going to kill you and your family.
“The eugenicists have got hold of the levers of power and this is a really artful way of getting you to line-up and receive some unspecified thing that will damage you. I have no idea what it will actually be, but it won’t be a vaccine because you don’t need one. And it won’t kill you on the end of the needle because you would spot that.
“It could be something that will produce normal pathology, it will be at various times between vaccination and the event, it will be plausibly deniable because there will be something else going on in the world at that time, in the context of which your demise, or that of your children will look normal.
“That’s what I would do if I wanted to get rid of 90 or 95% of the world’s population. And I think that’s what they’re doing.”
“Now I don’t know [for certain] that they’re going to use that [system] to kill you, but I can’t think of a benign reason, and with that power they certainly could harm you, or control you, so you should object [and strenuously oppose it].”
People can’t deal with this level of evil, but Soviets, Hitler, Mao show its possibility
“It’s become absolutely clear to me, even when I talk to intelligent people, friends, acquaintances … and they can tell I’m telling them something important, but they get to the point [where I say] ‘your government is lying to you in a way that could lead to your death and that of your children,’ and they can’t begin to engage with it. And I think maybe 10% of them understand what I said, and 90% of those blank their understanding of it because it is too difficult. And my concern is, we are going to lose this, because people will not deal with the possibility that anyone is so evil…
“But I remind you of what happened in Russia in the 20th Century, what happened in 1933 to 1945, what happened in, you know, Southeast Asia in some of the most awful times in the post-war era. And, what happened in China with Mao and so on.
“We’ve only got to look back two or three generations. All around us there are people who are as bad as the people doing this. They’re all around us. So, I say to folks, the only thing that really marks this one out, is its scale.
“But actually, this is probably less bloody, it’s less personal, isn’t it? The people who are steering this … it’s going to be much easier for them. They don’t have to shoot anyone in the face. They don’t have to beat someone to death with a baseball bat, or freeze them, starve them, make them work until they die. All of those things did happen two or three generations back and our grandparents or great grandparents were either victims of this, or they were actually members of it, or at least they witnessed it from overseas. That’s how close we are.
“And all I’m saying is, some shifts like that are happening again, but now they are using molecular biology.
“And the people going along with it, I think they would probably say, ‘I was only following orders,’ which we have heard before.
“But I know, because I have talked to lots of people, and some of them have said ‘I don’t want to believe that you are right, so I’m going to just put it away because if it is true, I can’t handle it.’ And I think … all you need to do is find a good reason to tell people, ‘Don’t take the vaccine unless you’re a medical risk of dying from the virus!’ That seems to me a pretty good line!”
Towards a solution – ‘We need God’
“I’m a scientist, and I can tell you, talking to non-scientists, using science as a tool, will not work. It will fail.
“So, we need philosophers, people who understand logic, religion, something like that, [they have] got to wrestle with this, and start talking in a language people will understand. Because if we leave it with scientists, people like me, even though I’m well-intentioned, I’m a gabbling alien as far as most people in the street are concerned. They won’t believe the government will lie to them, they don’t believe the government would ever do anything that will harm them, but they are [doing such things].”
Finally, in an email correspondence, Dr. Yeadon concluded, “I have latest taken to signing off with ‘May God save us’, because I think we need God now more than at any time since WW2.”
LifeSiteNews has produced an extensive COVID-19 vaccines resources page. View it here.
For a medicine or vaccine to be considered safe, the expected benefits will be greater than the risk of having harmful reactions. It is important to note that most people take medicines and vaccines without having any serious side effects.