Dr. Mike Yeadon’s – “The Covid Lies”

Covid Education Health Watch

This video above is a brief overview of Doctor Mike Yeadon’s document – The Covid Lies.  The video consists of selected excerpts from the document in order to provide an audio abstract of the entire work.   Listeners are encouraged to download and read the entire document for themselves as it provides and important piece of the Covid 19 pandemic history or mismanagement.

This is a short biography of  Doctor Yeadon taken from the article, The ex-Pfizer scientist who became an anti-vax hero by STEVE STECKLOW and ANDREW MACASKILL in LONDON Filed March 18, 2021.

Michael Yeadon was a scientific researcher and vice president at drugs giant Pfizer Inc.  Michael Yeadon, wasn’t just any scientist. The 60-year-old is a former vice president of Pfizer, where he spent 16 years as an allergy and respiratory researcher. He later co-founded a biotech firm.

Yeadon (pronounced Yee-don) has emerged as an unlikely hero of the so-called anti-vaxxers, whose adherents question the safety of many vaccines, including for the coronavirus. The anti-vaxxer movement has amplified Yeadon’s skeptical views about COVID-19 vaccines and tests, government-mandated lockdowns and the arc of the pandemic. Yeadon has said he personally doesn’t oppose the use of all vaccines.

Some former colleagues at Pfizer say they no longer recognize the Mike Yeadon they once knew. They described him as a knowledgeable and intelligent man who always insisted on seeing evidence and generally avoided publicity.

The Covid Lies

A Working Draft,   April 10, 2022

By Doctor  Mike Yeadon.

I contend that all the main narrative points about the coronavirus named SARS CoV 2 are lies.

Furthermore, all the measures imposed on the population are also lies.  In what follows, I support these claims scientifically, mostly by reference to peer reviewed journal articles. In 2019, World Health Organization scientists reviewed the evidence for the utility of all non-pharmaceutical interventions, concluding that they are all without effect.

It is no longer possible to view the last two years as well-intentioned errors. Instead, the objectives of the perpetrators are most likely to be totalitarian control over the population by means of mandatory digital IDs and cashless central bank digital currencies.

Testing healthy people should stop. If you’re sick, please stay home. Masks belong in the trash.  Covid-19 gene-based injections are not recommended and must not be coerced or mandated.

It is not the purpose of this document to accuse anyone or to assemble the evidence against them at this time.

The Lies

Number 1 Lie

SARS-CoV-2 has such a high lethality that every measure must be taken to save lives. Essential to claim high lethality in order that unprecedented responses may seem justified.

THE REALITY is that Early estimates of lethality were very high with, in some reports, an infection fatality rate (IFR) of 3%. Seasonal influenza is generally considered to have a typical IFR of 0.1%. That means some seasons, IFR for flu may be 0.3% and other times, 0.05% or lower.

In practise, and this was usual, estimates of IFR for Covid-19 were revised downwards repeatedly and now are generally recognised as in the range of 0.1 to 0.3%. It cannot now be argued that it is significantly different from some seasonal influenza epidemics.

Why, then, have we all but destroyed the modern world over it?

Doctor John Ioannidis is one of the world’s most published epidemiologists and he has been scathing about the inappropriate responses to a novel virus of not particularly unusual lethality.

Like most respiratory viruses, SARS-CoV-2 represents no serious health threat to those under 60 years of age, certainly not children, and is a serious threat only to those nearing the end of their lives by virtue of age and multiple comorbidities.

Lie number 2

Because this is a new virus, there will be no prior immunity in the population.

This remark, made repeatedly early on, aimed to squash any notion that there was a degree of “prior immunity” in the population. Prior immunity and natural immunity are only now, two years in, not considered “misinformation”.

This was a straight lie. It’s pretty much never true that there’s no prior immunity in a population. This is because viruses are each derived from earlier viruses and some of the population had already defeated its antecedents, giving them either immunity or a big head start in defeating the new virus. Either way, a sizeable proportion of the population never had cause to worry.

Lie number 3

This virus does not discriminate. No one is safe until everyone is safe.

The intention was to minimise the numbers who might reason they’re not “at risk” people.This claim was always absurd. The lethality of this virus, as is common with respiratory viruses, is 1000X less in young, healthy people than in elderly people with multiple comorbidities.

In short, almost no one who wasn’t close to the end of their lives was at risk of severe outcomes and death. In middle-aged individuals, obesity is a risk factor, as it is for a handful of other causes of death.

Lie number 4

People can carry this virus with no signs and infect others: asymptomatic transmission.

This is the central conceptual deceit. If true, then anyone might infect and kill you. Falsely claimed asymptomatic transmission underscores almost every intrusion: masking, mass testing, lockdowns, border restrictions, school closures, even vaccine passports.

Asymptomatic transmission is epidemiologically irrelevant. It’s not necessary to argue it never happens; it’s enough to show that if it occurs at all, it is so rare as not to be worth measuring.

Lie number 5

The PCR test selectively identifies people with clinical infections.

This is the central operational deceit. If true, we could detect risky people and isolate them. We could diagnose accurately and also count the number of deaths.

Polymerase chain reaction (PCR), at its best, can confirm the presence of geneticinformation in a clean sample and is useful in forensics for that reason. It involves cycle after cycle of amplification, copying the starting material at the beginning of each cycle.

The inventor of the PCR test, Kary Mullis, won a Nobel Prize for it and often criticised Fauci for misusing that test to diagnose AIDS patients, which Mullis insisted was inappropriate.

In a “dirty” clinical sample, there is more than a possible piece of, or a whole, virus which might replicate. There are bacteria, fungi, other viruses, human cells, mucus, and more. It’s not possible unequivocally to know, if a test is judged “positive” after many cycles, what it was that was amplified to give the signal at the end that we call “positive”.

In mass testing mode, commonly used, no one ever runs so-called “positive controls” through the chain of custody. That’s diagnostic testing 101. It’s a deception.

You can be genuinely positive, yet not ill. There is no lower limit of true detection below which you’d be declared to have some copies of the virus, but declared clinically well. It’s an absurd idea.You can have no virus yet test positive (with or without symptoms). All of these are swept together and called “con”firmed Covid-19 cases”. If you die in the next 28 days, you’re said to be a “Covid death,” no matter what the cause.

Lie number 6

Masks are effective in preventing the spread of this virus.

This is mostly used to maintain the illusion of danger. You see others’ masks and feel afraid. Complying is also a measure of whether you do what you’re told, even if the measure is useless.

We have known for decades that surgical masks worn in medical theatres do not stop respiratory virus transmission. Masks were tested across a series of operations by doctors at the Royal College of Surgeons (UK). No difference in post-operative infection rate was seen by mask use.

Cloth masks definitely don’t stop respiratory virus transmission as shown by several large, randomised trials. If anything, they increase risk of lung infections. The authorities have mostly conceded on cloth masks.

Some people speak of “source control,” catching droplets. Problem is, there is no evidence that transmission takes place via droplets. Equally, there is no evidence it occurs via “ne aerosols. No one finds it on masks, or on air filters in hospital wards of Covid patients, either. Where is the virus?

Many don’t know that blue medical masks aren’t filters. Your inspired and expired air moves in and out between the mask and your face. They are splashguards, that’s all.

Lie number 7

Lockdowns slow down the spread and reduce the number of cases and deaths.

The most impactful yet wasteful intervention, accomplishing nothing useful.  Useful to the perpetrators, however, wishing to damage the economy and reduce interpersonal contacts. This measure was surprisingly tolerated in many wealthy countries, because “furlough” schemes were put in place, compensating many people for not working, or requiring them to work from home.

This measure, though among the most repressive acts ever imposed on citizens in a democracy, was intuitively reasonable to many. This is an example of how far off-course uninformed intuition can be.  The core idea was simple. Respiratory viruses are transmitted from person to person.  Reducing the average number of contacts surely reduces transmission? Actually, it

doesn’t, because the transmission concept is wrong. Transmission is from a SYMPTOMATIC person to a susceptible person. Those with symptoms are UNWELL They remain at home in most cases with no action from the government. Transmission occurred mostly in institutions where sick people and susceptible people were forced into contact: hospitals, care homes, and domestic settings.

This is because those involved in the vast bulk of human-to-human contacts are fit and well and such contacts didn’t result in transmission. Essentially, if you’re fooled by the “asymptomatic transmission” lie, then lockdown might make sense. However, since it is epidemiologically irrelevant, lockdowns can never work, and of course, all the voluminous literature confirms this.

Lie number 8

There are unfortunately no treatments for Covid beyond support in hospital.

Reinforced the idea that it was vital to avoid catching the virus. Legally, it was essential for the perpetrators bringing forward novel vaccines that there be no viable treatments. Had there been even one, the regulatory route of Emergency Use Authorisation would not have been available.

In my opinion, while all these measures were destructive and cruel, active deprivation of access to experimentally applied but otherwise known safe and effective early treatments led directly to millions of avoidable deaths worldwide. In my mind, this is a policy of mass murder.

Contrasting with the official narrative, the therapeutic value of early treatment was already understood and demonstrated empirically during spring 2020. Since then, a sizeable handful of well-understood, out-patent, low-cost and safe oral treatments have been characterised.

There is no question that senior advisors to a range of governments knew that so-called “zinc ionophores,” compounds which open channels to allow certain dissolved minerals to cross cell membranes, were useful in severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in 2003 and should be expected also to be therapeutically useful in SARS-CoV-2 infection.

This is a starting point for all of the clinical trials in Covid-19,&, including especially ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine (which are zinc ionophores).

Lie number 9

It’s not certain if you can get the virus more than once.

The idea of natural immunity was flatly denied and the absurd idea that you might get the same virus twice was established. This ramped up the fear, which might otherwise have passed swiftly.

The government, speaking in uncertain terms on this question, were lying.

Those with even a basic grasp of mammalian immunology knew that it wouldn’t be possible to get clinically unwell twice in response to the same virus, or close-in variants of it.

Beating off a respiratory virus infection leaves almost everyone with acquired immunity, which is complete, powerful, and durable.

Those infected with SARS in 2003 still had clear evidence of robust, T-cell mediated immunity 17 years later.

Lie number 10

Variants of the virus appear and are of great concern.

I believe the purpose of this fiction was to extend the apparent duration of the pandemic and the fear for as long as the perpetrators wished it. While there is controversy on this point, with some physicians believing reinfection by variants to be a serious problem, I think untrustworthy testing and other viruses entirely is the parsimonious explanation.

I come at it as an immunologist. From that vantage point, there is very strong precedent indicating that recovery a!er infection a#ords immunity extending beyond the sequence of the variant that infected the patient to all variants of SARS-CoV-2. The number of confirmed reinfections is so small that they are not an issue, epidemiologically speaking.

The variants story fails to note “Muller’s Ratchet,” the phenomenon in which variants of a virus, formed in an infected person during viral replication (in which “typographical errors” are made and not corrected) trend to greater transmissibility but lesser lethality.

I do not rule out the possibility that the so-called vaccines are so badly designed that they prevent the establishment of immune memory. If that is true, then the vaccines are worse than failures, and it might be possible to be repeatedly infected. This would be a form of acquired immune deficiency.

Lie number 11

The only way to end the pandemic is universal vaccination.

It’s NEVER been the way prior pandemics have ended, and there was nothing about this one that should have led us to adopt the extreme risks that were taken and which have resulted in hundreds of thousands, probably millions, of wholly avoidable deaths.

The interventions imposed on the population didn’t prevent spread of the virus. Only individual isolation for an open-ended period could do that, and that’s clearly impossible (hospital patients and residents of care homes have to be cared for at very least and additionally, the nation has to be supplied with food and medicines).

All the interventions were useless and hugely burdensome.  Yet we have reached the end of the pandemic, more or less. We would have done so faster and with less suffering and death had we adopted measures along the lines proposed in the Great Barrington Declaration and used pharmaceutical treatments as they were discovered, plus general improvements to public health, such as encouraging vitamin supplements.

It was NEVER appropriate to attempt to “end the pandemic” with a novel technology vaccine. In a public health mass intervention, safety is the top priority, more so even than effectiveness, because so many people will receive it.

It quickly became apparent that natural immunity was stronger than any protection from vaccination, and most people were not at risk of severe outcomes if infected.

Lie number 12

The new vaccines are safe and effective.

I feel particularly strongly about this claim. Both components are lies Separately, the clinical trials were wholly inadequate. They were conducted in people not most in need of protection from safe and effective vaccines.

They were far too short in duration. the endpoints only captured “infection” as measured by an inadequate PCR test and should have been augmented by Sanger sequencing to confirm real infection. Trials were underpowered to detect important endpoints like hospitalisation and death.

These agents were always going to be toxic. The only question was, to what degree? Having selected spike protein to be expressed, a protein which causes blood clotting to be initiated, a risk of thromboembolic adverse events was burned into the design.

Nothing at all limits the amount of spike protein to be made in response to a given dose. Some individuals make a little and only briefly. The other end of a normal range results in synthesis of copious amounts of spike protein for a prolonged period. The locations in which this pathological event occurred, as well as where on the spectrum, in my view played a pivotal role in whether the victim experienced adverse events, including death.

•There are many other pathologies flowing from the design of these agents, including, for the mRNA “vaccines,” that lipid nanoparticle (LNP) formulations leave the injection site and home to the liver and ovaries, among other organs.

Though many people refuse to accept or even look at the evidence, it is clear that the number of adverse events and deaths soon after Covid-19 vaccination is astonishing and far in excess, in 2021 alone, than all adverse effects and deaths reported to the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) in the previous 30 years.

Doctor Yeadon’s full document can be found at Doctors for Covid Ethics by downloading the file.  You are encouraged to read and study the entire document which contains a lot of supporting material for Doctor Yeadon’s points.  Thank you for  taking the time to review this video.

As published in Scrapbook with Tony

Leave a Reply