Retracing Former Pfizer Exec Yeadon
"the swine flu pandemic was one of the greatest medicine scandals of the century — and it shares many similarities with the covid-19 pandemic"
Michael Yeadon, PhD, is the former vice-president and chief scientific adviser for Pfizer. He is also the founder and CEO of the biotech company Ziarco and has become one of the world’s most prominent critics of the covid-19 shots and mandates over the last year and a half.
Yeadon has degrees in biochemistry and toxicology and studied respiratory pharmacology.
In short, it is an understatement to say the guy is qualified - spending 32 years working in biotech and Big Pharma.
As Yeadon explains his particular area of speciality, “I understand … inside of cells and how cells and tissues talk to each other, and how dangerous chemicals can affect and injure humans and others.”
Back in June, Yeadon sat down with Maajid Nawaz. During the interview, he laid down some bold statements and telling revisions.
One of the most enlightening segments came when Yeadon detailed what happened prior to covid with the 2009 swine flu pandemic. The events that proceeded, he said, laid the foundations for what was to come with the governmental response to covid.
During the swine flu pandemic, the likes of Germany, Britain, Italy, and France made secret agreements with the pharmaceutical industry to purchase vaccinations. But this would only occur if a level 6 pandemic was declared.
In due course, that level was declared. However, it wasn’t declared under the historical pandemic definition but a new one the WHO drew up by changing the “severity and high mortality criteria” - leaving just the “epidemic of a disease” part in. In other words, the WHO manipulated the prior rules of engagement allowing pharmaceutical companies to satiate their green-eyed appetite.
This switch allowed the WHO to declare swine flu a pandemic after only 144 people had died from the infection worldwide. Testing programs followed.
This is where Yeadon got to the tasty part.
Per Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg’s research, the prior head of health at the Council of Europe, he explained:
“They misused PCR, they over-diagnosed cases, they twisted the arms of governments all around the world to pay for billion of dollars worth of vaccines, and not very good antivirals.
And then they all ran off. And Wodarg was the one that managed to point out in the second season that it was a false positive pseudo epidemic. It was all bad PCR testing. And as soon as they fix the PCR, it all went away. All went away.”
The PCR scandal appears to have lost focus in recent months. Perhaps because most commentators are fixated (rightly) by the staggering jabbed vs unjabbed hospitalisations (our friend over at Dystopian Down Under has been brilliant at highlighting these in Australia).
Back to the PCRs (polymerase chain reaction). The evidence suggests that the tests are not effective in diagnosing infectious diseases. Overly sensitive, they amplify readings so much that they even pick up the remains of a dead virus, long after infection. Even the likes of the Washington Post touched on this when they claimed over-testing of the vaccinated skewed case numbers.
Additionally, back in February 2020, according to NPR, an internal review at the CDC confirmed covid tests could be wrong 33% of the time – but they dished them out all across the country anyway. James Bethell, one of England’s health ministers, relayed similar concerns back in 2020 also highlighting issues with lateral flow tests.
Take Kary Mullis’s words, the inventor of the PCR test, as Yeadon reiterated:
“And the reason is … that the PCR test has a theoretical lower limit, that is, what’s the smallest amount it might detect and give a positive result, the smallest amount is one, one virus, one piece of a virus.
… And then basically, every time you run a cycle of this polymerase chain reaction, like cranking a handle, it gets hot and cold, hot and cold, and it goes through basically a doubling, every cycle is a doubling …
So basically, if there’s an infinitesimally tiny amount of a piece of a virus, or the sequence you allege is a virus, in the sample, and then you run it 40 cycles, you could get a positive result even though there’s only one piece of one virus — not enough to make you ill, not enough to make you infectious.”
Some of you might remember the cycle threshold debacle.
Then we come to the spike protein in both the mRNA Pfizer-BioNTech and the Moderna jab as well as the Janssen/Johnson and the AstraZeneca jabs (although the spike protein in the latter comes about in a different way via viral vector).
The key problem Yeadon has with the spike protein is that it’s been known for more than 10 years that it causes adverse effects in humans. Clarifying its nonnecessity, he states, “90% of the immune response to COVID are two bits of the virus that are not spike protein. So I think I am right that that was not the best bit to give, because it’s not the thing your body likes to respond to.”
On top of this, Yeadon asserts that the protein mutates rapidly, which, in turn, opens up a pool of potential side effects. Among these are engineered immune responses to human proteins, which is otherwise known as an autoimmune response.
Where commentators might say Yeadon jumps over the cliff is where he says this was all intentional:
“So just to say, again, you deselect things that are toxic in their own right, you pick things that are genetically stable, and you pick things that are most different from humans, all three of those, in the words of patents, they teach away, they will teach you away from picking spike protein.
But guess what? Moderna picks spike protein and so does Pfizer, and AstraZeneca, and Johnson & Johnson. So I put it to you, colleagues, any scientists out there or just logical people. How the hell would they pick?
No team I was ever part of would ever have picked bloody spike protein for this vaccine. And you know, what, if we did, and we have competing groups, we would not, all four of us, make the same mistake. Not possible. It’s collusion and malfeasance. They did it on purpose, knowing it would hurt you.”
Taking these remarks at face value, this makes Moderna look particularly wicked. Before Covid, the company was in dire straits bleeding investors, as constant safety concerns about its mRNA delivery system threatened its entire product pipeline. The subsequent emergency authorisations made those concerns largely vanish like smoke in the air.
You can watch the full interview here:
