Dr. Michael Yeadon is a virologist and former Pfizer executive who has gone public with his opposition to the central narratives of the Coronamadness. He says that the Wuhan Coronavirus is not the ultra-deadly virus that it is made out to be, and that there is no need for masks and lockdowns, and especially no need for an antibody-generating mRNA “vaccine” against it. He makes a point of warning against the dangers of the proposed “booster” COVID vaccines are already being touted as necessary.
Dr. Yeadon believes that we have been systematically lied to concerning COVID-19 by the media, major medical foundations, and our elected leaders. His hypothesis is that the goal of “vaccination” is long-term population reduction.
It goes without saying that the following talk by Dr. Yeadon is not available on YouTube. This copy was posted on Rumble by Planet Lockdown:
Update: Here’s a Bitchute embed, hat tip Vlad:
If you have bandwidth issues, as I do, you probably have trouble getting Rumble or Bitchute videos to play for more than a few seconds at a time. Fortunately, Anne-Kit (who some years ago did Danish translations for Gates of Vienna) has gone to immense trouble to transcribe the entire talk. We owe a debt of gratitude to her for undertaking this enormous task.
Hi, my name is Dr. Mike Yeadon. I’m a qualified life science researcher, really. I have a First Degree in biochemistry and toxicology, and I have a research-based PhD in respiratory pharmacology, and I’ve worked for 32 years, mostly in big pharmaceutical companies and 10 years in the biotechnology sector. So, in my last job in Big Pharma, I was the Vice President and Chief Scientist of Allergy and Respiratory Research. I left Pfizer in 2011 and after that I founded, grew, and sold a biotech company called Ziarco, to Novartis. That was 2017 and so before that and afterwards an independent advisor to over 30 startup biotechnology companies. So, you would expect from that that I am pro-new medicines of all kinds — our goals always were to address unmet medical needs, and to do so with acceptable safety given the medical context. And I’m in favour of all new medical treatments, whether they are biologicals or vaccines, small molecule creams, sprays ointments, whatever.
But I’m fervently against unsafe medicines or medicines used in inappropriate contexts, and so some of the things I am going to say are not favourable to the current crop of gene-based vaccines, and it is for that reason: That they are being inappropriately used and I don’t think they have sufficient safety profiles to be used as a sort of wide spectrum public health prophylactic.
As a result of that background in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology … I am pro-new medical entities that treat and meet a need and do so safely, and that is true whether the entity is a vaccine or a biological … like an antibody, or if it’s what I would call a small molecule therapy like a pill or a tablet.
But I am anti-unsafe medicines regardless of what format they are. And so, my criticisms sometimes fall onto unsafe small molecule substances and sometimes on unsafe vaccines. But I’m generally pro-new medicines as long as they are safe and effective and used appropriately, and I’m anti the opposite of those things.
A few things, I think, have allowed me to spot what’s going on in the world at the moment. I do have, I would say, two big advantages: One: I’ve loved biology since I was little, and this year marks the 40th year I’ve been studying, continuing to learn and to apply biology broadly, whether it’s pharmacology, biochemistry, microbiology, or toxicology. And so, I’ve got a very broad grounding in all things to do with life science in terms of health and disease. One of my former supervisors said that I had a remarkable facility that stood out above ordinary things you’d have to do to be a vice president or a CEO. And he said that I was able to spot patterns in sparse data earlier than my peers did. So, when there was not enough data for most people to judge what was going on I would often be able to see it — I could see a pattern forming when there wasn’t quite enough information. And really, I guess I was running a lot of simulations in my head and trying to work out: What could these small bits of information mean? Rather than waiting for more data, it’s … “my word, I think I know what’s happening here!”. And that sometimes could be applied to, say, target selection industry or how we should prosecute a program or what the competition was doing.
But on this occasion, it allowed me quite quickly to work out that what we were being told about this virus and what we needed to do in order to stay safe was simply not true. For example, early on in the UK there were enormous changes made in attribution of causes of death. So, we’ve never had anything as absurd as the rule that is now used, so if you should die within 28 days of having a positive result [of Covid?] in an inappropriate test using microbiology, then you would be declared to have died of Covid-19. That’s just wrong! It’s not just a matter of disagreeing professionally, it’s just complete nonsense and we can certainly talk about the unreliability and untrustworthy nature of PCR testing. But also, things like “lockdown”, I mean just the phrase of it and the fact that it was completely unprecedented, and that basically we were to minimize contact with one another and that that was going to save us. I knew quite early on that that was rubbish, and the reason why is simple: that only people who are ill and have symptoms are really strong, infectious risks to other people, and those people who are not walking around in the community. Because if you are full of virus and symptomatic you are also ill, and ill people tend to stay at home or in bed, or if they are very serious, they end up in hospital or die. And so, the idea that if you cut normal contact at work and just civic society in your normal economy — that that would slow the epidemic spreading — I was fairly sure early on that that was bunk. Unfortunately, it took several months before that was clear, by which time the idea that lockdown is what you need to do had been pretty much cemented in most of the world.
So basically, everything your government has told you about this virus, about everything you need to do to stay safe is a lie. Every part of it, and I’ll be challenged on that. Literally there are none of the key themes that you hear talked about, from asymptomatic transmission to top-up vaccines: Not one of those things is supported by the science. Every piece is a cleverly chosen adjacency to something that probably IS true, but is itself a lie, and has led people to where I believe we are right now. And I don’t normally use phrases like these, but I think we are standing at the very gates of Hell.
Yeah, when I first heard the phrase “lockdown”, for example, I — I hope like most people — I thought “this is a phrase you’d use in relation to controlling people like unruly prisoners — it’s a control measure”. And pretty much all that has happened since is to do with control. This myth about asymptomatic transmission, this is simply not true. As I mentioned earlier, in order to transmit a virus, to be a good source of transmission of infection you have to have a lot of virus, and if you have a lot of virus in you the virus is attacking you and you are fighting back. That process produces symptoms inevitably. Not just occasionally, it must always happen. So, all the people who are very good sources of the infection are ill. So, the whole idea of asymptomatic transmission — I would think that if it occurs at all it’s like 1% or 0.1% as good as a strong infectious case.
So, by the time we got to the third main theme of this virus and how to control it I knew I was being lied to all the time by government, scientists — their advisers — by ministers, people on TV. And I’m afraid that impression has simply firmed up as time has gone on. And so, it’s all about control. Obviously, I have my own thoughts about what that control is going to be used for, and I certainly want to communicate that to your listeners and viewers.
I remember one of the things I started doing early on, because I understood it quite well, was to publicly criticize the PCR or Polymerase Chain-reaction Test, because I knew enough about it. I’m not a molecular biology specialist but I’ve hired people who are, and I understand how PCR works, this idea of developing primers, or baits, as it were, for the thing you’re trying to detect. And then to amplify, repeatedly — potentially up to a trillion-fold. People would be pretty familiar, I think, with the idea of DNA testing that would be used for forensic purposes. And I point out to them that PCR tests use most of the same technology. And imagine if you were preparing for a trial, and you were able with your attorney to show the judge the conditions under which PCR testing was being done: Relatively inexperienced lab staff doing hundreds of thousands of pipetting actions a day, in the same laboratory. And you said “Look, you’re one of a … my client’s sample is one of those on the bench there. There might be cross contamination, in fact I suspect that it’s inevitable. But you’ll get the result shortly”. I mean, the judge would just throw the entire evidence set out of court, and rightly so. But it’s the same technology that’s being used to work out whether your sample or that of a family member or someone in your community is or is not positive for this virus. It’s completely fraudulent the way it is being done. You simply cannot run a technique like that at industrial scale and expect the results to be meaningful. And they’re not, I don’t think they’ve ever been meaningful.
One of the frauds our government and the people they’ve hired to run the testing they’ve done is they’ve refused to entertain the idea that there is something called a false positive rate. I assure you that if you run any diagnostic test repeatedly, sometimes there’ll be a positive result when there’s nothing in the sample. It’s called a false positive. False negatives also occur but let’s focus on false positives. We don’t really know if that’s going to occur ½% of the time, 4% of the time — this is enormously material to telling you whether there’s lots of infection in your community or pretty much none at all. But you will find that nowhere in the world has anyone measured and released, often what’s called this false positive rate. You should disregard all announcements about case rates in your community. Because they’re completely fraudulent: You cannot run a medical diagnostic test without those checks being run ‘in situ’ every time.
And so, I argue that repeatedly and what I would find that what I was getting was censorship, insults, I mean really quite unpleasant stuff on things like Twitter. People would be assigned to come and write up insults and bad and hateful things about you. There’s no way people were prepared to engage scientifically, and I’ll tell you what that did: Very quickly it caused less confident and less angry people to stop commenting. And I think that was the point of it. And as time went on, I found that when I talked to fellow scientists — often retired scientists or academics, people I grew up with and who now hold chairs in immunology — they would agree with me privately that PCR testing as it was being done was completely nonsense and fraudulent, that the attribution of deaths in the way we’ve done it is completely stupid; lockdown clearly was irrational and probably killing lots of people. But the difference was they were not willing to say anything in public because they said: “It’s been intimated that the authorities and the universities don’t want us to challenge the government narrative or that of its advisors, so we’re not.”
And that’s what happened. We ended up with people looking the other way. And the more they look the other way, the fewer people there were like me, and so eventually I became noteworthy as “that bloke who keeps saying things, that scientist who keeps challenging.” Then it was quite easy for them to write smear stories about me, call me an antivaxxer, you know, suggest I’d lost my mind or gone off the rails, because if you’re a viewer you don’t have to listen to me if I’m one of those things. But I assure you I’m none of those things. And the reason I’m commenting is because I believe it’s not just my life but more importantly that of my children and grandchildren that are being stolen from us by a systematic process of fear and control that’s going to culminate in, I think, some very horrible times, and I am desperate to wake you up.
When your government lies to you once or twice, we’re probably quite used to politicians occasionally telling white lies, and we kind of let them. But when they lie to you about something technical, something you can check, and they do so repeatedly over months, and they do it over many, many elements of the same events, please, you’ve got to believe me: They are not telling the truth, and if they’re not telling the truth that means there’s something else afoot, and I’m here today to say that there’s something very, very bad happening and if you don’t pay attention you will soon lose any chance to do anything about it. Don’t say you weren’t warned because I’ve been warning people as long as I can and as hard as I can that you can still, right now, take your normal society back: You can take it back tomorrow. You don’t need masks, they don’t work. Forget lockdowns, they never slow transmission, which took place mostly in institutions like hospitals and care homes. You don’t need to be vaccinated by inadequately tested and somewhat dangerous gene based, spike protein inducing proteins. And you don’t need to do what you’re told by corrupt scientists who are apparently advising our government.
If you don’t do that in the next few weeks, it will be over. I believe it will get to a point of a so-called vaccine passport. I think we would have got to a point where it’s too late to take it back and you will regret it.
Government policy from the beginning, before even the virus arrived in our country, has turned decades of understanding of how to protect people from infectious diseases on its head. We’ve never used lockdowns before, and a good reason for that is because it’s not effective. I’ve just explained that: You need to be symptomatic in order to be infectious. So, what we do is we quarantine the sick. We’ve always done that! We quarantine the sick because that’s how you avoid infecting, you know, the wider population. So, the idea of quarantining the well, this so-called lockdown, is a new invention and it has no foundation whatsoever either in science or in the history of controlling epidemics. Also, mass testing of people without symptoms has no underpinning in science at all. It’s just a way of frightening people, and this idea that you can be ill even if you have no symptoms, and that you can be a virus threat to someone else even if you have no symptoms, that’s also invented in 2020. There’s simply no history of it and it defies common sense as well. So, most people probably are aware when I tell them: You’ve got an incredibly good facility for noticing, as you walk towards somebody, whether they represent a health threat to you. You can tell just from the way they posture, how they are moving, have they got symptoms, eyes, nose and so on, and if they do you instinctively move around them. And if you think about it that goes right back to pre-history where one of the things that could kill you in winter was catching a respiratory virus, perhaps being disabled for a few days, that might be enough to kill you, even if you were fit and well that might be enough to kill you.
So, there’s a strong evolutionary advantage for us to be highly aware of whether or not someone is a threat to you. And the fact that we’re very good at that should tell you that they are reliable guides as to whether or not someone is a threat to you. So, if they’re not symptomatic they’re not going to infect you with the flu. They might stab you or hit you on the head but they’re not going to give you a chest infection that could kill you. And yet time and time again: Lockdown and asymptomatic transmission, use of high multiplication molecular biology tools, just over and over again, wearing masks. All of these things have either never been used before or we already know that they didn’t work. And so just piecing them together: You can go and check these things in five minutes if you haven’t done so already, but when the government lies to you for a few weeks and then this extends to a few months and then for over a year… come on, this is a respiratory virus, they say, that’s slightly worse in the elderly and the already ill than is flu. It’s definitely less serious to those that are young and fit than is influenza, that’s clear from the published literature of Covid-19. So why is it you’re still hiding from a threat to YOUR health — let’s say you’re the working population — that is less of a threat than influenza, and you’re still being told to run away and hide after, oh, I don’t know, 15 months, 14 months, or something like that. You MUST know that this is completely inappropriate and something else is happening.
The point is: I am a scientist. I’m not any good at what I’m doing right now. I have no training whatsoever in how to talk to people who are not scientists. But I would say: I’m a professional scientist, I’ve done well, I’ve really enjoyed my career and I’ve… No one is paying me to do this, I am receiving absolutely nothing except criticism, social isolation from my peers, so I would tell you the reason you can trust what I tell you is sincere is that I’m PAYING to do this. I have lost work, I have had people I’ve known for decades no longer want to speak to me, so I’m very sincere in what I’m doing. I’m warning you that governments around the world and certainly yours locally are lying to you in various ways that are easy for you to establish. If you choose NOT to do that there’s nothing someone like me can do about it, OK? You’ve been subject to propaganda and lies by people who are very well trained in how they do that, and I’m a complete amateur.
So, I’m simply telling you that if you want to check any one of the things I’ve said, you will find it to be true, and I would point out to you that if you find one thing that your government has said that is clearly not true, I will ask you this: Why would you believe anything else they’ve told you? Don’t you think that retired Pfizer guy might have something after all that I can show you, and I’m going to show you a few things that you can go and check. And if I’m right — and I am — then I beg of you to no longer assume what you’re being told is true. That’s the best I can do for you. I can’t overwhelm, I can’t sweep away a year of highly accurately done propaganda by people who are lying to you but I can … all I can do is point out that they’re lying to you, and we’ll go through a number of examples and really in the end it’s up to you: If you would like to stand behind the desk called “Comfortable Lies” there’s absolutely, which is the one I’m sitting behind, then welcome: I’d like to help you.
One of the reasons I went into the commercial sector early on was that I wanted to do applied research. I wanted to be a part of teams that would hopefully find new cures, very much. I’ve always liked applied research: How things work, why they sometimes don’t and what you could do about that. That’s the love of my life. But I’ve had some peers of mine who wanted to do “blue sky” research, and back in ’80s I guess they could do that; they could maybe get a position at a university and apply for grants, and then they could literally pursue things they thought were interesting, and if they made good progress that would often attract more funding. So, THEY were driving the research. The pharmaceutical industry, now as much as it ever was, still wants to pursue applied research, so some of the methods have changed but the objective is still pretty much as it was when I joined in the ’80s. But my academic friends report things are very different for them in universities. These days the major funding bodies are still governments, but they tend to decide, sort of directional themes, often agreed internationally, and basically if your research falls into one of those themes you might get funded, and if it doesn’t you literally will be starved out. Because the only other sources of funding are large private institutions. So, in Britain for example, the biggest one is the Medical Research Council, which is basically public money, and the next one is the Wellcome Trust which is a very large endowment and is used to drive research that’s of interest to its management. And so basically over time, and more recently, academic researchers pretty much have to toe the line, so if there are certain thematic areas that are being pursued by private funding or endowments and scholarships and so on that comes from private foundations, those are the areas you have to work in. And it becomes quite difficult. Independent research is not only not supported, it’s often not tolerated. And that makes … I think it has made them very easily persuaded, shall we say, over the last year, to do what they are told and most importantly — I have spotted this many times — they won’t contest the Covid narrative. So, over the last 3 months I have spoken to eight professors at UK universities whose disciplines include immunology, and I’ve discussed with them what I’m going to tell you about virus variants. And they’ve all agreed with my interpretation. None of them will say anything. And it’s because I won’t get a grant from the Wellcome Trust or the Medical Research Council as suggested. I won’t get grants if I speak about this stuff. So, I want you to know that the academics in your country are easily pushed around, frankly, by both politicians and by people with lots of money.
Then in summary the main change I have noticed over the last probably 40 years really, is that university research has moved away from being directed mostly by heads of departments in individual researches and to be now much more directed from the centre; from governments and from those that provide most of the grant funding. And it’s to be regretted, I think. There are obviously some advantages: It means that the resources of a country do get focused in certain areas, and who is to say that they are not the right ones. But the key thing to note is that the academics are no longer independent. So, if you expect the university professor to be knowledgeable — yeah, they probably are — but if you expect them to be honest and independent then you’re naïve, because they’ve got to pay attention to where their… who’s buttering their bread, who’s providing their funding and they’re not able to be independent anymore. Probably the only people you’re going to find who are truly independent are former biotechnology CEOs: people like me. I’m not a member of any club; nobody pays me. And maybe some retired academics. Most of them still won’t speak out because they still have connections that are in their old departments. They may have an emeritus position. So, there are very, very few truly independent people and the rest are, you know, subject to the influences you would expect whose money comes from a very small number of causes and it’s quite different from a few years… from a few decades ago.
So, one of the really seriously misleading and upsetting themes that you hear very often is the implication, perhaps even the statement that what gives you immunity to something, to some infectious disease is whether you’ve got antibodies to that thing. And I think they have done that because most people think that antibodies are what confers immunity. And certainly, antibodies are quite important against certain infections, certainly bacterial infections; if you don’t have antibodies, it certainly can be quite difficult. That’s not the only part of your immunity, and importantly, immunity to viruses doesn’t really rely on antibodies at all. And I’ll just explain why that is: Viruses are really tiny things, REALLY tiny. And their business is to get as quickly as they can inside your cells. So, they bind themselves to a receptor on the cell and inject themselves into your cells. They’re inside. Antibodies are big molecules and they’re generally outside your cells, just think about that for a moment: Antibodies and viruses are in separate compartments — viruses are inside the cell, antibodies are outside the cell. So, I’m not saying antibodies have NO role at all, but they’re really not very important and this has been proven: There are some people in whom a natural experiment has occurred: They have a defect and don’t make antibodies but they’re able to fight off Covid-19 SARS Cov2 quite well, and the way they do that, they have what’s called T-Cell immunity — cellular immunity. And there are cells that are, as it were, trained to detect virus infection cells and to kill those cells. And that’s how you defend yourself against a virus.
So, all of these mentions of antibody levels: It’s just bunk; it’s not a good measure of whether or not you’re immune. It does give the idea… it gives evidence that you’ve been infected but their persistence is not important to whether you’ve got immunity. So, I feel, I’ve noticed that the emphasis on antibodies, really, is really a psychological operation to convince you, member of the public, that you DO know that it’s antibodies that confer immunity and, so when they fall away, well, you must be losing immunity. I’m sorry, it’s NOT true. There are multiple arms of your immune system, and what’s almost never talked about is T-Cell or cellular immunity. It’s not a new thing anyway, we’ve known this for decades. So, it’s like: Oh, maybe there’s something about T-Cells, you know, it’s being implied that T-cells are a kind of recently come on the scene and there are questions about how important it is. Absolute rot. We’ve known about T-cells for decades. They were clearly in my undergraduate textbooks and we’ve known about their importance in defending you against respiratory viruses since probably the 1970s, certainly the 1980s. So don’t believe anything where people suggest to you that their role is uncertain. That’s just bulls***. We’ve known for a very long time that they are absolutely central, and I would like to explain why the virus variant story is just yet another lie and why it involves T-cells.
Your immune system has multiple components to it because you are susceptible to various kinds: Parasites, fungi, bacteria, viruses. Those would be the main categories. Well obviously, they invade and threaten you in completely different ways. It would not be surprising, then, to learn you’ve got, you know, four or five different arms of the immune system: Innate immunity, mucosal, antibody, T-cell and [complement]. There are all these different wonderful systems that are integrated one with the other because it needs to defend you against all the sorts of different threats in the environment. And what I’m telling you is that the emphasis on antibodies in respect of respiratory viral infections is wrong. And you can establish this quite easily by doing some searching. And once you’ve established that for yourself then you’ll probably realize: Why do they keep telling us about antibodies when they’re probably not very important at all? And why aren’t they talking about T-cells that are well established to be that which maintains the defense of your tissues?
When this virus was first being talked about before it kind of landed in each of our countries, I think we were given — we WERE given — exaggerated… suggestions of exaggerated risks. You know, early on people were talking about maybe 3% of people who were infected would die, which was truly awful. Something like influenza: It’s normally thought to be about .1% or 1 in 1000. But even that doesn’t give you ANY idea of YOUR relative risk. And let me just tell you, and you know this anyway: The older you get, the lower the chance that you’ll make your next birthday. So, if you’re 60, as I am, statistically I’ve got about a 99% chance of making my next birthday. But by the time I reach my mid-80s, you know maybe I’ve only got about a 50% chance of making my next birthday. And inevitably you reach a point where you don’t turn the cards over. Now if you think about the risk of dying from having been infected by influenza: Frankly, the older you get and the iller you are, the greater the risk that that will be what carries you off. You know, something has to. And this virus that causes Covid-19 is pretty much like that. It’s just, it’s a slightly bigger risk for you if you’re above 70 and you’re already ill it is a bigger risk to you than flu. Not a great deal more but it’s slightly worse. But the corollary is also true: If you are younger than 70 and you don’t have prior illnesses it’s LESS of a risk to your health than is influenza.
So, it’s just absurd that you should be happy and willing to let your civil society and economy be smashed for something which represents for almost everyone who’s working a lower risk than influenza. But that’s true.
Given this virus represents — at worst — a slightly bigger risk to the old and ill than does influenza, and less risk, a smaller risk to almost everyone else who is younger and fit, it was never necessary for us to have done anything: We didn’t need to do anything — lockdowns, masks, mass testing, vaccines even. There are multiple therapeutic drugs that are at least as effective as vaccines are. They are already available, and cheap. So, inhaled corticosteroids that are used in asthma reduce symptomatology by about 90% according to a study that was published last week. And off-patent drug called Ivermectin — it’s one of the most widely used drugs in the world — is also able to reduce symptoms at any stage of the disease, including lethality, by about 90%. So, you don’t need vaccines and you don’t need any of the measures that have been introduced at all. So, it’s not just a shade of opinion here. I would say objectively that none of those things were ever required, and yet governments and their scientific advisors have lied to us for a year, and I think they have just produced, you know, mayhem, potentially fatal damage to our economies and civil societies.
So, of the things that your governments and their advisors have lied to you about, I think most severely, and honestly frightens me and is the catalyst for me making these recordings is the issue of virus variants and the following issue, the related issue of “top up” vaccines or variant vaccines. So let me just quickly explain — this is really, really critical to your very survival. It’s quite normal for RNA viruses like SARS Cov2 when it replicates to make “typographical errors” — that’s what it does: “typos”. It’s got a very good error detection / error correction system, so it doesn’t make too many typos, but it does make some. And those are called “variants”. But it’s really important that you know that if you find the variant that is most different from the sequence identified in Wuhan, that variant, the most distant, is only 0.3% different from the original sequence. So, I’ll say it another way: If you find the most different variant it’s 99.7% identical to the original one. And I can assure you, and I’m going to explain why I’m sure, that that amount of difference is absolutely not, not possibly able to represent itself to you as a different virus. That’s what people are leading you to think: That maybe variants will escape your immunity either caused by a vaccine or by natural infection, and it’s an absolute lie.
So why do I know that? Well, 17 years ago, 18 years ago there was a virus called SARS, which is actually quite similar to SARS Cov2: It’s 80% similar to SARS Cov2. And there were some experiments done last year where they found people who’d been infected by SARS 17 years earlier and asked them to donate blood, and they did. And there were tests done on cells in that blood and they wanted to know were the circulating immune cells still able to recognize SARS 17 years later. And they were: They all still had memory T-cells circulating around their body. And that’s great! That’s what I would have expected. They also did a really important experiment: They showed those people’s T-cells the new virus, SARS Cov2, and unsurprisingly to me they recognized that new virus. And that’s because the new virus is 80% similar to the old one. 20% different. So just to say again: A 20% difference was not enough to kid these people’s immune system that it was a new virus. They easily recognized it as a sibling, a brother, a cousin: Something they’d conquered already.
So, when your government scientists tell you that a variant that’s 0.3% different from SARS [I think he means the original SARS Cov2 —ed.] you should know, and I’m telling you: They are lying. If they’re lying, and they are, why is the pharmaceutical industry making top-up vaccines? They are making them. You should be terrified at this point as I am because there’s absolutely no possible justification for their manufacture. But they are being made and the world’s medicine regulators have said, because they are quite similar to the original vaccines — the ones that are being given now — we won’t be asking them to do any clinical safety studies. So let me just say again: The variants are not different enough to represent a threat to you, so you do not need top-up vaccines. Yet they are being made and the regulators have more or less waved them through. I’m very frightened of that. There is no possible benign interpretation of this. I believe they are going to be used to damage your health and possibly kill you. Seriously: I can see no sensible interpretation other than a serious attempt at mass depopulation. This will provide the tools to do it, and plausible deniability because they’ll create another story about some sort of biological threat, and they will line you up and get you a top-up vaccine, and a few months or a year or so later you’ll die of some, you know, peculiar, inexplicable syndrome and they won’t be able to associate it with the top-up vaccines. But that’s my belief: That they’re lying to you about variants so they can make damaging top-up vaccines that you don’t need at all. And I think they’ll be used for malign purposes. And if you don’t wake up that’s what is going to happen, I think, during the next year.
I have heard a lot of people worry about the origin of this SARS Cov2. I don’t have a particularly strong opinion about it because it, you know the evidence looks both ways and so on, but it’s very important that you know that it’s not true that we don’t know a lot about it. We know an enormous amount about it. It’s very similar to a virus that people have been infected with and survived before. In fact, it’s a lot less lethal than SARS. It spreads more easily but it’s a lot less lethal. And we know that the people it injures and kills are only people who are elderly and/or ill — usually both. And so, we’re talking about less than 0.1%. It’s been moving throughout our communities now for well over a year. You know, it’s not some mysterious thing that’s going to suddenly leap out from behind the cupboard; it’s a straightforward respiratory virus.
Most people have completely ample immunity to repel it, and I’ll tell you a few things about it: Once you’ve been infected you are immune. There is no uncertainty about it. It’s been studied hundreds of times now and lots of literature has been published about it. So, once you’ve been infected… often you’ll have no symptoms… you are now immune, probably for decades. That would be my default expectation: For decades. It’s simply not that the variants that it throws off as it duplicates are sufficiently different from each other to represent any threat at all. It’s not even unlikely, it’s impossible based on the thousands and thousands of variants that have been formed. They are all very similar to the original. In fact, I joke about them and call them “sameants”, because they’re so similar you might as well see them as the same. So, you’ve been infected, you’ll mostly survive unless you’re very close to death anyway. You’re then immune: probably for decades, possibly for life. It’s NOT true that the variants represent any kind of threat; it’s NOT true that you need a top-up vaccine. And most of you don’t need a vaccine at all. Most of you will be well advised to stay well away from experimental vaccines. Unfortunately, they do come with a blood clot risk — why would you take a risk with your health for something that’s not a threat to you?
So, I’m particularly troubled at the moment by the repeated mention in the media, and by all sorts of people, of so-called “vaccine passports”. Now, the only reason we’ve ever had passports for proof we’ve been immunized against certain diseases are those when those diseases are extremely lethal: Something like yellow fever. And when you might otherwise bring back to a community who has no immunity whatsoever to a really dangerous pathogen. So, if you want to go to certain parts of the world where yellow fever is present you need to be vaccinated 1) to protect YOU from a disease that might kill you, and 2) to make sure you don’t bring it home to a community where there’s no yellow fever, and so of course there’s no immunity to it. You may have a little card that says you were immunized once for life, for yellow fever. That doesn’t say you need a passport against a “common and garden” respiratory disease. Let me explain why: If you’re an elderly and vulnerable person and you’ve chosen to be vaccinated you are now protected against that virus. It doesn’t matter what anyone around you is doing — whether they’ve got the virus or not got the virus. YOU’ve got your armour on. You don’t need to see anyone else’s status; you don’t need to know anything about them. If you are younger and fit person and you’ve looked at the literature and you’ve decided — rightly — that you don’t need to take a vaccine because you’ve got perfectly good immunity if your own, you too don’t care what the immune status of anybody around you is, so you don’t need to know vaccine passport status. So, I’ve just explained: someone who’s been vaccinated doesn’t need to see someone else’s vaccine passport and someone NOT vaccinated doesn’t need to see anyone else’s vaccine passport. They don’t provide you with any safety at all — they’re not required AT ALL. What they provide, though, is complete control of your movements to whoever controls the database that your vaccination status is connected to.
Now let me just quickly explain it: I hope you grasp this because this is not optional. This is what’s going to take over your life in a way that George Orwell in “1984” didn’t even dream of. Imagine you’ve been vaccinated, and you’ve been awarded a vaccine passport on an app. It’s going to be the world’s first database that contains your name, a unique digital ID in the same format as absolutely everybody else on the planet on the same database, and it will have, like an editable, health related flag that will say “thumb up” if you’ve been vaccinated or maybe a red flag if you haven’t been. Now, the algorithm — the rules — that works out what you can do with or without your vaccine passport — that’s what is going to control the rest of your lives until you die. So, you might say: “Oh that’s an exaggeration — they’re only going to need vaccine passports perhaps to enter a sports ground or a bit public building like a museum. That might be true initially, but imagine if they say: No, you need your valid vaccine passport to enter any large shopping complex, and then every large store. That’s going to provide a coercive pressure on people who have chosen not to be vaccinated and they’ll have to get vaccinated. No, it’s an illegal thing for your government to coerce you to accept any medical treatment. And it’s against the Nuremberg Code that was put in place after the Nazi doctors were convicted of conducting experiments on people — including lethal experiments. That prevents you coercing people to take experimental therapies because now they’re taking part in medical experiments against their will.
But if this vaccine passport system is up and running and you’re told, say, that you can’t enter any shop at all without beeping your passport, now you can’t enter any retail establishment. You can’t control what those rules are. You’ve no idea who is setting those rules. Don’t allow this system to come into force. It’s going to be used to coerce you. And let me just give you another example: You know those variants on the top-up vaccines I spoke about? I believe, if you allow vaccine passports to come into force you’ll be “pinged” one day, and it’ll advise you to go to the medical centre to have your top-up vaccine. And if you choose not to, your vaccine passport validity will expire. Which means you won’t be able to enter a shop. You may not eventually be able to use your bank card. All somebody needs to do is set a rule that says, as after a given date before any bank card can be used the vaccine passport has to be beeped onto the card reader. So just take it from me: You don’t need vaccine passports. They provide nothing whatsoever to you or anybody else in relation to safety, but it will give away to whoever controls that database and the rules complete control over everything you do.
Let me give you one last example: You’re owning this vaccine passport and it pings, and in addition to advising you that you need to come to the health centre for your top-up vaccine, perhaps your second one in a year, it also advises you that you need to bring your small grandchild down, because your daughter hasn’t brought the little lad in yet, and they say that if you don’t bring that grandchild down your vaccine passport will expire and that of your daughter as well. Now try resisting that: Simply THINK! This system has been put in place using lies, and it’s been put in place using lies for some purpose, and I believe that purpose is complete, totalitarian control. And I think the purpose of that is going to be mass depopulation. I can’t think of a single, benign interpretation for the simple creation of these top-up vaccines, let alone the lies that surround them. And I’m absolutely terrified that the combination of vaccine passports and top-up vaccines — it’s going to lead to mass depopulation: deliberate execution potentially of billions of people. You can stop it once you’ve heard what I’m saying. Even if you like the idea of vaccine passports, put the damn thing in place using written records or something. Something that’ll allow you to show you’ve been vaccinated, but do not allow it to be on an inter-operable, global, fixed format database, because that will be the end of human freedom and I see no way of recovering from that once the system is up and running.
The frustration I feel is that we simply can’t get this information to very many people, and very few people who will even hear this will do anything with it. That’s why I’m literally at the end of my tether. I’ve tried and tried and tried and I can see that the people who are running this have played us an absolute blinder. They must have thought about it for some time. And basically, they’ve used a relatively small number of lies which they’ve chosen to be quite close to something that’s plausible. And then they’ve just pounded this script of half a dozen points relentlessly and the only other thing they’ve needed is to frighten people to death and then censor everybody else. That’s all that’s they’ve needed to do: Simple story, repeated, censorship and fear, and here we are.
So, it’s just — remember we’ve been subjected to censorship and of course I’ve been busy as hell and you’d never have heard of me. This is the problem now. Almost no one has heard of me or anyone speaking similarly. Almost nobody. I’m… it’s just amazing, but it shows how … in fact one of the reasons I’m disappointed is I’ve had a sort of realization over recent weeks that it really doesn’t matter what we do. If we do the things that those operating this global fraud expect, we will lose. They already know we’ll do these things; they’ve mapped it out and they’ve worked out that “What are the things that are most likely to happen” and they’ve said “Well, there’ll be some noisy individuals and as long as we can control the share of voice they get then we don’t need to worry about them”. And I’m worried that I’ve done absolutely nothing that differs from what they have already modelled and war games, and that did not work, or they wouldn’t have moved off with this plan. So, unfortunately, the conclusion I’ve got is that collectively we need to do something unexpected, and if we do expected things we will lose. That’s a bit pessimistic, but forgive me, I’ve been a research scientist all my life, not a propagandist. It’s only recently I’ve realized that I’m, you know, in a trap really, I’m playing my role almost like an icon in their game. I’m a representative of a tiny number of people who would be noisy, and they are fine with that. The government knows who I am. I know people in the government, and I’ve been advised they know who I am. But they won’t do anything because I’m ineffective. They haven’t left me alone because I’m off target. They’ve left me alone because they know I can’t reach anybody.
I briefly worked with the UK Chief Scientific Adviser, Sir Patrick Vallance, when he was — and I was — researchers in the Wellcome Research Labs in about late 1980s. I know who he is, he knows who I am, but they leave me alone because I’m ineffective. If I become effective that would be different. But I think they’re not worried because they have complete control of the mass media: TV, radio, newspapers, internet. And the only people who will see me are really people already looking for information. So, I doubt I’ll convert very many people. Because people who need to be converted are not looking. They are looking at main media and that message is completely controlled and hermetically sealed. So, if we carry on doing the same things, we are just playing out our expected role in a simulation that whoever is running this has already thought about. So, I don’t want to worry you but that’s probably true, isn’t it?
My hope is that for example the United States, God bless its federal system, you’ve shown diversity. Some states have done different things from others and so, I think it’s quite useful because people, not just inside the US but outside, can see that it hasn’t made any difference, you know, if you’re South Dakota or Florida or California, it’s all pretty much turned out to be the same. So, the measures that have been put in place have been unnecessary and have made no difference, except to worsen the outcome for the people who live in those states. It’s destroyed the economy and civil society and probably cost people their lives, by depriving them of ready access to normal healthcare, which has been, kind of, smashed by our responses to this virus. But in the European countries, unfortunately, in every country, whatever set of measures they chose they’ve been uniform — north, south, east, and west, and so we never had any opportunity to see what would have been the counterfactual. So, each country is pretty much hermetically sealed and, you know, whoever is running this has complete control of the message and the medium.
Something very important for you to know: The vaccines — these gene-based vaccines — are, they’re not approved by any medical authority like the FDA, European Medicines Agency. They are available only through what’s called an “emergency use authorization”. So, if there wasn’t an emergency, they simply couldn’t be administered at all. But it’s very important that you know that they are “emergency use authorized only” — that is: We don’t know very much about them. We don’t know anything at all about the potential for long term side effects. So, if it turns out, for example, that they induce cancer in 1:10 people — I don’t think that’s likely, but since we don’t know anything, anything is possible, right? So, it’s inappropriate to be giving these to more than the most vulnerable people. So, when they first were emergency use authorized and they were to be used only in the elderly and already ill, I could understand why they were doing that. But when in the UK the government said, “Now we’ve got the list of everybody else, all the way down to the age of 18, we want all of them to be offered the vaccine” And it’s clearly more than an offer. And now they’re even running studies in children, who don’t suffer from Covid-19. Not a single child in the UK who was well has caught this virus and died — not one. But there are 10 million children under the age of 10 who I am confident they are going to be wanting to vaccinate. This is completely wrong! There’s simply no basis for doing this. It will result in injury and death of some people. Every medicine has some side effects; you would never use it on scale unless the people receiving it were at risk of the illness, and they are NOT.
So, you will notice if you ask some friends who’ve been vaccinated, ask them: Were they informed, in writing, that these are experimental medicines that have not yet been approved? If you weren’t, you were administered an experimental agent without your consent. That is contrary to the Nuremberg Code: A code put in place after WW2 recognising the foul human experiments performed by Nazi doctors. The Nazi doctors, by the way, were pretty much all hanged for their crimes against humanity, and I’m sorry to say that NHS doctors who are administering these agents to people who are not at risk from the virus, and they are not telling them that they are experimental, are also breaching the Nuremberg Code. And I believe they are doing it knowingly. And I think there should be a Nuremberg 2, and I think those physicians should be tried on those charges and appropriate sentences handed down. So, if you’re one of those physicians I hope to be around to see you in the court.
This is certainly a time for people who know or suspect that what is being said to you by our politicians and scientific advisors is wrong: It’s time to stand up and say NO. Withdraw your consent. There’s something awful happening: You know it — those people of you who are listening to me, you’ve suspected for some time that this isn’t right. Don’t look away. Don’t look away; it’s time now to find other people like you who are not quite sure but really suspicious. Find somebody else and talk to them. Because if you find someone else who says: “I’m glad you said that because I’ve thought this is lies as well,” then the two of you can go and find a third person. And once you’ve woken up and realize you’re being lied to, it’s very, very frightening. You don’t have to DO anything with it at first, except: Don’t forget that realization — find someone else who also feels the same. Don’t be afraid to be a little bit wrong. The people around you don’t know any better, do they? If they’re experts — well, they’re probably not going to be — then they would be able to tell you that what I’m saying is true. And if they’re like you — suspicious but not really experts — well they’re not really going to be able to tell you you’re wrong.
So, if you think something is wrong, you’re right! Go and find someone else who feels the same. Never look back and accept what the government’s telling you. It’s your last chance to rescue your own liberty and that of your children and grandchildren. It’s going to vanish, so if you’re suspicious, if you’re frightened, you think something’s up, you’re absolutely right! This is our last chance: I think we’re in the last few weeks in the UK of liberal democracy, and it will then vanish forever. So, you know, take your courage in your hands. The worst that will happen is that someone will laugh at you and it’s not a big deal, is it? Find someone else who is also suspicious, and if you find that person, go and find yet other people. You don’t need to do anything violent, you just need to say “Do you know, stop! I’m withdrawing my consent. This is a stupid experiment. We’ve had enough now.” End of story. Go back to normal life. That’s all you need to do. At the moment it’s so astonishingly simple. Normality is literally at arm’s length. But it won’t be soon. If the vaccine passports system is voted in by our corrupt people in Westminster, who are also stupid, that will be the end of liberal democracy. And I don’t think there’s any way out of that: We’ll be standing at the gates of Hell.