David Montoute
August 5th
In the past two years Dr Michael Yeadon has become a permanent fixture of the medical freedom and anti-lockdown movement. A seemingly unlikely ally, Mike came from deep within the pharmaceutical industry. His specialty is respiratory viruses along with corresponding vaccines and
medication. And for a time he was Chief Science Officer for Pfizer.
Of all the lockdown critics, Mike has had one of the most dramatic journeys of discovery. He was an early and severe critic of the British government's totalitarian lockdown in 2020, appearing on numerous mainstream forums such Talk radio. But as his big-picture understanding evolved, Yeadon began to discuss the pseudo-vaccine programme as a cover for imposition of a global digital ID database and a possible depopulation plan through the imposition of the jab.
Naturally, his appearances on shows such as Talk Radio abruptly ended, even while he acquired hero status in the anti-lockdown / medical freedom community.
Eric Francis Coppolino of Planet Waves recently claimed that Mike was in the process of "coming clean" on the virus issue. After mentioning an extensive correspondence with Yeadon on the issue of SARS-CoV-2 and the invalidity of in silico sequencing, Coppolino observed that Yeadon had signed on to Tom Cown's "Virus Challenge", a scientific proposal designed to settle an issue that has practically riven the 'Covid truth movement' in two. "Yeadon, the acclaimed virologist and former head of Pfizer’s respiratory sciences area...has admitted that whatever SARS-CoV-2 may be, the scientific data says that it does not and cannot infect healthy lung cells."
Signing on to Tom Cowan's Virus Challenge was a sign of scientific and personal integrity. However, in a recent interview with In the most critical part of the interview - one that has made waves across the Net, he said the follwing:
I actually have come to the conclusion, and I will credit Andrew Cowan [meaning to say either Andrew Kaufman or Tom Cowan] and his colleagues. I had a really good chat with those guys early in 2020 and it bothered me, bothered me, bothered me.
I realised, over time, I could no longer maintain my understanding of respiratory viruses as I thought I knew them. And then I learned a new bit of information recently, and it collapsed the possibility that respiratory viruses as described exist at all. They don't.
People do get ill and people are ill. People have exactly the same illness as before that horrible Yeadon said viruses don't exist. They still have 'colds' and 'flu'. It's just, I think we don't know what causes them and they're not respiratory illnesses.
The admission could potentially generate an enormous ripple effect, and even initiate a bridging of the gap that has opened up in the movement, because Yeadon has a foot in both camps. He is close to Fuellmich & Wodarg's Corona Investigative Committee as well as and many others still trapped within the conventional viral paradigm, But he is also clearly engaging with people of the neo-terrain perspective, such as Cowan, Kaufman and Coppolino.
It is clear that the divisive and acrimonious debate around the issue of "pathogenic viruses" is not going to go away any time soon. A hard core group of ideological dinosaurs is going all out in its attempt to silence critics and uphold the fundaments of an obviously unscientific sub-discipline. Many of them do so out of a genuine belief, since after a lifetime of working within this paradigm they cannot bring themselves to question it. Others, committed to the "gain-of-function" / bio-warfare narrative similarly feel their worldview to be coming under assault.
The cognitive dissonance at work is ironic, given how crucial this process is to the success of the elites' wider plans. The general passivity of their victims (us) would not be possible without this looking-away and deliberate avoidance of hard truths. On this note, it is worth ending with an earlier quote from Mike Yeadon in 2021:
“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…”***
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário