Exclusive: Former Pfizer VP to AFLDS: ‘Entirely possible this will be used for massive-scale depopulation’
March 25, 2021
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.”
How
Do I Get COVID-19 Medication?
No comments:
Post a Comment