All Episodes
Previous Next
July 15, 2022 - Jim Fetzer
56:31
‘Doctors & Scientists’ Ep 37 with Mike Yeadon: ‘It Could Not Have Worked, and They Knew It’
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Dr. David L. Welcome to this week's episode of Doctors and Scientists.
I have a repeat offender this week.
I have Dr. Mike Eden, and I am so excited that you have agreed to come back upon my invitation.
We didn't really have enough time to finish up, and we didn't have enough time in the last interview to adequately talk about the solution.
But before we get started, Dr. Yeadon, if you could remind our viewing audience your qualifications and your background with Pfizer.
Yeah, I'll do that.
Brian, thank you very much for having me back and to the audience.
Ideally, I'm speaking to some people I haven't spoken to before, but I'm going to ask you to do something, anybody listening, and that's we will win
If people who hear me do something with the information to persuade a third party to at least consider that the narrative they're being told is false, because it is, if you leave it to Brian and Mike and McCulloch and Malone and so on and many others, we will lose because each of us has our tiny network.
I can never reach your network, but you can.
So please, however scary it might be, risk embarrassing yourself.
You could save humanity.
Right.
So yes, Dr. Mike Eden.
I have to admit now, I am involuntarily pretty much retired from biopharmaceutical research.
I spent 32 years at increasingly senior levels in charge of drug research and early development.
The longest period was, I think, 17 years at Pfizer in the UK.
When I was their worldwide chief scientific officer for allergy and respiratory, so anything we would say from idea to clinical proof of concepts, we would hand it off to full development.
You know, in the end, you know, it was my responsibility to assemble teams to help select drug targets, work with medicinal chemists, find drugs, and so on.
And we did okay.
You are a Ph.D., not an M.D., correct?
What's your Ph.D.
in?
My Ph.D.
is in Respiratory Pharmacology, as life would have it.
My original training prior to that was Biochemistry, so it's like the inner workings of cells, including RNA and so on.
But it was a double major, including toxicology, so the formal study of toxicity of substances, including experimental drugs.
So it does position me really rather well to criticize what's going on.
So notwithstanding having been in biopharmaceuticals all of my life, so I spent another 10 years as an independent, so I advised 30 startup companies, well-funded venture finance companies, along the way.
Including some that are now floated.
And during that period, I started, led as CEO, and with others, successfully, you know, exited or sold our asset, our whole company, to Novartis.
Wonderful.
So, yeah, so I would say I've had a modestly successful career, both as a start job, you know, being responsible within corporate, but as an entrepreneur, should we say, separately.
So yeah and so I was in a very comfortable position.
Partly it was ill health in my late 50s so we'd sold the company.
I wasn't in great health and so it was a good moment to pause and I was just doing a little bit of light consulting to two or three clients.
So what that allowed me to do I suppose is pay attention to what we were being told as this quote, pandemic unfolded.
And I quite quickly realized things were not right.
Anyone who knows me can find any one of 60 interviews where I describe that essentially everything you're being told is a lie.
It's all an exaggeration.
So they've exaggerated about the magnitude of the health threat, if any.
I have in my mind, just for the people who don't believe in viruses, I'm genuinely listening to you.
I have lost confidence there actually is a new pathogen at all, quite honestly.
But I'm not 100% over the line.
But the government lied to us systematically and they're still doing it to make people frightened.
And what was the consequence of that?
Well, it made them, I think, tolerant of what are called non-pharmaceutical interventions, lockdown, masking, separation, border closures, etc.
And then I thought the end game was going to be, well, they'll inject us with these bloody vaccines and that'll be that.
But just to cut a long story short, I knew that was really bad when, having concluded everything was an exaggeration and an untruth, That when I started looking at the vaccines, they're very unconventional and not like any traditional vaccine.
So I never worked in vaccinology.
So people, I think with justification, could say, what does that guy?
He doesn't know anything about vaccines.
You know, in a sense, fair enough.
But these are not conventional vaccines where you take a mush of the pathogen, you try and denature it chemically with And so it can't cause the illness.
It might make you a little bit sick for a couple of days, but it's a training set.
So your immune system gets to play with it in a non-threatening way and acquires memory.
That's the idea.
And I've thought that's a good idea.
It's a good idea.
You've got to look at the individuals, but the principle is it's pretty much fair enough.
The human immune system is amazing.
It will remember often for years, sometimes your whole life, a single experience of having done battle with the pathogen and succeeded.
But there are people who need that help because they might die in the attempt to defeat the pathogen.
But so looking at what is being called vaccines, we were right in my territory of drug design.
We actually manufacture something that's never been made before in the history of humans and you formulate it with an intention to give it to people.
To bring about what's called pharmacokinetics.
The drug will distribute and it'll do things pharmacodynamics.
So this is in my wheelhouse.
You can call it what you like, but this is what I did for 32 years with medicinal chemistry friends.
What they were doing, and I've said this before, they chose a piece of the alleged virus, the sequence from Wuhan, that encodes the so-called spike protein.
And we knew around that time, and certainly subsequently, lots of papers have told us that that's the most pathologically dangerous part of the virus itself.
So I knew as soon as I looked at it that all four drug companies, AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson, making us a DNA Gene sequence for that, for the spike, and the Moderna, I believe Pfizer, BioNTech, so the two mRNAs that they were coding their messenger RNA for the same sequence.
So four drug companies all chose what I would say, and no one has come back to me and rebutted me.
They've picked the worst possible part of the alleged virus to act as a training set, and I predicted at that time that Because spike proteins do have the propensity to stimulate blood coagulation through activation of platelets and lots of other things, it would be dangerous.
And I couldn't say how dangerous, but I would have expected some harm.
And unfortunately, that's exactly what's happened.
And they knew that, you know, the people who my peers on the inside knew what I've just said is true.
And they all did the same thing.
It's not an accident, I'm afraid.
You know, you may say this tinfoil hat time, but That's what they did.
And I've told you they shouldn't do that.
They should have picked a benign, harmless part of the of the alleged virus.
Right.
Right.
There are other proteins that they could have chosen.
At least five or six.
And they are those other ones.
do come up in people's immune responses.
So after becoming ill in a way that led to a positive test for this COVID-19, it's all a bit difficult, but their immune system did change to show antibodies and T cell responses to every part of the virus.
And in fact, only a minority of responses were even against the spike protein.
So it's not true that you couldn't pick anything else.
It's not true.
It has to be the external protein.
That's just not right.
So at that point I'm afraid I've concluded this is by summer 2020 something awful is happening because we're being lied to by exaggerating the threat.
Lots of measures are being imposed upon us and then I may have mentioned last time Brian that in 2019 a team of scientists from the WHO, they're not all corrupt you know, some good scientists reviewed all of the Non-pharmaceutical interventions like masking and lockdowns and so on.
And you can find that report.
It's a hundred plus page report.
And the conclusion was that really none of them did anything.
And the only worthwhile request to the citizenry would be if you're sick, stay home until you're better and wash your hands because we don't know the truth.
And that's sort of traditional quarantining, is if you're sick, stay home.
You know, that was the basis of quarantine.
And then with the 2020 rollout, instead we had quarantine everybody.
It doesn't matter if you're sick or not.
It's crazy.
And of course, what happened is people died in excess at home.
I know that was true in England and Wales, because that's my country, and we were looking at the weekly Office of National Statistics.
And the number of people dying at home absolutely climbed.
And oddly, the number of people calling 9-1-1 or 9-9-9, as we say in Britain, the number of people making emergency calls for acute respiratory stress was well down.
And it's like, that can't be happening if what they're telling us is true, that there's a respiratory virus making people sick.
You would expect a spike in the admissions for acute respiratory illness.
That wasn't what we were seeing.
So I could use up all the rest of the time talking about that but I do want to return to the alleged vaccines because I've discovered something in the last week that I probably knew and I've missed but when I put it together I honestly I challenge anyone to finish listening to what I'm going to say and not know as I do that this whole thing is planned and it's a criminal enterprise and I'm afraid there's no benign explanation.
It can only be awful or really dreadful.
There are no There are no good outcomes.
So I looked at the vaccine design.
They're really sort of new drug design and developments.
So right in my wheelhouse.
I remember I'm toxicology as well.
And I was right.
So the prediction that Dr. Wolfgang Vodag and I made Before the year was out, before any of them had emergency authorization, we wrote an open letter to the European Medicines Agency.
We didn't even manage to guess all of the toxicities, but the ones we did guess that have reached a conclusion.
um including uh neurological uh uh anaphylaxis and i'm afraid it looks like reproductive toxicology so there were three out of four that that we've been proved right i don't think we made it on blood clots i don't know why there's two students right at the time but so what i'm saying is i'm not monday morning quarterbacking we knew these were bad design uh all the way through their their year so what have i discovered what have i discovered in the last week or at least a penny has dropped.
And it's this, that we were told that there was a new respiratory virus, very threatening to people's health.
And we knew quite early on That whatever it was, the people who were getting very sick and dying were generally those who were quite close to the end of their lives.
So it's like 70s, 80s, 90s.
If you go and look at the statistics, that's what's happening.
And in fact, in the UK at least, the median age at death with COVID, so someone who died within 28 days of a positive test, was the same median age at death from all causes.
In the year prior.
In other words, this new health threat that they told us about, they claim is killing a lot of people, but you know what?
It hasn't moved the sort of age percent lethality.
If the mortality was increasing, you would expect that age to go down, right?
Exactly.
It can't go up, because otherwise it would be like making you die, but later.
It's like that would be an extension of life.
And also, dear Dr. Dennis Rankhor, I think I went off on the wrong foot with him.
We had a few exchanges, but he released a magnificent paper where he's analyzed, I think, I think it's all-cause mortality in every one of the U.S.
states in 2020.
And go and read it for yourself, folks.
It's Dennis Rankhor, R-A-N-C-O-U-R-T.
He's a Canadian researcher.
I think he's quite an unusual thinker and occasionally cantankerous, but I think with justification.
Basically, his evidence is shocking.
There's no evidence for a pandemic at all.
It's really rather shocking.
But it's still, you know, let's say he's wrong and I'm wrong even to mention that.
Here's the real thing.
So I've just painted a picture for you that it's the elderly folks, usually with two, three, or four, what I call comorbidities, serious chronic illnesses that tend to shorten your life, cancer, diabetes, heart, you know, whatever, heart disease.
Right, right.
But that's the typical profile, I'm afraid, of the, you know, someone 20 years older than me, male or female, you know, get sickening and then dying.
So, yeah, so what they told us to do is lockdown.
It's a horrible threat.
Lockdown.
The industry is on this immediately and then what we'll do is as quickly as we can, without cutting any corners, we'll get you a vaccine and that will get us all out of this.
I remember Bill Gates saying we can't return to normal until we've pretty much vaccinated the entire planet.
We've got really serious problems here.
But in the last week I've spotted a fundamental flaw with the strategy that's true, that you can all check in a few minutes, and they knew was a fatal flaw, which is devastating.
And it's this.
The people who are elderly who, when they catch these alleged viral infections, sicken and die, do so because their immune systems are old, tired, and rather unresponsive to new immunological threats.
That's thought to be the main problem.
Now, I believe that is the main problem.
Immunosenescence.
So your immune system's old.
Immunosenescence.
A recognized phenomenon.
So if they're immunosenescent and they don't respond well to novel pathogens, why in the world would you expect them to respond well to vaccines?
And the answer is you wouldn't and the data says you don't.
And then some people might say, oh well Dr Eden, here's where you're wrong because we've been using flu shots for 20 years or whatever it is.
Now, so this is the bit I fell over again in the last week that I've seen and I put part of it somewhere.
I looked at a Cochrane Foundation review until they got subverted.
The Cochrane Foundation was, I think, considered the acme of clever groups that do absolutely independent meta-analyses.
They were grouped together all of the studies that bore on a particular meta-analysis.
And their reputation was sterling for many, many years.
Absolutely.
It was for many, many years.
So they thought, wouldn't it be cool if we do a meta-analysis of the first, I think it was the first 10 years after the offering at the age of 60.
I think it was 60 years of age in Britain.
Everybody was entitled to have an annual flu jab.
I personally didn't bother in the first occasion and that wasn't there the second occasion.
I'm quite glad now.
So the bottom line from that Cochrane Foundation review is, drumroll, They did not reduce the frequency of hospitalizations for respiratory disorders, and they did not reduce the number of deaths for respiratory disorders.
They don't work.
They don't work.
Now, they might work in a 30-year-old, so instead of being ill for four days, they're ill for half a day.
Right, right.
I'm not saying they don't do anything, although I haven't looked.
But that doesn't matter.
The reason we were told that we had to lock down is to save granny, right, or grandpa.
Right.
What I've just laid out to you, it says, the science, you know, the pathophysiology, your own natural history, means you're only really, really vulnerable to getting really sick and dying when you're at a stage when your immune system isn't very responsive.
And that is why you're vulnerable.
That's why you're vulnerable.
So your body, you wouldn't expect it to respond well to vaccines either, and they don't.
And the evidence that they don't is from the Cochrane Financial Review of 10 years worth of influenza shots.
Then there's another thing to tell you.
It's not just Eden.
I think interviewed on your channel a few days ago, Dr Peter McCulloch, He's not a vaccinologist anymore than I was and he said he was a cardio renal expert and he said I just took it for granted because I'd been told that vaccines were safe and effective and so I didn't have much to do with them and never thought to even look them up and he said occasionally I was asked to endorse Prevnar.
Prevnar is a pneumococcal Pneumonia, and it's got lots of bits in it which have changed every year.
So he said, yes, I would put my thumbs up to that.
And the same with influenza shots.
He said, I even have one myself.
But he said, now I've actually gone back to look at the original research, in fact, the filed research, on the basis of which Prevnar and the latest flu shots were approved.
And he said, the Prevnar has an efficacy against, I think, severe illness of death and death 9%.
Nine.
So, 0.9%, so under one in 10.
I'm afraid you can't detect probably 9% in a clinical trial, and the FDA requires a minimum of 50% efficacy before they'll even talk to you.
So 9% is, I would say, is no efficacy.
It's nothing.
It's in the noise.
And the flu shot, I think it was 16% also in the noise.
So what I've said is people are vulnerable because they're old and their immune system's tired and unresponsive.
And my logic is, well, why would you expect them to respond to vaccines?
And they don't.
So before they left the railway station in January, of 2020.
All those talking heads from pharma and other places and regulators saying, don't worry, we're on this.
I've got brand new technology, we'll get you a vaccine.
They knew that even if they brought you a vaccine that worked, it wouldn't save the old people because their immune systems don't respond to it.
That's a dreadful, that's certain, that's certain.
You can, that's true.
You'd have to pretend that the pharma people and the regulators are so stupid that they They believe their own hype and they're not stupid.
They're not stupid.
No, oh no, no.
They're very cunning.
So the first part, these so-called vaccines, and I'm not happy, I don't really think they're vaccines, and they're utterly uncontrolled anyway.
Right, right.
Uncontrolled in the sense that there is nothing in the design of them that limits how much or little spike protein is made.
Nothing at all.
It'll be what it'll be.
And in me, it might be a lot.
Brian, in you, it might be very little, or vice versa.
Nothing at all.
And there's also nothing in them that defines where they go in your body.
And they might go into your brain, or around your body, or staying half in your arm.
There's nothing about that to... I've described it last time as like a go-kart with a brick on the throttle.
You know, just climb out of it, a brick on the throttle, and let it go.
Right, right.
And even in the playground with children, it's like it's no different.
So I've got two other things, and I'll just quickly say again.
So the first one is the vaccine strategy was the wrong one.
It could never have worked.
It should always have protected the vulnerable, like the great Barrington folks said, and then treat them with whatever Emerging drugs you get, like hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin and so on, as they emerge, that was the right strategy.
And you know what?
It was all we needed to do.
That's assuming there is even a new virus.
And I don't think there is, and I'll tell you why in a moment.
But even if we just say they were behaving honourably,
is uh the first rule of public health is uh first do no harm same as same as medicine you're going to give it potentially hundreds of millions and as it turns out billions and billions of people so don't you think it would be a really cool idea if they were able to assure you of the safety of these beasts not just assert they were safe and call you an anti-vax when you said where's the safety data which is what they've done now the only way you can get say say you want a year's safety data i mean i think that's hopelessly inadequate
Because what happens if there's a serious problem in 15 or 18 months in a third of the population?
Well, you're going to find out after you've injected three billion people.
That's not how you do things.
It's never been how we do things.
So the only way you can get a decent length of longitudinal safety is it takes longer, I'm afraid.
You can't shorten a year's worth of post-dose safety monitoring.
So I knew by the time they went from idea to launch in, I think, 11 months, what they didn't have is sufficient longitudinal safety data to look you in the eye and say, as they have done, they're perfectly safe.
They can't possibly know that.
They have not got The data.
Now, you know what?
If it turns out that they were really safe, I'd still be as angry as I am now, because you can't blaze away at the entire global population on the it'll be alright on the night principle, which is what they've done.
But they lied in your face.
They told you they were safe when they did not have the data.
And then the last thing I would say is Getting back to the Bill Gates, it's not funny, but I thought it was funny at first when he said, we won't get back to normal until we've pretty much vaccinated the entire population of the planet.
Why would you want to do that?
The only 0.3% of the population of Britain died with COVID, assuming you believe right.
The tests exaggerate the diagnosis, and as you've heard me say, I'm not even sure if there's a new threat, because flu went away.
So even if you did nothing at all, or the things that we did were not effective, that's equivalent to nothing at all, 0.3% of the population died.
Normally about a percent of the entire population don't make their next birthday.
Just to give you an idea.
So it was a slightly elevated all-cause mortality, but it was not huge.
It was nothing like the worst threat to hit the world since 1918.
That was hyperbole.
It was just complete nonsense.
But so this bit about vaccinating the world, you only surely, folks, you know, I'm looking you in the eye now, you only want to vaccinate the people who are at particularly elevated risks.
It's no point in giving it to people who've got perfectly good immune systems.
They're skinny, they're young, their vitamin levels are good.
We don't give them flu jabs for the same reason.
They can catch flu or whatever it is.
They get these seasonal illnesses, but generally they don't die.
Like one in a million instead of three percent.
You wouldn't want to vaccinate everybody.
And the more you vaccinate, the more it throws an absolute obligations first to ensure that you have good longitudinal safety.
But there's three groups.
I mentioned this before, but you might only see this once.
The three groups that I could see the governments of the world pushing into with these jabs.
were the people who had the illness and recovered.
There's a hundred papers and plus all of our history of how immunity works to say they have robust, complete and durable immunity.
It's actually more dangerous to jab them if they've had the illness.
So they should have been given a bye.
Oh, well done.
You've had it already.
Good for you.
You know, here's your pass certificate.
Yeah, so you're the safest person to have around because you can't now catch it.
You can't become clinically ill.
You can't brew up a big cauldron of the stuff and then breathe it on other people.
It is the true end of transmission of whatever this thing is.
So that's one group they definitely shouldn't jab.
And there's two other groups.
One is children.
It's not just healthy children, because sometimes people say, oh, we haven't seen any healthy children acquire this illness and die.
That's true in Germany, Sweden, and the UK.
I looked, and there weren't any.
There were some that had other comorbidities.
And honestly, I think they'd have died of those comorbidities In any other year, you know, I don't think I don't think any way that they died with COVID and they died with COVID and not off COVID.
But then there was a really very interesting study published two or three months ago, maybe a bit longer, and it showed that even in immunocompromised children, The ones who've got damaged immune systems, perhaps from a cancer of the blood forming organs, they may have had poor immune function.
Even they did not get sick and die at a higher frequency than the so-called uninfected.
So that's two lots you definitely wouldn't want to inject because their bodies are still immature, they're developing, and if there is a toxicity, well, you know, you've just done a stupid thing ethically.
And the third group Everybody knows this since the thalidomide era at the end of the 1950s early 60s we've had a golden rule you never ever administer experimental medical treatments to pregnant women you just don't do it even if there's a benefit to the woman you don't do it because until you've got extensive experience you know including in a small number of people who are pregnant perhaps by accident you would make use of natural experiments and the learning and you'd want the profile to be really safe in everybody
And then you want what's called reproductive toxicology, so studies in rats and rabbits usually.
And they've not done all of that stuff.
It's not at all been complete.
And yet they were lying.
They said to women, you're at greatly elevated risk from this disease.
Not true.
It's a slight elevation.
Not much.
And these vaccines are completely safe for your developing baby.
They've not done the work and yet obstetrics and gynecology people from the Royal Colleges in London were on the TV and on the radio and lying to women directly in their face and said don't listen to these anti-vaxxers, they're perfectly safe.
And my observation is you ain't done the studies.
You've not done the work.
But it was worse than that because I mentioned that the design of these things led me to be concerned that they would have some toxicity.
And developing babies are not, as originally thought a hundred years ago, protected inside their mother's wombs.
They're actually intrinsically very vulnerable as they go through, you know, fine developments and division and division and differentiation and forming their skeletons and brains and nervous systems and hearts and so on.
So we don't want to interrupt that.
So why in the world did we?
Why?
Why have we allowed this?
Why have we not?
Just stood up and just said, look, for goodness sake, if you're elderly and frightened and at risk, go and get the jab.
But don't let your kids be vaccinated.
And if you're carrying a baby, you know, if they tell you they're perfectly safe, look them in the eye and ask them the question again.
How do you know that?
So that's where we are.
The vaccines were the wrong strategy and it's not a mistake.
The people who proposed it are the very same people who make the flu jabs and they know that they don't work in elderly people.
So this is particularly dreadful.
So if you take a pause at that point, just take a pause.
So even if there really was this new health threat, I think I'm afraid that was all Remember Falling Man in Wuhan, face down in the night?
Right, right.
That was just obvious theory.
It's not happening anywhere else, ever.
Because that isn't how respiratory illnesses afflict you.
No, we've seen people fall over because of the vaccine, but not because of the virus.
Actually, my God, isn't that true?
So my central message now isn't just that you're being lied to, what's going on, it's I can show that they lied to you so badly, including about the ultimate so-called saviour, these alleged vaccines, that they knew they couldn't work because elderly people's immune systems don't respond well to vaccines.
And they don't.
And that's why the efficacy is between poor and nothing.
Right.
Clinical trial data fraud, really, that they use to be able to kind of squeak it over the line.
For example, they told us that 90% or 95% reduction in symptomatic illness.
And yet we all now know, don't we, that when you've been jabbed or triple jabbed, you can still catch it, whatever this is.
And it's happening.
It happened to Tony Fauci.
Exactly.
But hold on.
Peter Falk, my wife, loves your show.
Hold on.
One more question.
18 months ago, you just told me that it was like a 95% reduction.
And now you're telling me it doesn't stop you getting ill?
Well, one of those is a lie.
Possibly both, but they can't both be true, right?
Wake up, folks!
I'm not anti-vax, I'm anti-idiocy, and I'm anti-terrorism.
But once you sit these things down, you write this down, could not have worked, and they knew it, and yet they more or less stopped the world's economy, you know, half the rate of normal activity for I don't know.
So those measures were not necessary and in any case were ineffective.
So both of those things are true.
I think they were never necessary.
And even if they had been, they would not have worked.
They've been independently studied and they don't work.
So I think, you know, whoever the perpetrators are, and we can guess unproductively, they included the people who basically own the money and the assets.
Because the way I've described it, the only thing you would get for sure is that the economy would go into a nosedive and you'd have to turn the printing presses on to stop people starving, which is of course what they did.
But that wasn't like an unavoidable consequence, a price we had to pay.
No, no, that was the objective of the fraudulent exaggeration of threat while they got on with the vaccines that couldn't work and locked you down in the meantime.
I think, I'm afraid you have to come to the conclusion, since they knew all of that was superfluously ineffective, That whatever's happened to the financial system was planned for.
I'm afraid that's the conclusion.
That destroying either currencies or countries or markets or whatever is in their mind.
And so, yeah, so then by the end of 2020, they brought us these, you know, improper materials, you know, spike protein-based, you know, gene-based spike protein expressors.
And I'm afraid that the data is so distressing.
If you go and look at the people like Joel Smalley, he's the time series guy.
He's not a biologist.
He's a time series guy.
He looks at time series and he's looked repeatedly all around the world at the onset of so-called vaccination and the changes in all-cause mortality.
And I'm afraid with very few exceptions, you know, as the vaccinations proceeded through the age categories, so the excess mortality in those age In almost every case sometimes it's you know it's unpleasantly beautiful you know I mean you don't want this to happen but sometimes in many cases the progressing into the population say of over 60s was accompanied by a really quite large increase in
All-cause mortality in that age group, which then attenuated when they got most of the way through that population.
So it killed, I don't know, one in a thousand, something like that.
It may not sound very many, but we don't normally accept one in a million is a bad number to die from vaccines.
Right, right.
25 deaths shut down the swine flu vaccine in 1976, and that, you know, when we look at the VAERS database, we're already over 29,000.
Yeah, and that's underreported by 10-fold maybe.
We're in the hundreds of thousands of people I am absolutely sure have been killed and unfortunately it's probably 10 times that have been injured in a so far non-lethal way.
Things like myocarditis, things like blood clots, some people have lost limbs, Many have had strokes, they've had vision loss, pulmonary blood clots in the lung are tremendously common, deep vein thrombosis often in the long vessels on the leg, really awful.
And I'm not sure about what's going on, but there does seem to be the suggestion that people's immune systems have been damaged in a way that leaves them prey prone to Getting a series of illnesses, never quite feel well again is quite a common refrain.
So just before I, I think I'll stop because I'll overwhelm people, but I remember once I worked out that something seriously off was going on in 2020.
And I thought, and I heard a discussion, I overheard a discussion somewhere between FDA, a European Medicines Agency, and the Japanese Medicines Agency.
Those three had had an initial informal conversation and they said this, they said, we could anticipate, we anticipate in the future there might be a need to make amended
adjusted variant COVID-19 vaccines and if the drug companies should do that the position we anticipate taking is to say that because those amended vaccines are so similar to their first generation vaccines from each company we won't expect them to do you know new clinical trials or indeed any clinical trials And so when I heard that, I'm afraid my conclusion was, so that's why they've used genetic vaccines that have never been used before.
It's because they've got an intended purpose for them.
And I'm afraid, I'll just talk in the camera, you know, because they just voted on it last week.
There's no requirement for any safety efficacy studies in humans from these variant vaccines, which means A drug company's computer that can form any code they damn well like, press alt print, manufacture a billion doses of something that FDA is not going to check, and then stick it in a billion arms.
So if, as like me, you conclude that whatever's going on and whoever's doing it, they are completely, completely malign, you know, and evil.
There's no possible good signs of this whatsoever.
If you thought that it might be possible, that this group had in mind to reduce the human population.
I honestly, I swear, I could not find a kind of more, a cleverer, more easily deniable, plausible deniability they'll have till the end.
So people like me, they'll just ignore me.
But so I predicted at the end of 2020, they will bring about variant vaccines They will have got approval from the drug regulator not to have to test them and then they'll stick them in people.
I'm afraid that it's easy to... I remember one afternoon in about two hours I came up with three or four ways of poisoning people in a way that you would not be able to detect it.
So I could do something that would augment tumors and make them run away.
I could put a promoter gene.
I could put a promoter to a promoter gene.
So you would get no acute toxicity, but sometime in the next period, six months or a year, you would have a plethora of different tumors.
Notations, exactly.
Yeah, which you could blame on whatever crap is going on in the world, and you can just lie about what's going on in the world.
Right, right.
And I could find it easy to, again, come up with things that would cause neurological damage by altering neurotransmitters, the enzymes for that.
Easy, really easy.
It's always been 10 to 100 times easier to hurt people by accident than to produce clinical benefit.
And that's why I always thought honorable drug R&D was the last really important organized game for adults.
That's what Professor James Black, who invented two classes of drug beta blockers and what was the other one?
Anyway, antihistamines.
A clever pharmacologist, and he said that it's the last really important organized game for adults.
So that's how I approach it.
You have to find a way of helping people, and you've got to be aware that it's so likely that you'll produce unwanted effects.
You can't wave them away.
You have to go, okay, what's going to upset us this time?
Is there anything we can do about selectivity, or potency, or distribution, or how long it lasts?
And often you can, and the pharmacopoeia is full of, you know, reasonably decent drugs and a whole bunch of howlers, I would say.
Right, right.
But in this case, that propensity for people to be injured, I think, is being used.
I can't think of why would they bother to make variant vaccines, when I've just pointed out, and the data supports me, that the people who are most vulnerable don't get, cannot get benefit from this kind of intervention.
Correct.
And they continue to censor, suppress, smear and deny people's having an opportunity to use small molecule drug treatments.
Right, right.
And so, you know, it's not public health.
I pointed out that injecting people you wouldn't inject if it was public health.
It's not public health.
It could never have worked the first time.
There was definitely an intent to wreck the economy and whatever, bring about reset, great reset possibly.
It's not particularly conspiratorial considering Mr. Schwab has actually published a book of that name.
So back to solutions, I think we should go to solutions.
Right, right.
I have a question really quick before you go to solutions.
You're going pretty far down the rabbit hole.
You've actually looked at things like the flu shot and the flu shot for seniors, gone back to the Cochrane Review and looked at that publication that sort of is hiding in plain sight.
I was horrified.
I was absolutely horrified when I read it.
Do you fear more retribution because of, you know, you've stated this very boldly and very plainly, But, you know, the catcalls from the crowd of anti-vaccine are just going to get louder and louder.
I don't care.
I mean, honestly, I'm not trying to persuade people who would say that, because you know what that means, really.
They're people working for the other side.
Right.
Otherwise, surely they'd be looking out for themselves and their family first, and you'd want to listen to... I would say you should listen to all voices, even if you decide I'm a crank.
But I've spent my whole life doing biomedical R&D.
I got pretty senior in Pfizer.
I never made any important enemies.
I stayed in my lane.
That is, I became an expert in respiratory.
So I didn't bob and weave so I could get senior.
That was a normal way of... If you want to be, you know, executive vice president, you probably need to change country and therapy area.
I just, I liked doing what I was doing, so I stayed in my lane.
And then 10 years after that, as I say, I consulted two biotechs.
That's private money.
You know, they don't pay idiots if they can avoid it.
And then I ran my own companies.
That meant venture capitalists invested in me and a small team.
And then, you know, we were smart.
We worked hard, but my God, we were lucky too.
We were lucky.
But you need all of that.
And so I think I'm reasonably, I'm a pretty decent scientist.
I mean, I'm not marvelous, but I'm good enough.
Right, right.
I think it's pretty good.
Well, your story of success is not common.
It's not necessarily common.
It isn't, but I don't want to, I don't want to over, over claim it.
But, and as I say, I left Pfizer 11 years ago, and then for six of the seven subsequent years, we had a professional relationship.
That is, they transferred compounds I had helped invent, it gave us the intellectual property, And in return, they have a share of the company.
So when we ultimately succeeded, they made money.
They did.
So we had a cordial relationship for seven years after leaving Pfizer.
Look you in the eye, folks.
So if people say, I'm a disgruntled former employee, it's not true.
They were very kind to me when I left.
I had a great 17 years with them.
And then we worked nicely for six or seven years.
So that's not a reason.
And I'm really sorry it's my former employer.
I'm not happy about this.
I don't make any money.
I've been fired from all my consulting positions.
So I've been working two and a half years pro bono and frankly shedding cash.
I don't like doing this.
I don't enjoy the fame.
I'm quite a shy person.
If anybody would know me, they'd say, you know, I was not the life and soul of the party.
I often come out to corporate gigs in the evenings and so on.
So I'm not doing it for fame.
I'm not making any money and I'm not attacking anybody.
I'm telling you that you're being lied to in a way that I think is going to cost you your freedom, at minimum, and could cost you your life.
Absolutely.
I'm not slightly worried about me, because if I'm right, and I think I am, we're all at risk.
And if I'm wrong, I don't think that's likely, but the percent chance isn't there.
The worst that will happen is everyone can laugh at me, and I'll join in.
So I say to people who are sticking with the government's narrative, The risk of you being wrong in that judgment, as compared with the risks I'm running if I'm wrong, are not symmetrical.
So if I'm wrong, you can laugh at me, and I'll join in.
If you're wrong, and you stick with that bunch of liars in each country, Trudeau, Johnson, Macron, Biden, these are awful people.
You stick with these people and their advisors, and they're lying, lying, lying.
If you stick with them and I'm right and you're wrong, there's no coming back from it.
So it doesn't matter what you think about me.
I'm asking you to think about you and your family and your community.
If you stick with the narrative and that turns out to be a bad call, there's no one's going to rescue you.
I can't rescue you.
No, no, it doesn't end well.
I mean, you can tell that they're running economies into the ground in preparation for the Great Reset.
I'm afraid it's as simple as that, but I think it's It's funny, something odd happens over the last two nights.
I'm not sure which night it was.
There was an infamous monument in Georgia called the Georgia Guidestones that were erected in 1980.
No one is quite sure who put them up and I think they were really quite weird.
They had uh inscriptions in about eight or nine different languages including like sanskrit and things like that and it had something akin to not quite ten commandments but short statements which uh were taken as kind of guides for what what humans should do uh and one of the many things it said is something like maintain the human population no more than 500 million in perpetuity in harmony with the earth be not a cancer on the face of the earth it said it's one of those things wow it had a
It had a religious feel to me, but I remember the first time I read about it, which was in 2020.
I'm not a conspiracy theorist, right?
I've not spent any time thinking about this stuff.
But the first time I read it, I did have a cold shiver down my back.
I thought, who spends this money to write this kind of crazy stuff?
And it was 16 foot high marble slabs.
They were the biggest piece of marble ever mined in Georgia.
Biggest piece of marble ever mined in Georgia.
And someone paid to stick these things up a few nights ago.
On camera, which is on YouTube, someone blew part of it up.
Now, apparently there are cameras in attendance on this site, which you'd expect.
But the odd thing is there's no footage of people putting the explosives or whatever it was in place.
And lo and behold, this was at night, lo and behold, a few hours later in daylight, a whole bunch of JCB, you know, heavy hydraulic lifting equipment and lorries came and just dismantled it and took it away.
And that was within 24 hours.
So imagine you're the owner or you're the, basically, imagine you have the right to look after this thing, the obligation to look after this thing.
Would you, A, wait a few days for a police report, go and look at it for yourself and scratch your head and think, well, you know, should we mend this?
So, the only sensible conclusion that really bears scrutiny, I think, is that the people responsible for it decided to take it down.
That's why the photographic footage is missing, and that's why within hours of the first of the four stones blowing into pieces, all of it was swept from the place.
All of it was, right, right, taken down.
Yeah, and they weren't dismantling it to take care of it.
That's not what you do if you're dismantling it to make a matching piece.
So that may be irrelevant, but it just seems really weird.
It's very odd timing, most definitely.
We've got five minutes for the solution.
Yeah, okay.
So, one, I don't have a perfect solution, and don't shoot me, folks.
I'm not an escapist.
I'm a scientist, and I don't know.
But what I would say is we can avoid the people I call the perpetrators.
I don't know who they are.
I don't really care.
It's not going to make any difference if you give me the list with the names on.
What I'm going to do is arrest them.
So we can win, provided we manage to avoid mandatory digital ID.
And in fact, any kind of common format digital ID, I would say, throw it away.
And if anyone says, oh, it'll be really good for getting on and off public transport, it's like, OK, well, let's have it in different formats in different states.
Seriously.
A few people, it'll take a few minutes extra as they travel between states, but it cannot then be used as a permanent sort of geo whatever, a monitoring system.
If it can be used for that purpose, some bad people will use it for that purpose.
Be real.
That's what they'll do.
So if you can have, not if you can avoid, you must.
I strongly urge you not to accept Common Format Digital ID.
The other thing is, I think, there are multiple threats coming at us, including a deliberate demolition of the food supply and inspection process.
I honestly, I hope they're not actually going to starve us to death.
It's possible.
But I do think they could use this, the excuse of shortages, to require rationing.
And what's the ideal way of working out how to do a rationing system?
Digital ID.
So please store a little bit of food, make friends with someone who has a small crop that can make some by yourself some independence.
You're not forced over a barrel.
The day they say, sorry, we're out of food.
You need to get your digital ID.
Otherwise, we can't know who's had it.
They can ration food to you, right?
They can ration food to you.
And of course, the other possibility is there's been such damage to the major currencies of the world, including the US dollar, sterling, Swiss franc, euro, and so on.
I'm not an expert, but I've spoken to those who are.
And they believe it is entirely plausible.
If they wanted to, central banks, banks of international settlements, they could just push it over at any point.
Exactly.
And then it'll be, oh, woe is me, what are we going to do?
We'll have to have central bank digital currencies.
And that'll be basically, it'll look like the same system, except it'll be cashless.
So if they propose that, do not let them get rid of cash.
There's no possible justification for getting rid of cash, except unless you want tyrannical control over the people.
Right.
If they won't let you keep cash, we have to make something.
And I don't know what the answer would be.
Probably not Bitcoin.
We would need some other trust-based system so that we don't have to be visible to the perpetrators for every transaction we ever make, for every dollar received or spent, on what, and where, and by whom, because that is otherwise our fate.
It's obvious Exactly.
There's always a permanent record.
I think we can come back from anything, Brian, anything, even if it's like half-mass starvation.
People have done it after wars.
We're not practiced at doing it recently.
We can come back from anything, certainly our kids and grandchildren, provided we avoid being in this tyrannical I couldn't agree more.
through digital ID and cashless digital money.
If we can avoid those things, they'll be tragedy along the way, but we will escape.
We will actually become free.
I think we will. - I couldn't agree more.
And I think the other advice in terms of growing your own food, I mean, you know what you put on your own food in terms of additives, pesticides, herbicides, things that you have direct control over that.
And then you can also store food as well.
That's something that my family is starting to do as well.
I think it's a good idea.
And you know, Brian, if you really like eating crickets, Or locusts.
You know, you go right ahead.
But, you know, I'm only joking, because I don't want to eat insects.
But if you wanted to, you know, then you can buy insect flour, apparently.
You can buy it's literally dried.
I think it's dried locusts.
Yeah, right, right.
It's pretty horrible.
Not my thing.
So not my thing either.
But yeah, so the more I don't think I know, I don't know what to buy for a year and I haven't got the room, but I've definitely my wife and I've got enough for a small number of months.
Sure.
Potable water and enough calories so that, you know what, we do not have to be on our hands and knees begging in the first few weeks.
And why would I say that?
Let's buy ourselves some thinking time in case bad things happen.
Exactly.
You don't want to be caught off guard.
Just enough, like you said, enough for some thinking time so you can regroup and you can regroup with like-minded individuals and go forward.
Exactly.
And then, you know, stay calm, do not be violent.
Right.
It does not matter what, unless someone's coming into your house, whatever your normal rules are, I'm not going to make a comment, but whatever your normal rules are for self-defense, do that.
But nothing else, please, because however angry you might feel, and I feel pretty angry, I know that if any of us are violent, and certainly if there was any kind of mass movement that involved violence, or anyone, say, in my position advocating it, you'd be arrested.
And if people did it en masse, it would be martial law.
So stay calm, you know.
Americans can be... I've met quite a lot of cool characters, you know, that don't want to... don't want to rile them up.
They're not aggressive.
They look like they're quite able to take care of themselves.
That's the kind of people I like to be around these days.
Amen, amen.
Dr. Mike Eden, thank you.
Thank you so much for imparting truth.
Thank you for giving us a path forward on this.
We so appreciate it, so appreciate your time, and God bless your work.
Thank you.
And just literally one or two sentences, please, anyone who's heard me now or in the past, do something, please, I beg of you, with this information, even if it's to like have a laugh, this crazy guy saying this, you know, use something I've told you today.
Why?
If we can keep sowing the seeds of doubt, then I think that will help crack it.
That's it.
Thank you very much.
Thank you very much, and with that wonderful advice, we will end this episode of Doctors and Scientists.
Thank you so much for joining us.
Thank you.
Bye-bye.
My name is Megan Redshaw, and I am an attorney, a journalist.
I have a degree in political science.
I'm a traditional naturopath and have certifications in natural health, exercise, science, and nutrition.
Did you know that the government took your tax dollars and paid media companies to promote only positive messaging about COVID-19 vaccines, even if the messaging was false?
Did you know that the CDC made its diagnostic criteria for myocarditis so narrow it would exclude all cases of people who die from myocarditis but don't make it to a hospital for diagnosis first?
Did you know that the internal emails from the NIH and NIAID revealed government scientists were aware that Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine was causing neurological damage as early as February?
Did you know that Moderna changed the way it calculated efficacy when it was revealed its pediatric vaccine for 6 months to age 2 and 2 years to age 6 didn't meet the FDA's minimum 50% threshold requirement for EUA?
Would you strap your child into a car seat that had not been subjected to proper safety testing?
Would you strap your child into a car seat that had been shown to cause serious injuries to children, including deaths?
Would you strap your child into a car seat if it only worked 51% of the time, 30% of the time?
Only temporarily against severe accidents, but not other types of car accidents, or not at all?
Absolutely not!
There are risks associated with COVID-19 vaccines.
And if your child is injured, you are going to be on the hook for all associated costs.
You're not going to be able to see the pharmaceutical company.
The government is not going to give you any money.
It is your legal, God-given right as a parent to make this decision for your child.
▲
Export Selection