1.
I, Mike Yeadon will say as follows. I have training in biochemistry and
toxicology (1st class joint honours) followed by a research-based PhD
in respiratory pharmacology. I then worked at increasingly senior levels
in biopharmaceutical R&D (new medicines) and was vice president and
worldwide head of allergy and respiratory at Pfizer. A position I left
in 2011. After leaving my employment at Pfizer I took on work as a
consultant to over 30 biotechnology companies and was very highly
regarded both by investors and management. More recently I founded and
led as CEO a biotech which was acquired by Novartis (2017).
2. I
have a wide knowledge of the pharmaceutical industry, including all
aspects of new medicine design, research, and development. In particular
I have an in-depth knowledge of custom and practise in designing
molecules likely to be safe, as well as of immunology and respiratory.
3.
I provide the above outline of my credentials as evidence that as a
senior former pharmaceutical company research executive I have the
expertise and knowledge to make me a credible witness in speaking out
about the grave concerns I have (concerns which are shared by others)
about the alleged pandemic & countermeasures, especially the
gene-based injections.
4. I have been raising these concerns now for a period of around for 3.5 years to date.
5.
Overall it is my expert opinion that the injections purporting to be
vaccines against an alleged virus (I say alleged, as no evidence has
ever been provided of an isolated SARS-CoV-2 virus) are intentionally
harmful, and as such must immediately be withdrawn from the market.
6.
Below I will provide a short summary, which I have sought to make
substantially non-technical, in explanation for why I have formed my
opinion that that the injections as intentionally harmful and that as
such they should be immediately withdrawn from the market.
7. However, before presenting my summary I will first make the following point, which I can substantiate.
8.
In my view, the backdrop to this alleged “pandemic” is not a matter of
medical and scientific issues, but a global crime scene of unprecedented
scale and nature.
9. Claim 1: Choosing to invent, develop and
manufacture a new vaccine is unquestionably the wrong response to a
pandemic, even had the narrative presented to us not been false.
10.
Given I have had an over 30-year career in “big pharma” and biotech, I
knew that it was impossible to create a vaccine in under 5-6 years if
they were going to demonstrate clinical safety and hone manufacturing to
yield the customarily high-quality manufacturing necessary to produce
tightly defined final drug product.
11. If this was not done, the
product would be highly variable, and this is inherently dangerous. This
is what has happened and the resulting variability of the product has
completely invalidated any data obtained during toxicology and clinical
development. In brief, the effect of overly expeditious development is
that the product injected into literally billions of innocent men, women
and children is not the same product as was used in the clinical
trials.
12. No honest expert would even contemplate running a
research program to bring forward a vaccine, because no pandemic in
history has lasted a fraction of the minimum time necessary to create a
safe and effective new vaccine. This timeline cannot be much shortened
because a number of activities are performed in a stepwise manner, each
step depending on the outcome of the preceding step.
13. In
addition, we must consider the clinical context. We have been told of a
public health emergency of international concern, where anyone could
catch the virus and the elderly and already sick were particularly at
risk of death. I believe this to be a deliberate deception, but even if
we accept it, its vital to understand two things.
14. One,
injected vaccines cannot and do not protect humans against acute
respiratory illnesses believed to be due to respiratory viruses landing
in the airways. This is because the immune response is primarily to
stimulate the production of antibodies which circulate in the blood.
Antibodies are very large molecules and they are not able to leave the
circulation and appear on the air side of the respiratory tract. In
short, the product of the immune response to the vaccine and the virus
itself do not meet, as they are in different bodily “compartments.”
15.
Two, the very people we were told are particularly at risk, the elderly
and sick, are in part, in this vulnerable state because their senescent
immune systems respond poorly to new infectious disease threats. Why
would anyone expect a good response to an injected vaccine? This is said
to mimic a new infectious disease threat. It is important to note
something very little known by the public but injected “flu vaccines” do
not work. They do not reduce hospitalisation or death in the elderly.
Yet flu vaccines have been promoted as a vital public health measure for
decades and are paid for by taxpayers. Furthermore, even flu vaccines
can lead to adverse events, sometimes serious, but this is not
compensated by an expectation of protection against a threat to health,
namely influenza. Now you know this, you may find it rather less
difficult to believe that this industry is willing to lie and deceive in
order to reach its objectives.
16. I have outlined why it is
impossible to produce a safe and effective vaccine in much less than
5-6years, yet we are asked to accept that this has been accomplished in
less than one year. I have also described why it is that an injected
vaccine could not work, even if it was safe, in the setting we are told
exists. Yet they went ahead. This is malevolent, as I will show.
17.
Claim 2: Gene-based vaccines were advanced as the exclusive solution,
but was a means to misuse the reduced regulatory hurdles for
conventional vaccines in order to push gene therapies onto the market.
18.
Vaccines have been developed and used against an increasing range of
infectious disease targets rather widely since the middle of the 20th
century and some are much older. Every vaccine until the covid pandemic
era has involved taking a sample of the disease-causing agent and
formulating it for injection or instillation into the airway. This has
the advantage that the amount of pathogen is known and fixed. In many
ways, this process mimics what we are told is a similar process to when
we are infected by the wild pathogen. Many vaccines have been developed
and marketed and over many decades, the makers, the regulators, doctors,
and the public have acquired a common understanding of what kind of
product these are and how to evaluate them. This is the background that
has led to the regulatory pathway for their development. In certain regards, it has been appropriate to truncate or not even to study
certain properties of “conventional vaccines” because they are
uninformative and do not contribute anything to evaluation of the agent.
19.
The preparations called vaccines in this alleged pandemic are in no way
like these older products. Instead, these are gene-based agents, which
commandeer the recipients’ cells to manufacture whatever is encoded in
the gene sequence. This is a crucial difference, as I will exemplify
later. But it is important to understand that there are additional steps
in the biological response to gene- based agents as compared to
old-style vaccines. Old style vaccines do not travel far from the
injection site. The materials injected are suspensions, small pieces of
cells and killed or weakened infectious agents. Our bodies are
well-adapted to recognise that foreign materials have arrived and have
evolved to respond appropriately to this event. The gene-based
injections, by contrast, can and do travel all over the body, prompted
to make foreign proteins in anatomical locations where the pathogen
would be unable to reach, such as the brain.
20. Gene-based
treatments are often called by a slang term “gene therapies.” This is an
imprecise term and causes much argument, since it is often stated that
they do not modify ones’ genes. That is not relevant. What is relevant
is that it is a gene that is at the heart of the treatment. A gene is
simply a code for the manufacture of a protein. These mRNA-based agents
ARE, however, classified by their manufacturers as “gene therapies” for
the purpose of describing to investors the nature of the development and
commercial risks being run. Rightly so, for none of these products had
reached the market by 2020, though there had been a number of
unsuccessful attempts.
21. I first encountered the idea of
mRNA-based therapeutics in the late-1990s, when I led respiratory
research for Pfizer. I could see a potential clinical utility only in
life-threatening, inoperable cancers that were unresponsive to
chemotherapeutics and radiotherapy. Somewhat of a niche opportunity
only.
22. The reason they were perceived to have some use in this
narrow but important application is vital to understand, if I am to
explain clearly why I am so sure that these are wholly inappropriate to
protect against an alleged respiratory virus. The original idea was that
a piece of genetic code coupled to something else that would enable the
preparation to travel to and be taken up by the remote tumour.
The cells making up that tumour would copy the genetic code and make
whatever protein was encoded. Because that protein was foreign, and not
normally made by humans, our immune systems would recognise that we had
something foreign inside us and this would stimulate a lethal attack
upon every cell that had taken up and followed the genetic instructions.
This is a branch of what is called “immunooncology” and a number of
companies have tried to develop such “gene therapies” as anti-cancer
agents, so far without success. The crucial point to remember is that
these preparations were expected to work by precipitating lethal immune
attack on every cell that had taken it up.
23. Returning to the
development pathway for these agents. Because they are new and
unprecedented, the medicines regulators around the world have laid down
onerous conditions for their development. Obviously, they are
potentially very potent medicines and being new, great care was to be
taken to avoid predicted as well as unanticipated harms. With new types
of medical treatment, while some potential harms can be anticipated and
characterised properly, other harms may arise which were not expected.
This is why the development pathway for new types of powerful medical
interventions are given especially tough review.
24. I now make an
important point. In 2020, we are told that at least four
biopharmaceutical companies decided to develop gene-based vaccines. As I
explained earlier, conventional vaccines are given a somewhat easier
time of it in relation to developmental obligations. Despite classifying
to the financial markets their own products as “gene therapies” &
subject to lengthy and expensive development obligations, they persuaded
the medical regulators (and deceived the public) to classify them as
“vaccines”. This was improper and was accompanied by bodies such as WHO
and even dictionary makers to change the definition of the word vaccine
to facilitate this deception.
25. Deception matters not because of
mere naming conventions, but because the manufacturers knew that
vaccines are much lighter in terms of development obligations. Even
given this improper advantage, the makers of the gene-based vaccines
failed to meet all, of even the relatively light development
obligations. The end result has been billions of people being injected
with mis-classified and inadequately tested gene-therapies. The adverse
effect profiles and deaths as a consequence are extraordinary yet
are being ignored by multiple bodies tasked with vigilance in patient
safety. None of this can be constructed as accidental or inadvertent.
26.
Claim 3: The design choices made in constructing the gene-based agents
purporting to be vaccines are evidence of intentional harms.
27.
Medicinal preparations contain molecules that were chosen by its
designers. Nothing is in them that was not thoughtfully included. My
career has been wholly within the sphere of endeavour called “rational
drug discovery” or “rational drug design”. My main responsibility was to
select biological targets for intervention with a chemical or a
biological molecule, the latter usually being designed by more than one
person. I was part of the design teams for decades. Our objective was to
reach and interact with the molecular target, hoping to bring about
desirable effects in patients, and to do so without inducing
unacceptable unwanted effects, taking into account the seriousness of
the illness at issue.
28. My contention is that, by close
examination of the products of such design teams, I can, at least in
part, deduce the intentions of the designers. It gives me no pleasure to
lay out below several features of the design of the mRNA “vaccines”
from Pfizer / BioNTech and from Moderna, ALL of which predictably give
rise to toxicity. The features of interest are common to both products.
There is no reasonable conclusion to this analysis other than that the
designers intentionally created products which would be expected to
cause harms including death and sterility.
29. Designed-in
toxicity 1: axiomatic induction of “autoimmune” responses, regardless of
what the genetic sequence codes for. As described earlier about how
immunooncology was considered the leading application, when our bodies
manufacture a foreign or non-self-protein, our immune system recognises
this as a threat and mounts a lethal attack on every cell performing the
genetic instruction. In short, wherever in the body these materials
travel after injection into the upper arm, the immune system will
destroy those cells and tissues. I believe it is very likely that the
reported extensive range of adverse effects is due to this common
process, autoimmune destruction, occurring in all kinds of tissues
around the body. This is expected. Anyone with a basic knowledge of
immunology knows this.
30. Designed-in toxicity 2: The next was
choice of the gene chosen. I believe selecting the spike protein of the
alleged coronavirus is irrational, because it was highly likely to be
directly toxic. These surface proteins are known from comparison to
related pathogens to be toxic to blood, initiating blood clots and
damaging the function of nerve cells. Not only is it very dangerous to
force human bodies to manufacture a pro-coagulant protein, it was
unnecessary. There are several alternative genes that a
safety-orientated designer would choose from.
31. In addition to
the toxicity of spike protein, spike is, we are informed, subject to the
most rapid mutation (so a vaccine might lose efficacy quickly) and also
it is the least different from human proteins (and so might trigger
bystander attacks on even somewhat similar self-proteins).
32. Yet
all four leading players chose spike protein as their genetic coded
antigen. What a coincidence! If I had been in one of the roles leading
these efforts, I would ’have called up my peers in the other companies
to ensure we did not do that. That is because from a strategic
standpoint, it would be highly undesirable to have common risks to all
programs.
33. Designed-in toxicity 3: On formulation, the teams
developing mRNA-based products both selected lipid nanoparticles (LNPs)
to encapsulate their genetic message. Yet there was industry knowledge
that these not only travel all over the body including into the brain
but that they accumulate in the ovaries. Yet, knowing this, the
companies and regulators went ahead and then others compounded the
toxicity risk by recommending these injections in pregnant women and
children.
34. This is not an exhaustive list and I am aware of
further toxicity liabilities. I felt three was an adequate number to
exemplify my concerns. Remember, please, that these agents are not
expected to yield benefits as explained earlier and have been developed
at a pace completely inconsistent with normal practise, absolutely
required to result in a consistent product.
35. I am very
confident of this conclusion. I have said so in more than 100 video
interviews which have been viewed millions of times, despite the obvious
efforts of censors. If these claims were completely wrong, I expected
to have been corrected years ago and at least injuncted not to repeat
the claims.
36. I know all the companies are aware of my views,
because I sadly know three of the four individuals responsible for
R&D on vaccines and I have written to them laying out my concerns.
Not one replied, though one resigned a few months later without giving a
reason, which is extraordinarily uncommon, because it results in
forfeiture of very substantial deferred compensation.
37. Claim 4:
The evolution of the target population, from initially only the
elderly, eventually to everyone is confirmatory evidence of intentional
harm.
38. This is simple to explain, but it is worth laying out.
Recall at first, we were told that those most at risk from this alleged
virus were the elderly who were already sick. Consistent with this, the
first cohorts of the public invited to receive these injections were the
over 60s.
39. Over a period of months, the threshold age for
receiving the injections fell and continued to fall until healthy
youngsters were being pressurised to get injected even though they had
essentially no risk of death from the alleged virus.
40. Along the
way, and outside of medical practise of 60 years standing, pregnant
women were encouraged to get injected, too. There is no evidence that
they were at risk. Even if they had been, it has been policy NEVER to
expose pregnant women to novel medical treatments, because of the risks
to the developing baby. The watershed event was thalidomide and this
awful event set a firm, never breached red line not to allow risky
interventions in pregnancy. Until 2021, when this red line was driven
right over without comment. The manufacturers had not then even
completed regulatory reproductive toxicology. They had absolutely no
information, yet women were told it was safe, when in fact it was not.
41.
Finally, children were called to be injected, even though the
authorities had previously told us that children were at no risks from
the alleged virus.
42. In conclusion there are several, completely obvious safety issues built into these products. This is intentional.
43.
I was still slow to piece together all this evidence of carefully
thought-out harms. But eventually I got there are and have been speaking
in what many regard as extreme terms ever since.
Former Pfizer VP Dr. Mike Yeadon - Contagion or Infection is a Psyop
.png){kind=tracking}
%20%E2%80%93%20Scaled%20(73%25).png){kind=tracking}
%20%E2%80%93%20Scaled%20(99%25).png){kind=tracking}
%20%E2%80%93%20Scaled%20(88%25).png){kind=tracking}
%20%E2%80%93%20Scaled%20(83%25).png){kind=tracking}
%20%E2%80%93%20Scaled%20(52%25).png){kind=tracking}
