All Episodes
Previous Next
April 5, 2021 - Jim Fetzer
01:05:29
Former Pfizer Chief Science Officer, Mike Yeadon, Gives Dire Warnings about the CV19 Shots
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
I love Danny Paul!
Go and subscribe to the podcast, baby!
I love Danny Paul!
Unless another time, subscribe with me!
I love Danny Paul!
Welcome to The Delingpod with me, James Delingpole, and I know I always say I'm excited about this week's special guest, but I really am.
It is Dr. Mike Yeadon back on the show with some really worrying things to impart.
Mike, just tell us about yourself, but for anyone who doesn't know who you are, which there can't be many people now, but just give us a bit of your background before you impart your grim tidings.
Yes.
Okay, so yes, Dr. Mike Yeadon.
I have a degree in biochemistry and toxicology, PhD in pharmacology, in fact, in respiratory, and I've spent 32 years working mostly for large pharmaceutical companies leaving Pfizer 10 years ago in fact this year I was the most senior research person in charge of respiratory research at that company and then over the last 10 years I've been able to start run and sell a biotech company of which I was the CEO and consult to several dozen
Start-up company, so I'm kind of a broad biological person, immunology, infectious diseases, inflammation, respiratory and sort of testing kind of discipline.
So, and along the way my department started with little bits of tissue in an organ bath that you might remember, but at some point had, you know, very skilled people in molecular biology, cloning new genes and things like that.
So, I've spanned the disciplines you require for target discovery, discovering drugs and advancing them into the clinic.
That's me.
Right, so in a nutshell, you're quite well qualified to talk about the subject of viral respiratory infections and vaccines.
Yeah, I wouldn't say I'm not an expert in vaccines, but I would say I have a more than working knowledge
of immunology and immunity, including as relates to viral infections of the lung
and the decent understanding of both the sort of how you go about setting up tests
and critiquing them.
So I can tell there are things wrong with our testing systems in the country, for example,
and I can demonstrate why your government and our government is lying to us
in a way that I think will be frightening to your listeners.
And if I'm wrong, that would be delightful.
But if I'm right, you need to be paying attention because you may be able to save liberal democracy or not.
It's that straightforward.
Right, right.
So, tell us what we should be worrying about.
Actually, can I ask you a question?
I have various family members, and I know that this is a problem around the country, who are thinking, well, you know, I want to go on holiday, I'd better take one of these vaccines.
Now, Is that a wise move?
No.
No, absolutely not.
So, as you might guess, folks, having worked in the pharmaceutical industry and then in biotechnology, biotechnology should be regarded largely as a feedstock, as it were, to big pharma.
Biotech companies, if they make a product or a platform, they really, they want to exit in the end.
The investors want to be able to get their money back and usually the way to do that is in a trade sale where you get bought by a big pharma company.
So even though I've been outside of Big Pharma myself for 10 years, all the time I was outside, When I had my own company or was advising other people's, ultimately the big farm was the buyer.
So I've been in and around and dependent on that industry all of my professional life.
So I can assure you I'm pro their products.
But what I'm not, I'm not pro unsafe products.
I'm not pro products used in the wrong people or in the wrong way.
And so the reason I said no to your question about should people I frankly for a trivial reason risk injection with a an experimental
New technology vaccine, just so they could go on holiday, or worse, down to the pub, is one of the most stupid things I've heard.
Unfortunately, I think the government's counting on people viewing it as a trivial decision because it's, quote, just a vaccine.
Well, the materials in question, I think they probably just qualify because they do ultimately raise an immune response.
But the way they do it is completely different from any vaccine we've used before.
So I think, to be fair, They should be called, you know, gene-based vaccines, just to emphasize there's something quite different about them.
That difference means you cannot take for granted anything about the profile in your body.
So, the fact that we've got this little word vaccine at the end, uh-uh, that does not mean any of the things you think you understand about vaccines will apply to this one, not at all.
The way they work is so different.
They induce the body, the cells of your body to actually manufacture piece or piece of this pathogen,
of this infective agent, and then you respond to that.
So that's kind of Star Trek and interesting, but it's not the same.
And so things could go wrong in the short, medium, or long-term, and we won't know what they are.
So don't take one and don't do it for trivial reason.
On the other hand, if you are a person who's at risk of perhaps dying if you catch SARS-CoV-2
and develop the disease COVID-19, then even though these are novel
and we don't have much data yet, you probably are better off taking it than not.
There are some risks but you could die if you don't.
But if you're mid-60s, certainly younger and healthy, and you don't have one of the sort of major chronic um illnesses that's life shortening like diabetes something like that then you're not at risk from this virus there were almost no one like you that was healthy and youngish and then got ill and died tiny number more people died falling off motorbikes last year than died with that description whereas
We don't know.
Maybe 120,000 mostly older, mostly ill people did.
Those people, I think it's a wise choice if you want to.
It's a choice, not a requirement.
Anyone else, please, for goodness sake, Take care of your health and don't be coerced because what they're doing to say well you might not be able to travel internationally if you haven't got a vaccine passport or it'll be down to the landlords as our stupid Prime Minister.
What they're doing is applying coercive pressure to you.
Now you should know That it is illegal under various international treaties to coerce somebody to receive a medical treatment.
And it derives from the trials following the defeat of Nazi Germany, where Josef Mengele and other people performed experiments on living humans who were of course not volunteers, sometimes killing them.
And this is a faint echo of that.
You must not be put in a position, and our law prohibits it, where you are coercing or mandating someone to take something certainly that's an experimental treatment where the outcome is not reasonably certain and that's definitely true of these new vaccines they've not been around long no one can tell you what will happen and so instead of instead of taking the vaccine just say how about no just say no
So don't introduce vaccine passports.
They are coercive and illegal.
So that's going to be my response and I urge you to do that.
And I will tell you in a few minutes why it's more than just a civil liberties matter.
It is existential for the nation and possibly the world to take that attitude.
Yes.
Before we go down that dark, dark, dark alley, let's just emphasise what we're saying here.
Because I, like you, I spend a lot of time on social media encountering people who Who want to marginalise and ridicule people who are worried about the vaccine.
They call us anti-vaxxers and they invariably invoke polio.
They say, well, vaccines stop polio.
Are you the kind of person who'd want polio to come back?
And also, there seems to be a lot of what I imagine is misinformation about A lot of people seem to be under the illusion that this is not an experimental... Well, it's not even a vaccine, is it, barely?
They seem to imagine that this is just like the yellow fever jab or all those other things that we've had to take when going abroad.
No, OK, well let me scotch that up.
What I could have done during this talk, and maybe I'll just talk for a minute just to show you if we've got time we can come back to it.
So, I would say...
Last time I think I spoke to you, James, there was a lot of discussion I think about PCR testing really and maybe we talked about lockdown.
So I would say every one of the major things your government and SAGE advisors have told you is a lie.
Pretty much everything.
So let me just whip through it quickly.
So PCR testing, polymerase chain reaction, they've still not unresolved the fact that it has a false positive rate.
They simply don't acknowledge that it does and that means they're able to generate any numbers they like.
It's just, it's a complete waste of time running this billion pound enterprise because they will not run known virus Free samples through the whole chain of custody to show you how many times has that come up positive.
Is it a tiny number?
Is it a bigger number?
And it could be any of those.
Because they don't know that, you can't net off the gross.
And so every single number is unreliable, untrustworthy, scientifically meaningless.
And because they're clever on SAGE, they know that what I've just said is true and they're deceiving you.
So we can just forget that.
But I would just say quickly you can't trust this government and its advisors.
So that's PCR testing.
Masks.
Any one of you can do a quick Google search.
Effective masks on respiratory viral transmission.
There are loads of studies out there.
They definitely do not reduce respiratory viral transmission.
And the government knows that.
So why are they making children wear them in school?
Why do they make you wear them when you wander around shops?
You can't trust this government or its advisors.
The reason it doesn't apply, the reason you don't need masks is that unlike what, here's what they tell you as well, that one in three people are carrying the virus and can be spreading it without knowing it.
That's a lie.
It's absolutely clear that people without symptoms don't have enough virus in their body nor respiratory manoeuvres to get it out of their body.
In order to infect someone you have to be full of virus and symptomatic.
Those two things occur together and it's called ill.
So if you've got this virus and you've got enough of it to be able to cough it on other people, you're going to feel ill.
You're probably staying at home.
You might be in bed.
And if you're older, you're probably in hospital.
So if you don't have symptoms, it means you don't have enough virus to spread it on people, which means you don't need masks anyway if you're feeling well.
You can't trust this government or its advisors.
And then maybe the fourth one.
Lockdowns.
Of course, we keep being told lockdowns reduce cases.
They don't.
They've been studied in at least two dozen peer-reviewed journal articles by some of the best scientists in the world, as you probably know.
The states in the United States that locked down or didn't lock down or locked down harder there's no connection whatever between lockdown and its stringency that is how much you were meant to stay at home and away from other people and the outcome in terms of deaths and I can now explain that to you and it's taken me embarrassingly about 10 months before I realised it and it's back to what I just said about you need to be symptomatic before you can infect others.
Think about as you move around your day Waving to people in the street, passing someone at work, slipping past someone in the car park, meeting them in the supermarket.
All those people are well.
If you notice someone that actually looks quite under the weather, you tend to just spontaneously skirt around them almost to two meter or without anyone telling you.
So the bottom line is out in the community you don't bump into people who are full of virus and symptomatic because they're ill and you would avoid them in any way they are at home.
Consequently when you shut down civil society you do bugger all to transmission.
On the other hand there is transmission going on where might that be?
Well I've just said you have to be full of virus and symptomatic That might be hospital, mightn't it?
Do you know recently in a survey more than 70% of cases seem to have arisen in hospital?
I bet you the balance are in care homes.
So lockdown could never work because I don't believe there was very much transmission in the community.
So they've smashed civil society and the economy and they know it.
You can't trust this government or its advisors.
Are you getting the idea now, audience?
And then finally, all of these things are happening all the way around the world, all at the same time.
That's a stunning set of mistakes.
You'd have to be a coincidence theorist to believe that that was an accident.
So, it's not a conspiracy theory I'm outlining to you.
It is clearly a concerted, deliberate attack using four or five plausible things And then if you use the power of the mass media to ram it down your neck and they are preventing any coherent alternative voices that think this is wrong and unfair, people like me, they'll just smear me.
And I think if I'm successful enough, they will actually remove me.
So anyway, that's my quick summary.
They certainly have tried.
You have been smeared, Mike.
I've seen this, and you had to retreat from Twitter.
And this has been the case with all the sceptical scientists, hasn't it?
Indeed.
By sheer coincidence, they just turn out to be absolutely awful people that we have to lock out of social media.
It's just astonishing, really.
On the one hand, they seem to be ably qualified to be able to comment, and on the other hand, somehow, They're all bad people that need to be kept away from the general public.
Just sort of, again, coincidence theory just striking again.
Do you think this explains why so relatively few people within the medical industry, be it the NHS or the big pharma or whatever, have spoken out?
Yes, I know it.
Because I'm recently handed immunology, but some of the things I'm going to say are so enormous that of course I did want to check.
So I've spoken to a total of Seven or eight UK university professors whose disciplines mean that they understand quite a lot about immunology.
Of those, I won't name them, but there were a couple that you would have heard on your tellies before they got battered and more or less driven into the shadows.
All the other ones, even though I implored them to, refused to say anything in public or even author a newspaper item that would educate the public just about how immunity works.
That bad.
And I said, why won't you?
And they said, well, the university administration's got a policy that we just don't say anything that counters government policy or that of its medical advisors.
And also, we kind of get hints through the grapevine that if we do that, we won't get grants from the government.
Funders, so people like the Wellcome Foundation, MRC, things like that.
So basically it'll be just too difficult for me.
I'll be pummeled from the administration on top.
I'll be pummeled from my peers because I could bring disrepute into the university and I won't get any grants.
So I'm just going to shut up.
And as a result, sorry, you're a bunch of moral cowards because you know something's wrong and this is about your children's and grandchildren's lives and you buggered off and just left it for a handful of people.
And I don't think we're going to win.
I don't think there's enough voices.
So, there you go.
So yes, there's an active policy of intimidation and I also think there's just a lot of self-censorship.
People recoil in horror when I outline, as I'm going to.
It's just really, there's two phases to this really.
It's the unreasonable, unrelenting pressure that you will be feeling, you listening to this, that you're feeling, if you haven't already succumbed.
Unrelenting pressure to get vaccinated.
And I'm going to describe in a minute why you're feeling that, why I think they're doing it.
And then I'm going to describe what I think will happen next if you succumb.
And it's up to you.
You can decide, do you want freedom or not?
Or do you not really care?
So, vaccination.
These are novel technologies so they're either messenger RNA or they're DNA with a viral vector.
They've never been used before and I always found it an amazing coincidence that we didn't have any coronavirus vaccines at all and then suddenly we ended up with more or less three sort of similar ones and they all came through just with you know spaced by a few weeks.
It's just amazing.
Another coincidence theory to deal with but they are novel and I think there's something seriously wrong with them.
I do think they probably work Although they've really made it quite difficult to tell whether they do.
But the thing that I think is wrong with them is that every single one of them expresses what's called the spike protein.
That little stick that you see on the outside of this cartoon coronavirus.
So these gene-based vaccines cause your body to manufacture either the spike protein or a piece of it.
And the reason I think that's a mistake is is that spike protein is not some passive sort of anchor or hook on the outside of the virus that you probably know it sticks to cells via that spike and so that's probably why it might make sense to you but the spike is not just a passive anchor the damn thing is biologically active it's the so-called fusogenic protein it makes cells stick together and inconveniently it's capable of initiating blood coagulation and activating the immune complement pathway
That's a bad thing.
You don't want that stuff inside your body because it might initiate coagulation and blood clots.
And you'll probably be thinking now, funny, I have heard some stuff about blood clots and the AstraZeneca vaccine.
Well, I think that's the reason.
And I've been interacting with the European Medicines Agency for weeks to tell them this, to warn them of this, because I was hearing through medical friends, I'm not a medical doctor, but I was hearing through medical friends that they were seeing bleeding, skin bleeds, massive headaches, things that were worrying, and I said, you do know that spike is capable of triggering coagulation, and they were horrified, they didn't know it.
So we wrote to the European Medicines Agency and they more or less ignored us.
They just sent a one paragraph reply saying we have full confidence in our assessment.
This was before people news reports came out of blood clots.
So we thought this is not good enough.
So we decided to write an open letter and we sent the open letter and they didn't respond.
But the very week that we sent the open letter, country after country after country temporarily paused the use of the AstraZeneca vaccine, citing blood clots.
And I think I've described the mechanism.
And I've just seen this very afternoon, I'm seeing tentative reports that the German regulator is going to recommend not using it anymore in younger people.
And that's because they have seen a number of women aged 20 to 50 who have died of cerebral vein thrombosis, basically a blood clot in the brain.
Now these are women who would never have died of the virus and they've been killed by the vaccine.
So if any of the people working for those companies or any of you who've not thought about this in the medical profession, you've just been stabbing this into people who are not at risk from the virus, you should feel thoroughly ashamed of yourselves.
Where is your medical ethics?
Stop giving these damn vaccines that are experimental and you don't know what the side effect profile will be.
Stop giving them to people who are not at risk of dying from the virus.
Just stop!
Can you hear how furious I am?
These people are dying, James.
So back to the question of should I take it to go on holiday?
Please don't.
These things are not occurring in a high percentage of people, right?
I'm not saying if everybody takes the vaccine you're going to get a blood clot.
They're not.
I don't know what the frequencies are, but it's Russian roulette.
We do not know which people will develop blood clots.
Maybe we'll later work it out.
Maybe it's the people who are spontaneously likely to get blood clots, but maybe it's a particular age or gender or ethnicity, or maybe it's some other medicine they've got.
We just don't know.
It's Russian roulette with your life.
So if you're at risk of dying from the virus, this is probably a reasonable bet.
Have a talk with your physician.
Understand what the risks are, understand what the choices are and make an informed decision.
But don't just roll up like this is a measles, mumps and rubella vaccine that we've been having for decades.
It's not that at all.
So with that aside, I need to point out, I think there's a really horrible tale behind this.
Why in the world do you think well-known medics that you see on TV That belong to the government or their advisors or maybe just sort of in-house doctors that you see on the TV.
Why are they all ramming this stuff down people's necks?
They do seem to, don't they?
They do seem to want everyone to be vaccinated.
The young and the old, they're doing, believe it or not, they're doing a clinical trial in children.
Now, there have been no children, zero, who were previously well in this country that caught coronavirus and died.
So anyone listening, you might want to think, why would you want to take the risk of a new technology vaccine that's a few months old and give it to millions of children?
Now, of course, the answer cannot be to save them from coronavirus, because they don't catch it, or they don't get ill.
So there must be another reason, mustn't there?
There must be another reason.
And why are they giving it to 20 million people who aren't children, but they're not elderly either?
Like these women in Germany, 20 to 50 year olds, who died of cerebral vessel thrombosis, blood clots in the brain.
And I think I know what the answer is.
And I think the answer is vaccine passports.
Now vaccine passports sounds like a sort of reasonable thing until you think about it.
So if you're 70 and you've maybe got high blood pressure and you've chosen to be vaccinated and everything's gone well, you haven't had any terrible side effects, that's good.
You're now immune to coronavirus.
It doesn't matter to you whether I'm vaccinated or not vaccinated.
I'm going to choose not to have it, thanks very much.
You would understand that, given what I've just described.
Also, I'm not very old, I'm slim, I have no other risk factors.
I'd be mad to take this.
Now, of course, they're not going to give me a vaccine certificate, but you 70 year old with high blood pressure, you're immune.
You don't need to know what my immune status is.
So you should hopefully say, no, I don't want you to have a vaccine passport because it's clearly not necessary.
And I clearly don't want to know whether or not you've had a vaccine at all.
I don't care.
So I tell you what, it doesn't work for the non-vaccinated.
It's not necessary for the vaccinated.
Seriously.
It's for someone else, isn't it?
It can only be for someone else, and the someone else, I think, is the person or power that's going to operate a database.
And what will it have on it, folks?
It'll have your name, a digital identity that's unique to you in the world, and it'll have at least one flag which will say you have been vaccinated or you haven't been.
And I think what they're planning on doing is building a one, for the first time in human history, A common platform database with your name, unique ID and initially, it's arbitrary, it could have been anything, but arbitrarily it's going to be your immunisation status and they're going to change your privileges according to whether or not your flag is up that you've had it.
Or it's down and not.
And the reason they'll do that is to coerce the other people who haven't had vaccination to come onto the platform.
If you think about that, that platform provides the perfect tool for totalitarian control of every living being on the planet.
That's what I think they want to do.
Because I can't think of any other reason.
There is no arguable medical reason whatsoever So, if I was in charge and there was a good reason, having realised what I have now about the awesome abuse power of a common database, I'd be saying, we must make sure the database is not common.
It must have different formats.
in different countries uh or maybe even just a random different ways of being able to demonstrate it a little little bit clunky occasionally for travel but within a within a country if you needed to demonstrate it there will never be a way of integrating it at the supranational level because as soon as that happens someone has complete power so what they could do for example you could associate with your entry Mike Yeadon unique digital id vaccine status no What they could do is, you could form, say, a new banking credit and say, here's where your money is.
And when you use your smartphone, you'll only be able to spend through this ID on this common platform.
Ooh, we're not going to let you go in that shop because you've not been vaccinated.
So you could live a bare life outside the system, or you could enjoy yourself in society.
But be under no doubt, you're under complete control of whoever owns and operates that database.
So that's why I think they're pushing, I'll be honest about it, they're dangerous vaccines.
They're dangerous in the sense that we don't yet, this is the current ones, we don't yet understand their long-term safety profile but already there's enough short-term safety worries for several countries to be contemplating changing the mix of people who get it and if a country, and I think it would be wise, chooses not to give it to people under 50 or under 60 it's because as I've said They're not at risk from the virus it's just mad that they would even contemplate taking a risk with their health and the physicians who have realized this who were ethical are going to stop and I imagine they're saying I'm not doing this anymore so the only and then when we got to the children
There's a study going on of 300 children.
300 children.
I can assure you, 300 children is not going to be enough children to allow you to work out at all whether this would be safe for your child.
If there was a, say, a one in a thousand chance of lethality, you'd probably miss it in this study of 300 children.
But if it's one in a thousand, you'll kill, I don't know, how many children are there?
10 million?
So 10,000 children could die.
So there could be a side effect so bad as to kill 10,000 children and we will not detect it in this trial.
So don't take any confidence from it.
Worse than that...
They're playing with you.
That trial of 300 children, it's a bag of tell that they can say, oh we've done a trial, it's okay.
But it isn't.
It's not big enough.
It's what's called underpowered statistically.
You should take no assurance whatsoever from that clinical trial, even if it's clean as a whistle.
Don't bring your child for vaccination.
Don't let them do it because your children are not at risk from the virus.
They won't infect anybody else.
And even if they did, it wouldn't matter because the vulnerable would have been vaccinated.
So use your brain.
You have worked this out.
Don't let them be vaccinated.
And I've just described awful, awful behaviour.
We're exposing 300 children, an inadequate number, I think, to get a political result that will be used for PR purposes to coerce you to bring your children in.
So don't do it because the study is massively underpowered.
There's even a study in newborns that's going on somewhere in America.
Why would you want to get every single person on the planet vaccinated?
Well, maybe Mike Eden's right then.
Maybe he's not quite so stupid after all.
Maybe I'm wrong, but even so, if you all get vaccinated there will be a common database.
I think Tony Blair Institute has been talking about that since before we had vaccines, suspiciously enough.
I don't trust that man.
I don't trust him at all.
I think he wants to be king of the world.
Yes!
So, seriously.
So that's the stuff I'm saying about the vaccine.
And again, I think I mentioned this phrase four times before.
Regarding the vaccine, you can't trust this government and its advisors.
Regarding these vaccines and your children, the trial's too small.
You can't trust this government or its advisors.
They want to do something that's not to do with protecting you from this virus.
They want to do something that's to do with benefits for them, and I don't know quite what they are.
But I think...
So, James, I don't know whether we want to take a pause before we go down the deepest rabbit hole of all.
Ooh, yes.
Actually, before we do, let's save that climactic moment for a moment.
I wanted to ask you, do you have any theories on... Because, as I understand it, normally when you make a vaccine, you create a kind of dead version of the thing you're trying to protect yourself against, don't you?
That means you'd have to have some of it, wouldn't you?
Yes.
Yes, that's true.
No one's got any, it seems.
Seriously.
I mean, it must exist.
Surely, James.
They couldn't really have fooled the whole world for a year without actually having a bucket of this stuff, surely.
But, oddly enough, you ask around, no one's got any.
I'm not alleging it's not there, I'm just observing that despite all of this time, no one seems to have any.
Interesting.
Does that mean they haven't isolated the virus?
Yes, I don't know.
You would have thought there'd be so many great labs that the government funded, either here or in Germany or America or Sweden or so on.
Why hasn't someone done one of these wonderful, whatever they're called, horizon programs, showing the purification of this stuff?
Maybe they've all been too busy running bad PCR tests and making vaccines that people don't need.
I don't know.
I genuinely don't know why there hasn't been a fully described purification.
Okay, so they haven't been able to do that because possibly they haven't isolated the virus.
But why are they doing this thing where it mucks around with your mRNA or your DNA?
This, as you say, is experimental.
Yeah, it's funny that.
There is an argument for doing this and its speed.
Once you know the genetic sequence of the virus, you can more or less do a cut and paste in a computer and then 3D printing effectively.
So actually then synthesize a piece of the gene In this case it's the spike protein, which is about 12 to 13 percent of the genome of the virus.
That's about the proportion it is of the whole virus, the spike.
So there is this advantage of speed.
As long as you sequence the genome of the virus, Then you can begin to design a vaccine and quite quickly you can say, well, I'm already starting to make it.
Whereas if you want to do it old school, you have to find good conditions to culture the virus.
You don't really culture the virus.
What you do is you culture cells in which it can grow.
But we do know how to do that.
I've seen they are called monkey Vero6 cells.
Apparently people use those.
So I don't really know why they couldn't have cultured those on scale.
Maybe that is happening.
Maybe some of the following, not top-up vaccines, but some of the sort of later first-gen ones might be a whole virus.
So there's a speed argument, James, that I have heard.
But the original technique, certainly the mRNA-based, gene-based vaccines that Pfizer-BioNTech is using and Moderna, they originated from the anti-cancer field.
Because these are ways of being able to, you know, turn on or turn off certain genes which could be advantageous if you want to manipulate, you know, cells that are growing out of control.
So that was really the origin of them.
So they're quite an unusual and very unusual application really.
If you think of when you try and treat cancers you've got quite a lot of latitude because Generally we think of the patient as being at such serious risk of dying and that means you can use some quite aggressive techniques and you may need to in order to arrest the growth of the cancer.
The patient may be willing to tolerate some significant side effects because the alternative may be death.
But if you think of a public health measure I really can't think of very much more the other end of the of the line really because most people won't catch the infective agent that you're vaccinating them against and if they did they probably wouldn't die.
So if you're using it as a public health protective measure you really want as close as you can get to zero side effects.
What you don't want is someone to To just be a good citizen, take a vaccine against a disease that's important for the community, but probably not for them statistically, and then for them to die.
That would be awful.
So I find it odd that they chose techniques that were really cutting their teeth in the field of oncology.
And I've thought about and I continue to think about that.
I am worried, for example, that by using gene-based vaccines that have to be injected in the body, spread around the body, get taken up into some cells and the regulators haven't quite told us which cells to get taken up into and then those genes need to be copied and made into protein and some cells will do that better than other cells.
It strikes me you're just going to be generating a really wide range of responses so that in one person it might be distributed less well, taken up less well, copied into protein less well.
So they might get a little dose of spike and another person might take up the vaccine in a very concentrated way and then very efficiently transfer it into spike protein and get a big dose of protein, big dose of spike protein.
It seems to me the dynamic range of outcomes is going to be wider and that's not a good thing.
You really want to be as tight as you can.
Just like when you take a dose of a drug, they give you 50 milligrams, not 80 or 28.
They give you a defined dose.
With these gene-based vaccines it seems to me that the outcome in terms of what happens in your body is going to be just intrinsically and unavoidably much wider because there are multiple steps each of which could go well or badly.
So, again, I've always found it an odd choice, but I think there's a reason.
I think there's a reason, or I don't know if it's an accident or was the driving reason.
If it was the driving reason, then the last rabbit hole I want to go down to is... I can just describe it.
Let me just describe this.
So I'm not certain what they're going to do, but you will probably all have heard, because it's in the news every day or every other day, the story of Virus variants or mutants.
They aren't virus variants.
You've heard of the Brazilian mutant and the South African mutant.
I think there's a Kent one and so on.
And the first time I heard this I thought, oh that's interesting.
That must be quite a change for them to have actually called it a name.
So I went to the molecular biology and I went to have a look and it was like a one amino acid change.
I thought, oh that's really quite unlikely to alter its behavior.
So let me just explain why that, why I feel that.
This is the largest, if not the largest, it's one of the largest viruses ever sequenced.
It contains 10,000 amino acids.
Those are the building blocks of a protein.
So if you take the whole protein, it's 10,000 long.
That's a lot.
And what that means is, if you changed I think 100 of them, that would be 1%.
Yes, that's right.
If you changed 100 of them, In the string of 10,000, that would be a 1% change.
But I've looked, and the most different variant, that is the one that's furthest away from the virus first sequenced in Wuhan, China, that has evolved the furthest away, I think it's 27 amino acids, 0.27.
It's less than 0.3% difference.
amino acids 0.27 is less than 0.3% difference in other words it's 99.7% identical 99.7%
Now I assure you that the human immune system is much cleverer than that.
there is no chance, it's not just implausible, it's impossible for a variant that differs by
0.3 percent so it's 99.7 percent identical, there is no chance that that will evade immunity.
So the stuff that you're hearing about, you hear advisors and so on wringing their hands about,
well not quite sure if the vaccine will work as well against this one as against the other one.
Bullshit.
The amount of difference between these is so minuscule.
Let me give you an analogy.
A human palm, not the fingers and the thumb, just the palm, about 1% of your body surface area.
So hold up in front of you and imagine something about a third that size.
It's not even as big as the brim on your baseball cap.
Right, get your baseball cap on.
You're exactly the person you are now.
Your family loves you and knows you well.
I'm going to make a 0.3% change in your appearance to mimic this change of the virus in your immune system.
Take your baseball cap off, rotate it round and put it flat at the back.
Ask your family, do they recognise you?
Yeah, and of course they do.
So I'm just pointing out that a 0.3% change in a complex organism like James Dellingpole or Mike Yeehan, there's no way anyone even faintly familiar with you is going to be thinking that's a new pathogen, that's a different person.
Well that's what the government's advisors are trying to get you to believe when they talk about variants, because that's about the scale of the difference.
So here's where it gets terrifying.
Because not only are government ministers saying this, and they've shut the international borders, haven't they, effectively, and made you quarantine, all to stop you bringing home something that's pretty much identical to what you've already got.
Why are they doing that?
It makes no sense, literally.
I knew it.
I knew that months ago, and I thought, what are they doing?
And the grounds they gave us are just not true.
They're not viable.
They're not plausible.
So as soon as I heard them do that, which was like turn of the year, I thought that's when I started to get really frightened feeling.
You can't trust the government or its advisors because whatever they're doing, what they're telling you is not matching up with the immunology.
But here's the really terrifying part.
They're telling you that, don't worry, we can tweak these vaccines because they're mRNA genes, as you said.
You just go into the computer, change the sequence, update your production line, and there's a jab for you to update your immunity.
But Mike Eaton's just told you that the variants are nowhere near different enough to configure, to require any kind of different immunity.
In fact, I believe they would need to be a hundredfold more different than that.
About 30% maybe, there would be a chance.
Even then, I would vote for your immune system.
We'll easily recognise it as a brother or a cousin.
Easily.
Not 0.3 or 3, maybe 30 and I still would vote for the human immune system every time to not be fooled and not believe it was a new pathogen.
You don't need a new vaccine, even for 30%.
The people who had SARS, the original SARS, 2003, 17, 18 years ago, Volunteers have given their blood if they survived that infection 17 years ago, and they recognize SARS-CoV-2 easily.
And they are 20% different.
So I've got empirical evidence, I've got theory on my side, and now we've got, I'm sorry, you're being misled by governments and its advisors.
Here's the two terrifying other bits of information for your listeners.
I've heard that some of the pharmaceutical companies, I don't know which so I'm not going to name them, I've heard some of the pharmaceutical companies are already manufacturing top-up vaccines for you.
So once you've had your first generation vaccine, you've got your vaccine passport and you've been to the pub maybe, You'll be called up for your top-up vaccine, which I'm telling you, you don't need.
Now here's the last terrifying bit of information.
If you guys can't put it together after this, I really can't help you.
The Global Medicines Regulators, MHRA, European Medicines Agency, the FDA, they got their heads together about a month ago and they put out a statement that said The top-up vaccines being so similar to the originals, they don't require the producers to do clinical safety studies.
So there's a conspiracy here, because I know, and I've spoken to at least six other immunologists who agree, that the variations, the variants, are nowhere near different enough from the original virus to possibly need a different vaccine, and yet you're told that they're needed, and the country shut its borders because of them, The pharma companies are manufacturing top-up vaccines that you don't need, so that means people in the company know they're not needed and they're making something.
And finally, the medicines agencies of the world have said, go ahead, be my guest.
So they're going to go from the whiteboard or computer screen of a drug company into hundreds of millions of arms without passing go, or any regulator.
And so, just in brief, why would they possibly want to do that?
You asked the question earlier, James, about why did they pick this method of making a vaccine when they could have just used a piece of the dead pathogen?
Well, one, they'd need some dead pathogen.
Maybe that would take a lot of time.
But the other reason for using gene-based vaccines is you can put whatever gene you like in.
If you wanted to, I don't know, theoretically you could get someone to express a gene that would have some benefit to them, possibly.
You certainly could give them a gene that would do them some harm, if you wanted.
That harm might be short-term, it might be long-term.
It might be conditional on other factors with which that extra gene would interact.
But here's my... I can't think of a benign... I cannot think of a benign explanation.
for the claim that you need top-up vaccines which I'm sure you don't for the manufacture by the drug companies of these things that aren't needed and for the regulators just to get out of the way and wave them through.
I will point out actually just quickly for evidence that to say that they're so similar to the original vaccines that we don't need to do safety trials is really to insult your listeners because right now The medicines agencies are wrestling with how safe or not are the parent vaccines.
So don't let them just wave top-up vaccines but they're not needed anyway.
So there's not a benign explanation for the claim they're needed, they're manufactured and they're going right past the medicines regulators without being examined.
But if you wanted, and I've heard of this, if you wanted say to depopulate a significant proportion of the world and to do it in a way that wouldn't require destruction of the environment with nuclear weapons or poisoning everyone with anthrax or something like that and you wanted plausible deniability whilst you had a multi-year infectious disease crisis I actually don't think you could come up with a better plan of work than it seems to be in front of me and I can't say that's what they're going to do but I can't think of a benign explanation for why they are doing it so
I won't be able to sleep properly until someone comes up with a benign explanation or takes me away, I guess.
But I'm not stopping, because there is nothing for me in this world, all my children and grandchildren, while this stuff is going on.
So I don't care at all what the risks are to me.
I'm not going to stop until I can tell this to as many people as possible.
Anyway, I shall pause now, James?
Yes.
You might want to ask me questions.
There's a lot to digest there, Mike.
Go on, Mike.
What... I mean, are you suggesting that...
Do they have the capability, for example, of killing off particular races?
I don't know.
But that's a theoretical possibility, isn't it?
It is, but there are quite a few people I have heard during my lifetime, quite thoughtful people, who've said that they're worried that It will be difficult to keep planet Earth in good order and the people on it to have good lives, the standard of living that they aspire to, whilst retaining biodiversity and not destroying all the different habitats and not running out of non-renewable resources.
On the one hand, you know, I would happily try and find the best solutions to problems like that, but I have to say, maybe I'm just a softie, but it would never cross my mind to think, well, you know, one solution might be to get rid of 90% of the humans.
But I wonder, I wonder, I'm not saying that they aren't, right?
I'm just pointing out, if you wanted to, This would be a hell of a way to do it.
Yes.
And it's unstoppable, folks.
This summer and autumn, it's unstoppable.
If you allow the government to browbeat and coerce you until everybody but a few percent are on a vaccine passport, What they'll do is they'll gradually tighten the screws.
They'll let you have a normal life.
They'll tighten the screws to coerce and effectively mandate the last few percent.
And then I think they'll put the rest of them in a prison camp.
Yes.
And then they'll move on to the top-up vaccine.
So you heard it here first.
I wish I was wrong.
I really badly wish I was wrong, but I don't think I am.
Yes, and there is, of course, another worrying thing, which is that the people who are refusing to take this so-called vaccine tend to be the very sort of independent-minded, tricky buggers that the new authority doesn't want.
Yes, probably.
I mean, the funny thing is, I imagine the elites They've probably got their births already sorted.
They won't be taking vaccines.
They won't be going through QR codes.
Did you know, just to really annoy your listeners, because you probably think that no one's flying anywhere because you can't go, I only discovered this the day before yesterday because I hadn't realised this, but a friend of a friend works for high-end, not high-end, how would he call it, organising itineraries, journeys and flights and so on, has done for years.
He said he's never been so busy.
It's never been so busy.
And he said last week, I organised an itinerary for 10 people, it was like 15 grand.
You know, it's like, people are, wealthy people are going off to their holidays in the Caribbean.
You don't see them.
They just slither down the airport roads, get processed.
And off they go.
Yes.
It's just you and I aren't being able to go, unless you've got a business reason.
But he said he's organising groups and they're definitely not going to prepare a house for sale or rent.
They're going on holiday.
But they're rich people.
Right.
And it's just happening.
That's interesting.
But before I forget, tell me a bit about ADE responses.
What is that?
I don't think I'm enough expert at it to be able to explain it coherently but I do know that it is there is a concern people have that if you've been vaccinated first and you will have raised a lot of antibodies not just antibodies by the way shouldn't forget the other in fact it's very important not to yes you will raise antibodies and they will be circulating
in your body maybe you know secreted in various tissues and the concern is that when you under
certain conditions are not fully understood if you've got already the antibodies and then you get
infected by the the pucca original virus that somehow the antibodies augment the infection somehow
pulling the infective agent into the tissues and that's called antibody dependent enhancement or
you know make in other words make the antibodies make the infection worse right that has
that has been seen that is the phenomenon of vaccination followed by exposure to the the genuine
infective agent that you're meant to be protected against actually getting worse because of course
a normal vaccine would protect you right that's the idea but there have been several occasions
including in humans where prior vaccinations actually made the course of disease worse and
i don't think we fully understand why and when we see that of course we just stop doing it
And I know people are worried that that might happen here with coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2, and it is certainly true in animal experiments with some other coronaviruses that that phenomenon was seen.
So I suppose I can understand why they might be worried about it, but I don't think I can either reassure you or amplify the worries.
It's not something I have focused on.
I can only do so much and I've not read a single paper about it.
And what about the longer term consequences for just human reproduction?
I mean, presumably once you've had one of these jabs that mucks around with your mRNA or whatever, that you're not... I don't think we really know what happens, James.
It's just simply not been described.
I've looked through the dossiers, the regulatory dossiers.
At least the ones that are available in the US.
They have what's called duty of candor.
So you, a member of the public, can go and read the documents that were filed with the FDA.
At least the ones that were finally used in the determination.
For any drug that's approved, you can go and find quite a lot of the documents.
That's just not true in Europe.
So I'm not able to see at all what they've done.
I don't know how long the message lasts in the cells.
I don't even know which cells it goes into.
Which is appalling.
I'm a drug discovery guy, early development.
I can assure you we do know what's called PKPD, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics.
You would normally know that.
You'd be able to describe it and you'd be looking to see does that happen the same in animals as in humans?
How about cells in a test tube?
What's the longevity of it in culture and so on?
I'm not able to find any of that information.
You can ask, you know, 20 questions about, you know, how long does it last, and where does it go, and when does it wear off, and I'm afraid I don't know.
The innovator might know, and the regulator might know, but I'm unable to find out, so I can't tell you.
But, yeah, it's, that's one for me, one of the uncertainties, when people say, are you making a big deal?
And I say, well, you know, we just don't have any data Yes.
beyond a few months formally after administering it to a human so I actually don't know what'll
happen after say six months or a year and they go oh don't worry about it. Yes. Really? I mean you
think you think hope will be okay what happens if that's not right? What happens if it isn't okay?
Some things sometimes happen like thalidomide wasn't expected.
I'm not saying this is thalidomide, but I'm just pointing out if you'd had that same blasé, it'll be all right, why are you worrying?
Then, you know, if you had administered it to every person, that really could have been quite bad for the species.
And I'm pointing out, yet again, you shouldn't be giving this vaccine, especially because it's new technology, you should give it to the people who are at risk of dying if they catch the virus and to no one else.
And the fact that my government, in what I thought was a civilised, sensible, rational country, is raining it on people who are in their 30s and 40s, even my children in their 20s.
They're getting letters and phone calls.
I know this is not right.
And any of you doctors and vaccinators that are doing it, you know it's not right too.
They're not at risk.
They're not at risk from the disease.
So you're now hoping that the side effect risk is so rare that you get away with it, and it's not.
Yes.
So that's the point, and it was never going to be.
It was never going to, until you've got the data to show how safe it is, you should never assume things are safer than is common, right?
Most vaccines are pretty bloody safe.
I've had loads of them, my kids had all of them, including the most modern ones that came out in the 90s.
I read the label and said, that's my recommendation.
The data would look pretty good.
But what you don't do is give new technology things that you don't understand to 100% of the population.
Especially when only a few percent of the population are at risk of dying.
So just straight away you know it's unethical.
It's not done.
But everyone's mute.
The doctors and the NHS must know that this is not right.
And they're coming into work and injecting people.
I don't know how they sleep at night.
I couldn't do it.
I know I couldn't do it.
If I was in that position, I would have had to quit.
Because I know enough about toxicology to know that this is not a good risk-benefit.
You don't know that it's a good risk-benefit.
And now I'm seeing some risks.
This young woman cannot get benefit because she's not at risk from the virus.
But she's going to carry a risk.
And if you multiply this by 10 million, you will kill some people for no benefit.
Why are you doing that?
And James, the reason must be because it's something bigger than you.
And it's not protection against the virus, it's some bigger project than you.
That means that politicians and advisors are willing to do things, or not do things, that knowing results in avoidable deaths.
That's already happened, if you think about lockdown and deprivation of healthcare for a year.
And people have said to me, when I've outlined my worry about what could happen with superfluous top-up vaccines that haven't been tested, They literally shy away when I say, well, what do you think you could do with that?
And I can see their minds are working, and it kind of occurs to them.
Again, no, it couldn't be, could it?
See, people self-censor.
They can't believe there could be that much evil, and I remind them of Pol Pot, and Stalin, and Hitler, and others.
They do exist, I'm afraid.
And also, I would point them a point something out.
There are, I won't name individuals because it's not fair, but there are people in the government and advisors in the government and then people, you know, who are civil servants, I guess, who have enacted policies which arguably have resulted in avoidable deaths.
You know, deprivation of healthcare is one of them.
I believe, if you're the kind of person that can do that, you come into work, you do the caps out calculations, got three zeros at the end of the number of avoidable excess deaths that are going to flow from my pen, and you do it.
I think if you can sleep and eat okay for the next few days, when you need to come into work and add, say, three more digits, or nine more digits, you're the kind of person who can sign the paper.
I don't think it makes any difference.
If you're prepared to do something that results in the avoidable death of a fellow human being, and it not bother you in conscience, I don't think... Do you remember that famous phrase James of Stalin?
He said, one death is a tragedy, a millionth a statistic.
Yes.
That's how these people think.
So don't self-censor.
Just be reasonable.
Just think of it as a Meccano set or Lego or a jigsaw.
Just put it together and you come up with a benign explanation for what I've described because I can't and I'm sleeping very badly these days.
Yes.
Have you heard, by the way... I need to stop soon.
Yes, just a couple more things.
First of all, the Chinese and the Russians, bizarrely, seem to have developed vaccines which are just vaccines.
I know, it's very strange.
Am I right then?
Unfortunately, I don't believe anything I'm told anymore.
Right seriously so yeah if we could believe what we're told I do think that is it Sinovac and then Sputnik yeah I think they are meant to be different but I We can't be sure.
Because I can't be sure.
I'm afraid almost everything feels like Smiley's world these days.
So my final question to you, and this will enable you to sort of really reinforce what you said earlier, is I expect there are lots and lots and lots of people out there, including members of my family, and this has been very divisive within families.
even though they might think you've got access to this madman or at least somebody knows something.
Yes.
It doesn't make any difference. There are some people I literally cannot get through to them.
They more or less just sort of, I wouldn't say they laugh but you can see it's that it's not going in.
Yes, what would you say to somebody, and I'm sure there are lots of people like this, who say look
they've been brought up in a culture of rampant health and safety and they've been, they
They believe the BBC, they trust the government.
Look, there is no way that our friendly family doctor, there's no way that our NHS, there's no way that a conservative government, there's no way that a regulated industry would make anyone take an unsafe vaccine.
What's your answer to that?
That's my instinct too.
And I'm struggling.
I have come to the point, and my wife feels the same, we can't live here.
The country we grew up in doesn't exist.
And the signs of it all around, every institution that normally protects you, James, the things you just listed, they're gone.
They don't exist anymore.
The BBC has lied to everybody all the time.
They just don't give you faintly accurate information.
I'm sorry, it's true.
So the BBC, you know, there's no question that the mass media is not giving fair and balanced information to its people.
And I could have understood it in the first few weeks and months of a crisis whose dimensions we wouldn't have.
I did understand that, you know, this off-com coronavirus broadcasting guidelines.
But for them to still be in use in a year, which is making sure that there's simply not a competing voice about what should be happening here, that isn't normal.
We normally do have, you know, quite a rumbustious press, and they're all just poodles, pretty much.
They are.
So, yes, it's astonishing, isn't it?
Maybe that's why we've been chosen, because I do think that Britain looks like, other than Israel, quite a small country.
Israel could be a test case.
I think they've already introduced the vaccine passports.
They're well over 50% vaccinated.
You'll notice that the BBC doesn't talk about Israel very much.
I've got a few friends there and they tell me it's a battle royal, both in Parliament, on the streets, in the synagogues.
People know that something's going on and they don't know which way to jump.
Well, because hasn't there been a spike in deaths in all countries where they've rolled out the vaccine?
I think that's true.
If there's one or two exceptions, then they are the exception.
And I can explain why that might be, if you were concerned about it.
We might just go for placebo for a little bit.
But yeah, there's been an enormous I'm not the analyst, but I've certainly seen other people's work where you track vaccination rates and then uptick in cases.
There definitely does seem to be a relationship.
I have not had time to study it.
Again, there's a limit to what one person can do.
So I've observed there does seem to be something going on.
I don't have an adequate explanation for it.
Well Mike it's been really great talking to you and look thank you even if even if you stop just one person yeah taking this experimental treatment It would have been worth it, wouldn't it?
A little bit more than that.
So I think we didn't quite get to the people.
Yeah, you modelled it.
It's like they won't believe, they won't believe, they won't believe.
What I would say to you is let's just take a step back then to the current generation of vaccines and the vaccine passports under the Nuremberg Code put together after the Second World War to prevent the horrors of human medical experimentation.
Your government, and no agency, is allowed to coerce you into accepting a medical treatment you don't want.
So if you're feeling kind of pressured, that's coercion.
My strong advice when someone's doing something wrong is not to say, OK then, it's to say, how about no?
So I strongly recommend to you delay your decision.
So if you're youngish and fittish and you're not likely to die from the virus and you're not thinking about reducing some risk for you from the virus in respect of this vaccination decision, you are thinking about pubs and international travel, can I ask you Do a bit more thinking, just delay your decision, or indefinitely necessarily, but make an active decision to delay it.
See what happens.
The reason I want you to do that is I think if a sufficient proportion, probably quite a small proportion, if a sufficient proportion of people don't get it, it can't complete.
Now, I'm sure if this plan is anything like what I think it is, they'll probably have a response to that.
But, you know, stand fast.
You shouldn't be coerced into accepting something that you don't want, and especially something you don't need.
If ever you're pressured to accept a medical intervention you don't need, you must suspect the motives of the person doing it.
And since you're not at risk from the virus, you must suspect the motives of the person doing it.
Yes.
And I've offered you an example of a reason why that might be worrying.
Even if I'm wrong about that, you should still not give away to coercion.
It's illegal.
It's the Council of Europe, of which we're still a member, after leaving the EU we're still a member, they issued in January a really long document that two sections of it said, member states are reminded that they may not mandate or coerce their citizens to receive medical products.
And then the next paragraph said, and Member States are reminded, that they may not discriminate in any way between people who decide whether or not to have a vaccine.
So the law is quite clear.
Obviously, it would need to be, you know, used.
But make no mistake that the law is there to protect us.
But if we are too careless, too easily persuaded, and almost everyone gets vaccinated, it's like, well, the law's irrelevant then, isn't it?
You've taken your decision.
Independent thinkers and just people who think this doesn't feel right, I want that to be the highest possible percentage.
Anyone who's thinking of taking it because they're at risk of the virus, then take your doctor's advice.
I'm not talking to you.
Everybody else, please don't, for God's sake, give the country away for a pint.
You know, just say no and then if there's enough of us, then they will not be able to introduce some ridiculous childish scheme that doesn't protect anyone anyway. Also
remember vaccine passports don't protect anybody. You're not less safe or
more safe in a pub garden because you've got a vaccine passport. So if enough
people don't have it, eventually you'll have to open the pub so there'll be
riots and then they can just let everybody in. So you'll still get your pint if you
don't get vaccinated. So yes, take your delay.
Thank you.
Thank you so much.
Now, don't lose the tape of this, because it would be an awful waste of an hour.
It would be a waste.
So, when we finish this call, I shall, yeah, I shall send it to you.
OK, thank you.
Great to talk to you.
And good luck.
And thank you for all you're doing.
No problem.
Bye then.
Bye.
▲
Export Selection