All Episodes
Previous Next
May 8, 2021 - RFK Jr. The Defender
46:40
Former Pfizer Vice President Dr. Mike Yeadon Speaks Out

Dr. Michael Yeadon is a former Vice President of Pfizer and an Allergy & Respiratory Therapeutic Area expert with 23 years in the pharmaceutical industry. He trained as a biochemist and pharmacologist, obtaining his PhD from the University of Surrey in 1988.

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
I'm very, very excited for our guest today.
I've been waiting to talk to Dr.
Mike Yeadon for the last month.
I've been following you on a lot of other people's podcasts and the very, very courageous statements that you've been making.
I've learned a lot from you too.
Dr.
Mike Yeadon is a former vice president of Pfizer.
He was the company's chief scientist for allergy and respiratory.
He spent 32 years in the industry leading new medicine research development, and he retired from the pharmaceutical giant, and, quote, the most senior research position, end quote, in his field.
When he retired, what, two years ago?
Mike?
Yes, Robert.
So I left Pfizer in 2011 when they closed their UK research base.
And so I ended up with a second career in biopharmaceuticals.
And I founded my own company, Ziarco.
By the way, where are you now?
I am about 100 miles from the coast of France.
I'm quite near the port of Dover.
But you're on the British side of the channel, right?
Yes.
I was wondering because it looks like it's sunshine there and I know that never happens in England.
You're in California, right?
Yeah, I'm in California.
All about sunshine.
I've visited the States maybe probably between 30 and 40 times on business and so I'm hoping to come and join you in In the not-too-distant future, because I'm not confident that the UK and Europe is going to be a safe place.
I mean, continue to protest, actually.
And just today, I'm proud to say that as an alien investor, I've officially today confirmed that I am in one of these EB-5 investment schemes.
So it may take time, but eventually Apparently the deal is I might help create and preserve U.S. jobs, and in return they say you can come live here.
So there you go.
We signed the papers today.
So we start the journey.
Well, I recommend Los Angeles.
It's a first word by people from Great Britain because we have palm trees here, beaches, dolphins, and all the things we're dreaming about.
It actually is a happening in California.
Okay.
So let's talk about what was it first that started traveling to do about the vaccine real fast?
Yeah, certainly.
So I think first I should say to those who don't know me, I've had no public profile prior to commenting on coronavirus ever about anything.
I've not been on a barricade or Handed out political leaflets.
Not the sort of person who's kind of noisy personally.
What I noticed from, I guess, the first lockdown, probably by the summer of last year, I was clear we'd made some serious policy mistakes, and I'm afraid they just continued.
When we got to the vaccine rollout, I was surprised because I know enough about mRNA technology as a lag tool for the last 20 or 30 years.
And I knew, certainly when I left 5 or 10 years ago, that we're miles away from A product you can give to everybody.
And so I was intrigued as to what it is they've done to have fixed the difficulties which are safe delivery, really.
Safe delivery of a message into a cell that will allow it to then copy that message and do something useful without in any way being harmful and don't really understand how they've succeeded because those were always the problems in the lab.
How do you get it into cells without hurting them to do what you want?
And of course, I'm not sure they have succeeded, Robert.
The problem is these vaccines are of a completely novel technology.
I don't think they should be called vaccines.
I would say gene-based vaccines would probably be the honourable thing to do because they do raise an immune response, but they do as unusually.
As you will gather from my concerns about messenger RNA technology, I anticipated that it wouldn't be quite safe enough.
And I'm afraid to say that I think potentially as many as one in a thousand, perhaps a little less, of people have actually perished, which sounds appalling, but we've certainly dosed 35 million people in the UK here, and I do think a significant proportion of the January 2021 wave, as they called it, and I'm afraid I think quite a portion of those were Fatality.
Why do I say that?
I'm a member of a group called Doctors for COVID Ethics, and we're mainly Europeans.
And we've written to the European Medicines Agency, I think, three times.
And we've told them that we believe that these gene-based vaccines cause the expression of something called spike protein, the little spike you see on the cartoon pictures of coronavirus.
And it causes that protein to be expressed wherever it is that the vaccine lands after you've been jammed in the arm.
And our concern is that the manufacturers were not asked to study where the vaccine went, because you don't do that with classical vaccines.
You do with any novel medicine, but you're not required to do it.
And we think some poor unfortunate people Get the vaccine deposited in vulnerable vascular beds, perhaps in the brain and the heart and the mesenteric supply to the gut.
And then when they express the message for spike protein, if they have to make more of it in one person than another, and then add to that perhaps a vulnerability for thromboembolic events, and lo and behold, I think that's the explanation.
For why many people are fine, and some people get serious clotting and bleeding disorders and die.
And we've written to the European Medicines Agency and regulators several times, and they have simply dealt with a substantive issue, as I've just laid out.
There's plenty of scientific literature that shows that spike proteins do have biological activities.
The question is, why wouldn't you?
Expect some thrombotic risks.
And I think those mostly explain, Robert, why...
I think that's the underlying pathomechanism, pathological mechanism for these side effects that we're seeing.
I think they're so severe in a minority of people that we should absolutely not be offering them to young, healthy people who are not at risk from the virus.
I can't say that more clearly.
In your opinion, how long does those spike protein particles, as you would call them, survive in a healthy body?
And, you know, what is the fate of them?
They end up in the brain.
Can they cause the blood-brain barrier?
Can they go to the organs?
Can they go to the lungs?
What happens to them?
It's a great question.
I wish I knew the answer.
The proprietors, the manufacturers, are not asked to study that.
I must say, I wouldn't think they'd last very long.
You should not accept Mike Eden's speculation.
You should demand, as I have done, that they be characterized.
Because I have the same concern you've just expressed, which is, well, where are they?
How long do they continue to be expressed?
And what are they doing?
You really want them to be exposed to bits of your immune system so that you educate the immune system to protect you if it should encounter that protein again.
You don't really want it in your brain, and there are many other tissues, vessel walls, you don't want it there and so on.
So I can't answer your question, and I wish I could, but the fact that I can't is a measure of, shall we say, how much latitude a developer gets if their medicine is classified as a vaccine.
They get a whole load of, shall we say, waivers.
If this was not classified as a vaccine, the manufacturer would need to study what we call pharmacokinetics, Where the drug goes, how it disappears.
We also need to study pharmacodynamics, which is what does it actually do?
Where does it give it?
How long does it last?
Because it's a vaccine, not required to study any of those things.
I think that's exposed, for me, a gap in the regulation of medicines that sit in the netherworld, should we say, between vaccines and new drugs.
I hope you would agree and would help join with me in the future and Making sure that those gaps are not exploited again.
I mean, when you look at the manufacturers in MH, people who are promoting MRNA, for example, the CEO of Moderna Classic, he said, what we do is we hack the brain of the cell and we have the cell to begin creating these spike protein materials.
But The mechanism that they use to hack the cells, is that also a femoral?
Is it possible that you could hack the cell in a way that continues to produce like protein?
Is that even a concern?
Robert, it shouldn't happen, certainly the mRNA.
It should not, at least if you try to draw the biochemistry.
The whole material should get inside the cell and then mimic People will know, I think, DNA is our store of information.
Protein is what is finally made.
The intermediate step is this message, and that's what the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine is.
And so it should only go one way, but we're putting it into a cell and then asking for that cell to copy the hell out of that message until the message itself is destroyed.
It should degrade over time.
I don't think, not by design, it should not incorporate into the DNA. So it shouldn't be permanent.
But depending on how it's designed, you could have pieces that are promoted, something that will amplify the number of times that that mRNA is copied.
So I do think it's possible to modify the intensity of the resulting signal.
I know they can be stabilized somewhat in that the actual molecules used to make up this mRNA, they're modified nucleic acids so they're a little bit more stable.
Resilience being broken down.
But I think that's what I would call it.
You do the experiments and see what you get.
Then we can design a very prolonged message.
Although I understand and I'm excited too about the potential for mRNA technology to treat hard-to-treat diseases that are life-threatening.
So if you had a cancer, And we didn't really know how to intervene, but we knew experimentally, perhaps, in vitro, taking a tissue of my own tumour perhaps, and we'd shown if you could knock down these three genes, the cancer will die.
And then if you could manufacture that swiftly with messenger RNA technology and inject it, you'd think, wow, that could cut 10 years out of customised, you know, whatever medicines.
But I just don't think they're ever going to be safe enough to give to healthy, normal people.
I've not been a vaccinologist, so I've had to read up a lot in the last year.
But just to remind any of my peers who might be watching, we give vaccines to people who are healthy in order to keep them healthy, and they would remain healthy if they were not injected.
And so there's an extremely high standard of proof of safety in my view.
Over and above anything else.
Because unlike other medicines, you generally give to people who are either ill already or they have some process like blood pressure or blood sugar or blood lipids that's out of whack and you want to We turn it to normal to keep them healthy or to treat them.
With vaccines, the person arrives at your office healthy and you want them to leave healthy and to be able to defend themselves against the pathogen.
It's unethical to risk anything other than a minuscule chance of harm, in my view.
And I don't think these mRNA or DNA vaccines, I don't think they come close to meeting that standard.
Okay?
Even if this is an emergency, Not everybody would agree with me that we should offer them to people who have got a strong risk of dying if they contract this virus.
Then be very honest and tell them these are experimental, novel technology products.
Probably not as safe as an ordinary vaccine, but here's what we know.
And then let the person make an informed consent decision.
But we're not doing that.
If anyone even raises questions like I've done, which I think are reasonable, these are not normal vaccines.
They're all experimental.
And I've outlined a plausible mechanism for the pathology we're seeing, blood clots and bleeding.
Of course, you get attacked for doing that.
But where I put my foot down, I have two healthy adult girls, 25, 29 years old, and I would be really upset if they ended up being coerced into taking these products because they're healthy and young and they're not at any measurable risk from COVID-19.
And I think they would be at a small but measurable risk from these Vaccines, and as you may remember, the Europeans first discovered a problem, at least with the AstraZeneca vaccine, when healthy young women aged between 20 and 50 were presenting with life-threatening cerebral vein sinus thrombosis, so blood clot in the brain.
And they, in my view, it doesn't so much happen there more often than other people, or happen in that group of people more often.
It's just my father who has a physician used to say, some women don't die.
It was almost a joke that it's extremely unlikely if you reach this age, unless you die in childbirth or Go under a bus.
You pretty much don't die of diseases.
And so when somebody, when I think they had seven, a cluster of seven, and then there was another cluster of more than 10 in different towns that had the same brain blood clot, they realized they couldn't look the other way.
I think some people had been doing that.
And I think they realized this is such an unusual and serious problem.
People who don't normally suffer it must be the vaccine.
And I think that's when you saw a few weeks ago Country by country, they paused Rollout to evaluate it.
And I think at that point, they could probably have just about saved their ethics by outlining more or less as I've done, which is that they've been produced very quickly, and that's a miracle.
But they do have some built-in design consequences.
I think a consequence of having chosen spike protein As the, what's called the immunogen, think your body's to make in order to educate the immune system.
Having made that design choice, I think it's not unreasonable to expect a class effect risk now with all gene-based vaccines for COVID so far that we've seen under emergency approval because they all cause the body to produce spike protein or part of spike protein.
So that's what I would tell people that my general...
Please, do not get vaccinated for non-medical reasons.
You know, when I hear people say, oh, if I get vaccinated, maybe I can go on holiday or rejoin my normal life.
You shouldn't have to do that.
That's just crazy.
If you're personally worried about the risk of illness and death from COVID and you take advice and you choose to be vaccinated, okay.
But please, if you're healthy and young, don't give in to people Pressurizing you, peer pressure, or whatever.
It's not a safe thing if you do, and you're not at risk from this virus.
Almost everything we've been told, Robert, about this virus has been exaggerated.
Sometimes I've said it's untrue, but almost everything we've heard has been exaggerated.
The lethality of the virus, the inability of other medicines to treat it.
That's not risk work, which they don't.
Lockdowns prevent.
Epidemic spreading, which they don't, and I can explain why that is.
And here, one of the worst things, which I hope we'll get to, and push me back if it's not the right time, one of the things that frightens me most is another thing that's close to the truth but is not right.
Close to the truth, when viruses replicate, they make typographical errors, a typo.
And sometimes those typos produce a viable virus.
We call those variants if they survive and are seen in enough people to kind of get sequenced.
But it's not true that the variants we've seen so far are immunologically different enough from the original Wuhan virus that you need another vaccine.
But I'm told every day by politicians and advisers to the government that they will have variant or top-up vaccines ready for us.
I'm telling you, one of my strongest suits is immunology.
That's not true.
Yeah, let me talk.
I think that's probably the most important topic, and I want to address it, because I feel they're really corralling us into issues.
With those arguments, and when you break down those arguments, it's clear that there are lies.
Let me talk to you just for a moment about this.
Apparent disproportionate injury to children and young people from the vaccine, which gives them an entire different calculus when they're trying to decide whether to take a vaccine or not.
And during the Phase 1 trials of the Moderna vaccine, there was a horrendous injury rate.
100% of the people experienced injury to the second vaccine, and in the high dose group, 21% had a stage 4 injury, which means Medical intervention or hospitalization required, and 6% of the people in the low dose group.
And so when I was looking at the phase 2 studies, I didn't see those kind of entry rates.
And I called Peter Doshi, who's made a comprehensive study of this from the British Medical Journal, Dr.
Peter Doshi, who's the associate editor of the BMJ. And I said, you know, why are we saying this?
And he said, you know, he hadn't really studied it.
But the possible answer is that in the Phase II trials, the people who were experiencing the worst injuries tended to be younger, more robust people.
And he said because those were the only cohort that they allowed in the Phase I trial of very, very young, robust people, It may be that they had a much higher injury, right?
I don't know if you think that's true or not.
And really, for Peter Doshi, it was speculative.
But he said something important, which is if you're young and healthy, your risk from this vaccine is much, much higher.
And your risk from the disease, conversely, is much, much lower.
Your calculation to take that is a completely different calculation.
Absolutely.
Yes, absolutely.
It's almost criminal to give this to a child.
Yes.
I don't think it's exaggeration.
I'm of the industry.
I've never been more ashamed than I felt in recent months.
I almost feel like I've been duped because I honestly don't think in my decades of working with people in research, I came across people who are not Good-hearted people trying to do good quality science to try and make new products that would help people, and they needed to help them by improving on existing therapies, so to be better than an existing therapy, or they needed to be safer than an existing choice, ideally both.
That was always what we wanted to do.
So now seeing these products coming out of an industry, and maybe it won't be the researchers, but someone is misrepresenting the situation where At very least, as you described, Robert, there's two moving curves.
One is, as you get older and already more sick, you're at greater risk of illness and fatality from the virus.
That we know.
If it should also be the case, as Peter Doshi's analysis may suggest, that younger people are maybe even getting a worse safety outcome, then the crossover, that is the age below which you would not want to offer these vaccines to people who are not ill, not at great risk from the virus, would be quite high.
My general cutoff is 60.
I just happen to be 60.
I've not chosen to have this vaccine so far.
I'm 60 years old.
I have no chronic illnesses.
I don't take any chronic medicines for things like diabetes or whatever.
So when I look at statistics, there aren't very many people like me that have died with COVID, Casper.
It's less than 1,000 out of 750,000 total deaths.
We made it 125,000 attributed to COVID. So over the last two seasons, less than 1,000.
People who are under 60 and not already chronically ill.
I just simply would not offer to that group these vaccines at all, because I think the data shows they do carry significantly greater risk than ordinary vaccines.
They are experimental anyway, so we don't really know the full pattern that the phase two trials don't complete until 2022 or even later.
Basically, there's not enough upside in it for younger people.
And then, to your point of children, I'm horrified by two things.
One is, I've seen leaflets from groups that are providing guidance to physicians and counselors, to their patients, and they're guiding healthy pregnant young women to receive the vaccine using things like There's no evidence of harm to pregnant women or no evidence of harm to the developing baby.
Well, of course, there's no evidence.
They haven't done the studies.
And so they are spinning the absence of evidence and trying to make you think that it means evidence of absence.
That is, it's been studied and not there as a problem.
That's not true.
I haven't studied it.
That upsets me because I know the lid of mine was a long time ago, but it was a different era entirely.
But the point is, we have not studied what's called reproductive toxicology.
It has not been studied.
And so I would not want, and I would never have done this myself, have persuaded anybody to take an experimental medicine where reproductive toxicology is not being done, And the person is pregnant or may be pregnant.
We had really serious prohibitions.
We would exclude women of childbearing potential, or if they were allowed in the trial, we would cancel and say, we haven't done the talks yet.
If you want to be in the study, you would have to use a warrant that you are going to use and understand why you should use highly effective interconception.
Because we knew that we wouldn't want to allow the intercept of this new drug and developing Embryo or fetus.
And so how can it be that without doing formal studies in pregnant women, that the authorities say not only that it's okay, but it's advised that pregnant women get vaccinated?
That's one.
And then the other one that makes me really see red is children.
I haven't done any sort of neonatal toxicology, young animals.
We just don't have enough experience really in young people at all.
And yet there is a small ongoing trial, I think it's 300 Children, people under 16.
I say to people in their face, that's not a technical trial.
300 people, that's propaganda.
The reason I say that is if you're trying to rule out a risk of something like one in a thousand people getting a serious adverse event, how can you possibly warrant to people that there isn't one when you've studied 300 people?
It's propaganda.
When I saw the designer at the trial, I knew immediately this is not appropriate.
If it was a pilot study, fine.
It's going to be followed by even a much bigger study, fine.
But that's not what they're saying.
What they're saying is we're doing a safety study in children.
We think things will be fine when we've got the data, then we'll make the vaccines available to school children.
And in the UK, they're talking about autumn.
This year, they're not at risk from the damn virus.
Sorry to get, you know, I get agitated.
Not a single child, I think, under the age of 15 in the UK who did not have serious pre-existing illnesses has died even with COVID. Not of it, but with it.
Not one.
So why would I want to go and vaccinate 10 million children in my country?
That's unaccountable.
You mentioned before that the risk of an adverse event may be linked to the part of your body where you actually get the jab.
I think that the prevalent notion among scientists who have really been thinking a lot about this is that the biggest risk is from pathogenic priming.
In other words, People get the antigen in the vaccine, which is just like protein.
And because they may have been previously exposed to coronavirus, they have an enhanced immune reaction and a close inflammation throughout their body.
And this is what we saw in animal studies where all the animals died.
And that's something that's a risk that everybody's known about and warned about.
No, I agree it's a risk.
I just don't think it's invaluable, shall we say, at this point.
What I would say is, yes, it's a risk.
Yes, it definitely happened before with experimental products like this, as you say, where I think it was ferrets were vaccinated and they were fine.
But if they compare vaccinated ferrets with unvaccinated ferrets and both were exposed, I think it was to a different virus, not this one, that only the vaccinated ones became seriously and then died.
As you say, pathogenic priming, antibody-dependent enhancement.
Now, the exact mechanism is not understood, but it does involve having previously generated some, perhaps what's called a non-steralizing immunity.
It's not a great phrase, but basically insufficient immunity to prevent you being infected at all.
And then, for some reason, this inadequate protection opens you to a greater onslaught.
It's not invaluable if it occurs.
It could be absolutely awful.
Millions of people have been exposed to these vaccines.
And all I would say is that it goes back to my mantra, which is do not get vaccinated for non-medical reasons.
You've no upside.
And as you say, Robert, you've just reminded me that there's another risk that we don't know won't occur.
And if it does occur, God help us when we get to the winter season.
I wish I could put that one to bed.
I can't.
But I think it just reinforces what I've said.
Only the people at measurable elevated risk of death, severe illness and deaths from the virus should chance their arm and give consent.
No one else.
So, you know, please I think this, and we talked about the children, this cuts across something that's very, very important.
We're all aware of two things, I think, converging on us.
One is this top-up vaccine.
I should touch on briefly.
And then the other one is the vaccine.
By top-up vaccine, that's a British expression.
We call them booster vaccines.
Booster, yeah.
Booster vaccines.
And the danger is...
We're being told now that there's going to be these mutant variants that are periodically appear, but thank God we have this mRNA technology that will allow us to vaccinate immediately, formulate a vaccine to each mutant, and then to give that vaccine to the entire population.
Then we're going to have a passport That makes sure that you are, as you would call it, topped up.
You've had all your boosters.
As soon as there's an alert or a new variant coming out, everybody has four months to get their boosters, and without it, you can't travel.
And in this way, we become absolute slaves to this whole vaccine paradigm.
Yes, it's terrifying.
It's absolutely terrifying.
Yeah.
Just in brief then, I think I can explain it quickly.
It is true, as I said earlier, when this virus replicates, it makes time programmable errors.
It's actually a really good copier.
It makes very few mistakes.
It's not like influenza, where it can make big leaps.
You know, it can change big chunks of itself because it exchanges bits of genetic information sometimes inside you.
And so you see big leaps in the evolution of influenza viruses.
And they genuinely do change a new vaccine.
So I think this is where, for whatever reason, whoever's playing this stupid game, they're giving you just enough information that it's adjacent to something that's true that is not itself true.
So the coronavirus is mutated so slowly.
Let me tell you, in 16 months since it was sequenced in Wuhan, China, it's the most different variant.
It's still 99.7% identical to the original.
That's it.
I absolutely assure you, both empirically and theoretically, That a variant of that little change will slither past your immune defenses, whether acquired naturally after infection or by vaccination.
So I'm sorry folks, I've asked hundreds of thousands of people through these interviews, immunologists, doctors, scientists, researchers, Challenge me if I'm wrong.
I'd love to be wrong.
I'd sleep better, but I'm convinced I'm not wrong.
And we are being told, and worse than we're being told, some of these companies, Robert, are manufacturing a billion doses of booster virus vaccines.
And I think they can't be vaccines because you're already immunized and the change is so slight, you do not need a change.
So this is where I fear At best, the scenario you described, Robert, of being controlled and required to receive some expensive top-up.
It'd be a way of milking humanity forever whilst also having totalitarian control.
You may have seen me say this.
I don't know.
It's not my crime.
I don't know what they're going to do.
My fear is the combination of vaccine passports, an app on your phone that has to be valid at all times for you to transact in your normal life, We'll be used to bring you to a centre where you receive your booster jab or top-up jab.
And if it is in someone's mind and plan to harm or kill us, that's the way they could do it with plausible deniability.
And I think there are enough people who think they need to save the world by culling quite a lot of us.
So I've not seen an insider's copy.
I don't know that that's their motivation.
But what I do know is there's a massive...
Deception has been going on since last year about these mutants and variants and a need for a top-up about a booster.
That's a massive amount of light.
The published literature supports what I've said.
That's where I got the information.
There's been several dozen really good immunological papers that I've studied.
So-called T-cell immunity in people who've been vaccinated or recovered from the virus and asked, if we present these T-cells with every variant that we've got at the time they did the study, do they recognize them or not recognize them?
The answer is they all recognize all of the variants.
So theoretically, practically, what I've said is true.
So you need to challenge The, you know, public health people who are telling you you need to get your jabs, your top-ups, your boosters, because it's not true.
And maybe, maybe I'm right, and someone is planning to do some significant harm.
Well, one way out of that is not to be in the trapped position that the vaccine passports provide.
And as we've discussed, I think, I'm of the view that most people don't need vaccinating at all.
They're not a delegated person.
Good dyes and maybe some medicines will protect almost all of them.
And there is risk in the vaccines currently, the existing first-generation ones.
It's probably easily solved.
A bit of truth.
Reassure people, actually, there's no need to be fearful.
We've been told to be fearful, but actually there's nothing to worry about now.
I think the event is pretty much over, and I'm much more frightened of things.
Of the government denying of the virus.
Yeah, I think that's right.
Tell us what's happened to you.
How has this impacted?
Because you did something that we haven't seen before, which is a high-level, you know, Pfizer official, highly respected, stepping forward and talking about misgivings and doing it very publicly and very, very aggressively.
What have they done to silence you other than evicting you from all the social media sites?
Yeah, okay, yes.
I would say there's been a systematic campaign of written pieces about me because one way to affect someone like me who they might think has a reputation or pride is to make me out to be a lunatic.
And that's why I was keen to say that before the COVID era, I had never made a public comment about anything.
And so they made me out to be the anti-vaxxer darling.
I'm not an anti-vaxxer.
I'm pro well-developed, well-understood vaccines used appropriately.
I'm definitely not pro these things.
They don't belong in the same category as those well-understood vaccines.
Others said, oh, I'm a bitter ex-employee.
Let me tell you, Robert, I had a lovely time at Pfizer, and welcome before that.
I loved my career.
I had fantastic colleagues, great budget, so I could do the work I wanted to do.
But I had a 10-year career after that, and luckily I made more money in that 10 years than in the rest of it.
This affects anything.
So they've made me out to be either lost my mind or I must have some other agenda.
I don't know what it is because I've progressively been pushed off the remaining scientific advisory boards I was on.
I enjoyed helping Startup companies, and I was on a few SABs.
And I understand why they did it.
I understand that the CEOs gradually phoned me up to say, we can't have a controversial person on the board, the advisory board.
And I said, I understand, and attended my resignation.
So it's cost me friends, reputation, not that I really mind about that.
Some people have said it's brave.
It would be braver or harder to sit still knowing there's bad things happening and say nothing.
And that's why I mystify.
And I will say it again, I'm looking them in the eyes.
Any of you watching this, people I've worked with over the last 32 years, shame on you.
Why aren't you speaking out?
Unless you believe everything you're being told is accurate, this is not.
And there are several seriously frightening things going on.
You know, you must be close to retirement, too.
What have you got to lose?
You know, so that's the way I treat it.
You know, there really isn't anything to lose.
There's no peaceful place for me to step back from and just pick up a quiet life.
We are being controlled more and more.
Today, the European Parliament discussed, I think it's called Green Certificates, something like that, Green Certificates.
It's really a vaccine hospital system.
And I watched several hours of debates, and most people seem to be in favour of them, and we've lobbied them as well.
Maybe 10% understood this is unnecessary and it honestly represents a totalitarian control system.
Vaccine passports are nothing like a yellow fever certificate that you need to go to certain parts of Africa.
They are the world's first single format, digital ID containing, editable, And then what's called an interoperable database.
So it's something that you can show through a system and the system can understand what you've shown them and make a decision to let you enter or not, to do a transaction or not, in real time.
There's no system like this.
The closest thing we've got is bank cards.
But there are many bank cards.
There are payment systems that don't use bank cards.
There's cash.
So you're not really controlled by bank cards.
But imagine a world in which there was only Visa.
And no other means of pain.
Well, now you are in completely the grip to live your life with whoever controls that database and the algorithms that sets what happens when you present your pulse.
And so the vaccine passports, it's creating a world's first system that allows whoever And its algorithms, they utterly control everything, really, your ability to cross any threshold, be it a border or entering into a storm, and to spend any of your money if they want.
It's easily done.
I'm not an IT specialist, and even I can paint how that will be done.
But here's my fear.
If we allow a vaccine passport system to come into being, then they can start with generous allowances.
That is, you can do all sorts of things that you currently can't do under COVID protections.
And the goal would be to make it less liberal and so you coerce people who are not vaccinated.
And I just think that's what's happening in Israel.
I'm fearing it'll happen in Europe if they vote for that legislation.
If they do, I'm confident the UK Parliament would follow very swiftly.
And that's why I'm thinking already now, I think it's wonderful.
I'm sucking up to the Americans.
I love the fact we've got a written constitution.
We have no written rights and they've just been stripped away.
And you also have a federal system.
I noticed that some states have chosen to go their own way compared with others.
And that's created a natural experiment and that's helped people learn really important things.
And so I think two things.
One is I think to carry on my assistance, should we say, warning people, I'd probably be best to be in America and perhaps to help a state that is determined not to have, I don't know, scientific exaggeration, force closures of businesses and restrict people in the future.
And I think I could help do that.
In return, I would like sanctuary.
I've applied for visas, but they may take time to come through.
But it's growing dark.
Lots of people have written bad things about me.
There's no upside whatsoever in doing what I'm doing, other than I can say to myself, I tried my best.
I probably got stuck in because I can't stand injustice.
I've always struggled with Now, if anyone bullies somebody, messages their power, brings an unfairness about, I always respond to that.
And then my other attribute, I guess, is I tinker.
You use the expression tinker, where you just play with things to try and understand how they work, mess about with.
So I've always messed about with old machinery, and I've always messed about with scientific concepts just all the time.
And so I've combined those things.
I tinkered with what we were being told and framed it, weren't it?
And then realized there were injustices and unfairnesses and felt, you know, I've no choice but to say it like I'm seeing it.
And I think I've said, I'm very scared about the booster vaccines, top-up vaccines, and not necessary.
So what the hell is in those bodies?
And the vaccine passport on its own is a totalitarian control system, the like of which Orwell and Huxley never thought of.
So I think we can avoid both of these risks by stopping the passports.
We can avoid that.
It's not necessary.
In the UK, almost everybody, I think 99% of people from whom any COVID-19 fatalities came, Have been vaccinated.
And also, I don't understand how there are really any remaining vulnerable people.
The vaccines genuinely don't work.
I think they probably do.
But if they don't, then it's the end of the line as well.
I can't see any basis for vaccine hotspots.
So if you're If 75 and felt vulnerable, had been vaccinated, you're now protected.
You don't need to know whether the person on the next seat on the train has been vaccinated or not.
You're protected.
And obviously, if you're young and carefree and healthy and you're not at significant risk from the virus, you don't care about anybody's immune status either.
So you don't need to see the old guy's vaccine passport.
The only people who want vaccine passports are the people who are suggesting that they're necessary.
Why are they doing that?
I don't know exactly, but it's going to give them complete control for whatever.
I worry about the simultaneously moving toward these digital currencies.
They give them really, really absolute control over all of us when combined with those digital passports.
I agree with you.
I must say, when I made a little bit of money a few years ago, I realized that I only keep the money, as it were, the beneficence of whoever runs the banking system.
If they decide that the digits on my screen aren't real anymore, then it's gone, because they're not real assets.
And yes, it does feel like there's a strong push for digital currencies.
I always say to people, I don't use cash very much, but do not let the executive ban cash.
They don't like it.
Yeah, it could be used for criminal behaviour, but criminals are going to have no trouble using blockchain, I assure you.
No trouble at all.
The idea that we should restrict cash as an anti-crime measure is just a lunatic idea.
But the reason they want to get rid of cash, I think, is if you can spend your money sight unseen away from the authorities, legitimately and freely as a free citizen, why should you not do that?
And they want that gone.
I think, along with these vaccine passports, your life will be controlled by apps, the rules of which are set by other people who are not democratically elected either.
So be assured, no need to be fearful anymore about this.
We've understood it adequately now.
There are several really good medicines just from the medicine chest, like ivermectin and the anti-inflammatory product of steroids and others.
So there's a medicine chest, there's probably a good level of herd immunity.
For those who've chosen to be the vaccination, there was already some prior immunity in the population because this virus is related to other coronaviruses.
There are at least now seven characterised.
If you've been exposed to any of the common cold coronaviruses, that would probably give you a degree of protection against this one.
And then finally, back to the children.
The youngest children tend not to suffer from If they're infected, also very poor at transmitting it.
So they don't need vaccines to protect them, and we don't need them vaccinated to protect anybody else.
So I'm afraid the only reason that people are proposing they be vaccinated on the pregnant women is so that everybody's vaccinated.
If everybody's vaccinated now, you can see that it makes sense to recruit them onto someone.
It wouldn't make sense to me, but I can see them selling me up, putting everybody on a database.
But the reality is only the Elderly and already ill really benefit from a vaccine.
And so unless everybody gets vaccinated, the whole idea of vaccine passports is just non-void because two thirds of people, I think, shouldn't need to present it since they haven't been vaccinated.
Every time I speak to somebody, hopefully, Robert, you've got a huge audience.
So thank you for letting me use that.
And I hope every time A few thousand, maybe a few tens of thousands of people go, wait a minute, this guy's either a lunatic or, oh, crikey, yeah, maybe we're not being told the truth.
You're not being told the truth.
You're not.
It's been exaggerated, made persistent, ineffective measures put in place that I think economy, civil society, your community, and it could get worse.
So just say, no more of this.
Take back your own lives.
Work with people who...
I like to think I'm normally a moderate person, and I wouldn't recommend you do something that would be harmful, but you can just take those.
If you do that, there are far more of us than there are of whoever the demo.
So, you know, it's in our hands for us to take it back.
Dr.
Michael Yeadon, thank you very much.
You are truly a hero.
Please let us know when you come to Boston so I can take you out to dinner.
All right.
Thank you very much.
Thank you very much, Michael.
Keep doing what you're doing.
Take care of your health.
Thank you, Mark.
Thank you very much.
I will do that.
▲
Export Selection