Foundation Corona Committee, 86th meeting on January 07th 2021

Dr. Mike Yeadon (Former Vice President of the pharmaceutical company Pfizer Respiratory Research, Canada)

Robin Monotti (Architekt und Filmproduzen)

Mike Yeadon talks about the vacine mandate and how could become like it is today.

in conversation with Viviane Fischer, Reiner Fuellmich, Wolfgang Wodarg and at the end with Robin Monotti

(Original language: English)

[Transkript vom Team corona-ausschuss-info.com + Ed]


Reiner Füllmich: [04:33:33]
Hi, Mike. We’ve spoken only a couple of days ago, and the– as a result of you and some other scientists taking a closer look at the so-called lots or batches which as you describe it– and this is our legal analysis as well– is compelling evidence for premeditated mass murder.

You had prepared a presentation which we never looked at, but you haven’t with you now?

Mike Yeadon: [04:33:59]Mike Yeadon
I don’t on my end, but what I’d like to do briefly, Reiner, is just for those who haven’t seen me before, I want to establish my credentials and pushed back a little bit on some criticisms I’ve had and then just step through what I have observed happening because of the– as it were, from a scientific perspective. And then say what I think is happening, and there are a couple of bits of evidence. That will just, like, set the ground rules for ten minutes or so. And then, yeah, I want to go into the very alarming results of analysis of the V-A-E-R-S data. It pertains to the the vaccine lots and I’ve got a lot to say about that, so…. Maybe, maybe Corbin would be able to find that short presentation that I sent for, I think, Wednesday’s discussion. Maybe we can throw that up. If not, maybe appended to this recording, however you normally do show notes, or whatever you call it.

[4:34:59]
Okay, well thank you for the opportunity again to speak to you, Reiner. I think I mentioned when we spoke I think in the summer that what… your team is doing is completely unique. I don’tthink there is anywhere else on the planet that’s spoken to between one two hundred experts each in their field and recorded an hour or more of their analysis of the situation. So, you know, hopefully in combination it’s going to make sense.

[4:35:27]
So… Yes, I’m Dr Mike Yeadon. I describe myself as an industry veteran. I’ve worked in the
bio-pharmaceutical industry for all of my life. My first degree was by biochemistry and toxicology. English people don’t like to brag, but I’m told I should — I was top of the year by a very long way. As an undergraduate I worked under military clearance at Portland Down– that’s this equivalent, I guess, of Ft. Dietrich– it’s where the UK military develops its so-called chemical defences. And so I was under the Official Secrets Act. They must have thought I wasn’t crazy person at the time. I also worked for six months at the Police Forensic Service headquarters at Augemasten. So I learned a lot of valid techniques in that time. Then I did a research-based PhD in respiratory pharmacology. And then after that I jumped into industry I have seven years, seven happy years at the Wellcome research labs before they closed after being acquired by Glaxo. So my… career spanned the consolidation phase of pharmaceutical companies and– we call it the “dirty snowball”. You know, companies became absolutely huge. And that’s relevant to what’s happening today. They are so large, so powerful.

[4:36:50]
So after that, I went to Pfizer in the UK attheir very famous Sandwich-Kent research base. I think more drugs were– blockbuster drugs– were discovered and released from that lab than any other single establishment on the planet. I wish I could claim I had anything to do with it, but I didn’t. But what it did do is give me the opportunity to learn, as it were, many of great drug discoverers. People who had actually conceived, led programs, invented molecules, developed them, gone through safety testing and launched them. And they all made more than a billion a year thereafter. So… it was a really good place for learning this trade.

[4:37:32]
At Pfizer, I left in 2011, having been head of respiratory research worldwide. So I was their chief scientific officer for that… therapy area, allergy and respiratory. I left because they closed the site in 2011. I played an important role, I think, in helping some of those programs and some staff move to a new home. So the world’s second-largest generics company, Mylan, acquired some space in that research park and hired many of my former colleagues. And obviously, I didn’t do the deal. But I had, I think, something to do with pitching it to the company.

[4:38:12]
Over the next ten years to today, I’ve been a consultant to start-up and mid-phased biotech companies, some now public others privately held. That’s about thirty companies, mostly in the field of respiratory, inflammation, immunology, that kind of thing. And in the middle of that ten-year period, I had the opportunity to start my own biotech company, with three other colleagues and to raise the money private venture capital and to acquire some compounds from my former portfolio because Pfizer was closing the site and had been shrinking its footprint. That’s quite acommon model in the– ten years ago.

[4:38:53]
So that’s me. I think I have broad biological discipline and understanding necessary for doing research. That’s understanding disease mechanisms well enough to contemplate interventions, ones that could help slow down disease or ameliorate symptoms and to do so safely. That was always the number one watchword.

[4:39:16]
So some people have said that– why are you speaking out? And you’re a crazy person, whatever. The three things I would say most commonly attributed to me, which are not true but I will take them: he’s a bitter ex-employee. Well, you know, one, I left ten years ago. I don’t hold a grudge, and certainly not for ten years. Secondly, Pfizer and I got on really well. I… would say to this day the best employer I ever worked for, a fantastic place to work, for the reasons I described. Something’s gone wrong since, obviously but I was… unhappy that I had to leave. either they were very good to me or I was one of the last employees off the site because I was helping place people and projects.

[4:39:57]
So that doesn’t sound like a bitter person. They also treated me very well in terms of redundancy, because I was a vice-president, and they tried to do that. And then, as I’ve said, a year after leaving, I came back with money and a lawyer, did the deal with them. And then two years later they put additional capital in. That doesn’t sound like we were getting on badly. And in 2017, when Novartis acquired Nearco, my biotech, they made an undisclosed sum that I would say would make them very happy. You know, they definitely did a good deal.

[4:40:29]
So that was five years ago, and I’ve had no interaction with them since. So, you know, I’m not bitter, and I was very lucky to make some money. That’s what has allowed me to be independent, by the way. Others have said I’m seeking fame. Well… no. I’m– despite the fact I can appear on TV, or on camera, I’m actually by nature quite a shy person. If you left me to my own devics, I’d be tinkering with motorbikes in a shed probably. That’s what I like to do.

[4:40:58]
And others say, well, he’s making money. No. There’s not a single thing I’ve ever done that is so-called “monetised”. And indeed I probably lost hundreds of thousands of pounds being thrown off scientific advisory boards of former clients when they said, you’ve become the story, and that’s not acceptable. Which I understood. So, it’s costing me money, it’s hurting my reputation, and I had every reason just to stay at home and enjoy my early retirement.

[4:41:24]
No, the reason I’m speaking out is because I noticed advisers to the UK government lying, lying on– directly on television. And first it was just kind of fascinating but through the spring and into the summer of 2020, I became first alarmed, and then later in the year, frightened. And I’m– still remain frightened.
Why? Every country in the world had what was called a “pandemic preparedness plan”, for things like this or influenza, more typically. And I read them. I read all of them– maybe twenty from the G-20 countries, plus the WHO. And in essence they have only three things to recommend. One: if you were symptomatic, please stay home away from other people until you’re better. And that’s because we’ve known for decades that symptomatic people drive respiratory viral infections, their epidemics.
And the other measure was: wash your hands more frequently than usual, because with the new virus, we don’t understand transmission properly, so that’s a good precaution.

[4:42:31]
The next nine pages of these pandemic plans involved telling us what they _shouldn’t_ do. None of them involved border closures, unless you lived on a small island; school closures; business closures; mass testing of the well; lockdown, masking, anything like that.
None of them. Absolutely all of the things that we have been told were essential were missing, and explicitly ruled out by the previous plans. So I’d say the strongest evidence I can offer for my assertion that there is a supranational plan to take over all of the liberal democracies is this: that all the countries had somewhat similar pandemic preparedness plans that were very simple, and they all discarded them in… the weeks of March, 2020; all of them. And they replaced them with the same narrative script. And I’ll just describe them. i call them the eight covid lies. Every single one of them is an untruth, and I think the objective was to frighten people to death, and I think it’s worked.

[4:43:34]
So how could it possibly be that Germany, Italy, the United States, Iceland, Scandanavian countries all got the same bunch of wrong information, all at the same time? I put it to you, ladies and gentleman of the audience, there’s only one way that can happen, and that’s if they all agreed to do it beforehand. Really.

[4:43:53]
And so these lies, I will– I’m not going to take a lot of time on them today, because it was a very long recording with the programme called “High Wire with Del Bigtree” about a year ago. And I go through them in painful detail. But what did they say? Well, they told us things like “This is an extremely lethal virus. If you catch it and get ill, you really could die.” I remember the falling man, facedown in Wuhan. It’s never happened anywhere else. It’s pure theatre. And it turns out that it’s not a particularly lethal virus. If it exists at all, it’s about the same as a bad seasonal influenza.

[4:44:31]
They use PCR testing repeatedly off swabs up noses and throats and led you to believe that these were highly accurate and could distinguish a clinically infected person from something– something that’s not. And even the inventor, Kary Mullis, who has died, won the Nobel Prize for this technique, said you should never use it for this purpose. So I won’t waste any more time, but they’re still using these damn tests, and they’re not reliable. They don’t tell you anything, really.

[4:44:57]
They also say you should wear masks, but masks have been extensively studied. Cloth masks, if anything, make you more likely to catch an unusual bacterial pneumonia, because you’re breathing through a filthy cloth. And the blue medical masks are– they’re not masks, actually. They’re splash guards. Their purpose in hospitals is the stop blood and body fluid going into the nose and mouth of the attending healthcare worker. They’ve never been for filtering your breath, and obviously they don’t do so. But they’ve told you to wear masks, and I think the purpose– certainly in me, causes anxiety. I feel really awful wearing these things. Then they introduced lockdowns, where you will all stay at home, mostly, unless you are a poor manual worker, and then you have to go out to work. But the intelligentsia pretty much got paid to stay home for very long periods of time, three months initially in the case of Britain.

[4:45:51]
Lockdowns, they told us, would slow the spread of transmission of this virus. And lots of people thought it must obviously be so, because it’s a disease spread from person to person. But it didn’t… chime with me. I am… embarrassed to take two months to realise why they wouldn’t work. And it comes to this next lie: the idea that– of asymptomatic transmission, that you could be bearing the virus in your airways, yet have no symptoms, but nevertheless be able to spread enough of the stuff to be able to infect a person nearby. That– that’s not true. It’s– that’s a flat lie.

[4:46:26]
And whenever a scientific adviser, medical adviser to a government tells you things like… asymptomatic transmission, I want you to know that they’re not mistaken, they’re lying. It– because it’s been studied and it’s simply not true. And I can append a link to the notes for this programme which is an accumulation of statements by Fauci, a WHO doctor and other people actually, including me, goes through this argument.

[4:46:53]
So, if asymptomatic transmission doesn’t occur– and I– I am certain it’s epidemiologically irrelevant, not saying it never occurs, but it’s irrelevant– if it’s irrelevant, why would you need to wear masks if you’re well? Why would you need to test somebody who’s not got symptoms? Why would you need to close your business or your school or the economy? So, again, they’ve lied to you with the effective of both frightening you, and I think, also learning from financially experienced people, the other objective was to begin to destroy the economy and the sovereign currencies. I think… that’s a continuing objective.

[4:47:31]
They also lied to us and told us that there were no treatments for this respiratory viral infection. And I will take my hat off to Dr Peter McCullough, as a leader, but he’s representative of very many brave physicians, who pushed back on this nihilism. And they have determined– half a dozen really quite good therapies used progressively. So early on you want to treat replication, in the middle phrase inflammation, and in the terminal phase coagulation.

[4:48:03]
And if you understand this multi-phase infection, you come to the conclusion, which is mine, that this is the most treatable respiratory viral illness ever. It’s… really quite surprising. But the use of those treatments is denied, almost all around the world, to the extent that people be fined or even struck off as physicians. There’s another lie there.

[4:48:26]
And then they would say things like “well we’re not sure when you’ve had it, if you become immune.” Well, I would say: Immunology 101 tells you that that’s simply not true. We know that the default understanding would be: once you’ve shrugged off this virus, you will have taken high resolution pictures of it, as it were, using your immune system, and if you see it again, or something related to it, like a variant, you’ll be– you’ll not get clinically ill, not for months, possibly many years. So that’s another lie.

[4:48:56]
And then the final one, and we’ll come back to this, is that vaccines are safe and effective. But that’s a whole… other story.

[4:49:02]
So I’ve said that the evidence of a…
super-national plan is discarding of simple, well established pandemic preparedness plans and replacing them with this bunch of lies. And all countries did it, and if someone would like to write to me with an explanation, an innocent explanation for this, I’d like to hear it. I want… to be wrong, but unfortunately I don’t think I am. So at the most it is fear. I think the ultimate aim is control, and we will come onto this. The control mechanism that we can see being installed all around us the circle vaccine passports. A certificate first on paper and eventually a QR code on your phone that tells anyone who needs to know that you have received the requisite number of doses of these materials.

[4:49:50]
I’m getting– we’ll come back to this, but again, that’s nonsense. Economic destruction, I think, is on its way. There was a person who is very experienced in the City of London, and I heard them phoning into a radio show three weeks ago. And they said “I don’t know anything about viruses,” they said, “but I do know a lot about finance.” And they said the amount of money it’s not even been borrowed just printed it actually created new money with an IOU from government, haven’t sold guilt-edged certificates to investors.

[4:50:21]
And he said “It is my view that the sovereign currency is already destroyed, and the exchange rates ought to be moving violently against each other, and they’re not, if you go and look. And… that’s because, as Catherine Austin Fitts tells us, this is a conspiracy led by the central banking clique and their clients — to take over the world, I think. Once they’ve done that, destroyed the economy — again, I’m paraphrasing from Catherine, financial– a great financial reset, which will have us using our vax passes as digital ID and central bank digital currency, CBDCs, which you can look up. They are revealed, and they are being talked about by all central banks. You won’t like those. You really won’t. It will be the end of cash and of any privacy of any transaction.

[4:51:09]
And I know I go further than many. But I’m really quite concerned that there is a serious intent to kill a very large proportion of the population of the world. Again, I hope I’m wrong, but all of the– all of the measures required to get to this point of control through vaccine passports, digital ID also– and to repeatedly vaccinate people, as we’ll come on to– they certainly set the scene where a bad actor could introduce a gene sequence that will rob you of your health and kill you, in a fairly predictable way, at a fairly predictable rate, per million doses and so on. So if somebody does want to depopulate, the setup is so perfect that it isn’t completely crazy.

[4:51:52]
Before I move on to the vaccines– and this is a concern I had– lots of people said to me, Mike, this cannot possibly be the way you describe it. It looks compelling, I understand, but come on, you can’t have a global conspiracy like this. It would leak and involves far too many people. You must be wrong. Must be another explanation. And I suggest to them that they look for a video on YouTube, surprisingly, by a German journalist called Paul Schreyer S-c-h-r-e-y-e-r. Paul Schreyer. And there’s a one-hour documentary called “Pandemic Simulations: Preparation for a New Era? (question mark). And when you watch that, your… last rickety defences that this isn’t a well-organised long-planned event, I think will disappear, and your heart will be in your boots by twenty minutes.

[4:52:44]
Basically, all of the actors that you see around the table, including say in Event 2O1, which took place at the end of 2019– all of those players are currently taking the roles they had in thesimulations an all around the world, and doing exactly things they did in the simulations. So that… was– those were the rehearsals, and there were more than a dozen of these damn things. And I think one of the bitterest moments for me was to realise that we were doing it to ourselves; that the US, UK, New Zealand Australia and Canada, the five eyes, I think are the leading players. I don’t know: I’m not going to say Russia is not involved or whatever.

[4:53:23]
But it looks like the Edward Bernays school of psychological management is being used by military intelligence people who have directed their weapons at their own people for two years through all these lies repetitive messaging and…. So, what we want to do is to wake people up, because if we don’t wake up we… are finished as a set of liberal democracies. I’m going to turn to the vaccines, but before I do that I’ll pause in case Reiner or others would want to stear me differently, but I will– I’ll say two things that I– they’re not original sayings, but they strike me as very appropriate. I’ve seen on many message boards, when this comes out, this all comes out don’t ask me how I knew. Ask yourself why you didn’t. I– honestly, the… evidence… that things are amiss I think is so stark that you literally have to avert your eyes not to realise that things are really bad, everywhere.

[4:54:23]
And then this other thing: there’s an old saying– I’ve heard this before; it makes me chuckle a little bit– “If you’re one step ahead of everybody else, you can be seen as a genius. If you’re two steps ahead, you’re a lunatic.” And that’s what, I’m afraid, what I’ve been. My… job as a scientist was to spot faint patterns in sparse data. That’s what you do when you’re trying to work out something that’s new. And… so I think I have been a couple steps ahead and probably sometimes wrong. But broadly I think it is sadly roughly what I’ve said. So, Reiner, you can either wave me onwards, or you might want to ask any question about that.

Reiner Füllmich: [4:55:02]
Mike, you’re right on track. It’s so important to hear this little introduction, because it gives us an overview. Many of our viewers have only seen bits and pieces of this, so this gives them the whole picture. This is great; you’re right on track.

Mike Yeadon: [4:55:15]
All right, thank you. And… Corbin yes, it’s some– if you can have the…presentation available, I’ll talk for a little bit and then maybe we can pop those slides up, because I’ll come back to that. A colleague has done an analysis, I think quite striking, when you see that.

[4:55:32]
So to the vaccines. To the vaccines. So I worked for the pharmaceutical– five pharmaceutical industries 32 years, so I think you can take it as read, but I’ll say it again: I am pro innovative, new medicines, provided they are well developed used appropriately, and of course, the profile is… safe– safe enough, considering the… utility. So are if you were treating a terminal cancer that had evaded surgery current therapy, radiotherapy and so on, then you might be willing to take a drug that might kill, you know, 10 percent of the people. I don’t know, five percent, if it would– if it might stretch your life out for… many years, especially offer the chance of a cure.

[4:56:18]
And some of these gene-based vaccines– I think the original intent of people like Dr Malone and others was indeed to treat things like that. You could put a… protein from your account into one of these vaccines and force your immune system to recognise it and destroy it. And that could provide exquisitely safe novel gene therapy. But if you’re going to treat effectively everyone on the planet– and you shouldn’t do it, anyway, but that’s certainly the stated intent– you need… safety, safety, safety, as Peter McCullough would say. That’s your first concern, even better– even more than “does it work”. You need to make sure it’s very safe, because you’re going to be giving it potentially to billions of people.

[4:57:02]
I did say that I’m– my original training is in toxicology, and I was taught by at least two people that founded the discipline of mechanistic toxicity– I can’t remember their names now. The first is Jim Bridges and somebody else– Guiness Park. And they reminded us that in the 1950s, we didn’t do toxicology in the drug industry. They would give it to two dogs and five chickens, and if the drug didn’t kill them, they literally would start giving it to people. That’s… how bad things were sixty– 60 or 70 years ago.

[4:57:34]
We had some strong wake-up calls at the end of the 60s, 50s, early 60s, with Thalidomide, for example. It’s a case that most people know about. At the time, they thought that babies were safe in… mother’s womb, so it didn’t really– wouldn’t be a problem if you gave… a pregnant woman a drug. We now know that there– the foetus is… exquisitely sensitive to pertubations in their environment. And so we never ever give novel medical interventions to pregnant women, right?

[4:58:06]
We’ll come back to that. So they’re definitely doing that. So, because of my toxological training and– so for a good understanding of what was required in drug R and D, new drug R and D, as soon as I looked at the vaccines, I was really quite frightened, because they were a novel type. These had never been mass-dosed to human beings at all. So there would be no way of knowing what kind of effects, unwanted effects might come about. And of course, what you do is careful empirical study. You should do all the possible studies that– if you have a worry, your rule of thumb would be: if you can think of a worry, you need to show why it’s not going to happen, to design an appropriate experiment. You have to find– “drown your own puppy” as we used to call it. It’s not… a good job, but you have to do it. You can’t just hope it will be all right in the night. It really is.

[4:58:54]
And when I looked at the vaccines, I had a number of concerns. One was, all four of them– so that was the Janssen J&J, Astrazeneca, Pfizer and Moderna– they all were fundamentally the same design, whether they used mRNA or a viral-communicated DNA, they encoded only the spike protein; the soft, sticky-out bit from the ball-and-stick model of the virus that you’ve got. And I don’t know to this day how they all chose just just the spike protein. Because I… guessed, and we now know it’s true, that human immunity relies much more on understanding the depths, the molecular structure inside the ball, than the spikes.

[4:59:38]
So I thought it was a bad– just emologically uneducated thing just to pick the outside part. But secondly, it took me, I don’t know, no more than half an hour of searching for research papers, abstracts and so on. Not so much on corona virus spike protein, because it was relatively new, but similar external proteins on other viruses. And within the half an hour, I realised that all of them have some kind of biological properties that are unwelcome. They’re not just for anchoring are the virus to the surface of a cell, which they do do. But they’re also biologically active, as you might expect, really.

[5:00:16]
They interact with the immune system and also coagulation system. So, in fact, I saw Wolfgang Wodarg earlier, and he led off and I joined a two-person, you know, appeal, a petition to the European Medicines Agency to say, “Don’t approve these vaccines is at this time. There are a handful of concerns that we think are going to occur, and you need to slow down.” And I think two of the four have been tested and proved correct, and the third one is looking pretty rough, gropy. So the design of them, I would say was– it was toxic by design. It was always going to harm people.

[5:00:55]
Next, unlike the classical vaccine– which is usually a… killed piece or killed preparation of the infective organism in a little bit of oil or alum… something like that– that’s a unit dose, so you know how much you’re injecting to each person. With these vaccines, we’re giving a unit dose _of code_. Now that code could be taken up well, copied into protein very efficiently, and might do so for a long time … in one person.

[5:01:25]
In another person, it might be taken up badly, copied inefficiently, and then briefly. So what I’m saying– and I’m absolutely certain about this, as a pharmacologist and toxicologist– is by choosing this design, the range of outcomes is probably a thousand times worse than it would be for conventional vaccine. Because, you know, the actual amount of protein produced will vary by orders of magnitude or more. It will. And I thought that was the explanation for why it is that many people have no side effects whatsoever and others appear to die, you know.

[5:01:59]
People say, “How can that possibly be true?” I just explained it: that with… an encoded vaccine, an unlucky individual might take up large quantities of it in their heart in coronary vessels or in the cerebral veins in the head, and produce lots of spike protein for a long time. and those people might get myocarditis or cerebral vein sinus thrombosis and die. And in someone else, it might be spread around the body, you know, in a less dangerous place and not make so much spike protein. I thought that was an adequate explanation. But I… don’t think– that’s not the whole explanation any more. The reason I _thought_ it was an explanation was: I… made an assumption, which I was entitled to make, which is that the same stuff from the manufacturer is in every single vial, you know, little glass vaccine vial. I believed and was entitled to believe that within a fraction of a percent now we have the same consistent quality and purity in every single injection and therefore the observed variations in behaviour in people must be out of something such as the thing I just suggested.

[5:03:07]
But as I’m going to come on to, unfortunately we’re now absolutely certain it’s _not_ the same stuff in every vial. And that means criminal acts are being committed as a we’ll come on to that. Just before we do that: vaccines– normally a vaccine if you administer it to a person, will usually be one dose, sometimes two. It’s never going to be a whole train of them. So, you know, I’m seeing some countries already giving the fourth vaccine and others are talking about an open-ended series. You need to know vaccines are not like that. You do not need to be repeatedly dosed with something that would earn the title vaccine. One or two doses at most. So it’s more than that. It’s not public health. And it’s not public health.

[5:03:56]
So– but here’s the thing: a vaccine ought to, at minimum I think, prevent you becoming ill with the pathogen against which you’ve been vaccinated. If it doesn’t do that, I’m afraid it’s not… a vaccine. And as a consequence of protecting you against that organism– and it does that usually by killing off a new infection at an early stage, before you’re even symptomatic– that would mean you should have low viral load in your airway. So that’s what keeps you safe after the vaccination or if you’ve acquired immunity. And the consequence of that is, it usually reduces if not stops transmission. And we know now, lots of work in the literature, that people who have had this virus are immune from becoming ill a second time, from either the original virus or a variant. And they don’t transmit, either.

[5:04:47]
So that’s– we can see what immunity, good immunity can look like. We’ve seen lots of cases of natural immunity. And authorities do agree. They… can see that these vaccines are not preventing catching it. They don’t prevent you growing same amounts in your airways as an unvaccinated person. And they don’t prevent transmission. So if someone’s going to claim that they reduce the severity of your symptoms, I’d like to know what black magic is invoked. Because I just told you, it goes to your
airway, it grows in the same way and transmits in the same way. I actually don’t believe– there’s no mechanism now for this to suddenly intervene and stop you getting ill. I don’t believe it.

[5:05:25]
So I think the most likely outcome now is they don’t do anything useful at all, but they are unfortunately really very harmful. They’re certainly toxic. So just a brief introduction to, I think, one of the best tracking systems in the world: Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, VAERS. It’s a US system. It was put in place about thirty years ago. And anyone who has an adverse event following vaccination, you– even if they’re not necessarily claiming it’s necessarily caused by it. But in order to track the possibility, you’re urged to report that.
But unfortunately, the reporting rate is typically between one percent and ten percent of adverse events. And there’s every piece of evidence that that has continued in… recent years, in the recent year since the vaccine started rolling out. And yet there have been more adverse events, and certainly many more deaths, associated just with the covid-19 vaccines, you know, than all the other vaccines in history which have been taken through this VAERS system. So there is no question– it’s public data, it’s your database. It’s not mine — I haven’t put anything in it.

[5:06:41]
Eighty five percent of the reports were put in there by a qualified healthcare professional. So it’s not true, as some have asserted, that, well, people are just putting in, you know, spoiler claims, and they’re not real. They are– they’re absolutely real. There is… something called the– it’s often said that correlation is not causation. That’s true. Just because there’s lots of reports doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s the vaccine. But there are things called Bradford Hill criteria. So you can look up the Bradford Hill criteria on Google or DuckDuckGo. I think there are eleven of them. And it gives you methods whereby you can determine whether the correlation is indeed causative or not.

[5:07:25]
So I’ll just give you a quick example. If there is acute toxicity in… a vaccine, then you would expect to see a spike in injuries and deaths in the first few days after administration. If there’s no connexion whatsoever, then you would expect a much more smooth, low-level profile that would pay not much attention to when you were vaccinated. When you look at it, I think more than a third of the adverse events occur on the day of dosing or the next few days. And then it rapidly falls off. That’s one of the Bradford Hill criteria. Another one– and I’ll only mention this other one– is plausibility. If you have a theoretical reason for believing that it’ll make your left leg turn blue and, you know, you go– you look at the adverse events: “Look, it’s lots of blue left legs.” That’s much more compelling than if someone ended up with a sore elbow, for which you have no predictive power.

[5:08:18]
And what I would say is on this occasion we’ve– we believe that these agents cause cyclical thromboembolic disorders, that they affect coagulation, and you may bleed or clot. And so any vessels that have plugged up like clots, like strokes or heart attacks, deep vein thrombosis or bleeding like a subarachnal hemorrhage — any of those things are what you would predict. And lo and behold, they are present in VAERS in enormous numbers, unprecedented numbers.

[5:08:49]
So… the timing and the plausibility convinces me that these are causitive, mostly they are causitive. And other eople who used to doing this, pathologists and others, have done a very thorough job and, unfortunately, it’s definitely causitive. Large numbers, and it’s causitive. So where it comes to vaccines, wouldn’t you expect– now Iput it to you, you would expect them to be deployed not just first, but only in the people who are at extraordinary risk from the… pathogen. So in this case, we know it’s elderly elderly people who already frail.

[5:09:25]
And that’s how they started. But really swiftly they started coming down to the working age population, fifties, forties. And as you’re probably aware, we’ve now been– to encourage people to get their children vaccinated. Now, I don’t know about your part of the world, but in Sweden and Germany– I looked at the public record– not one healthy child has died as a consequence of being infected by this virus, not one. So if I tell you that there are novel technology agents that are being proposed to be injected into your child, a child who is not any risk from the virus and who also [is] very poor at transmitting it to other people, because they generally don’t get symptoms, and I just told you earlier about asymptomatic transmission is a lie.

[5:10:10]
So please, I’m begging of you, whatever your neighbours say or your school teacher or government’s adviser, I’m afraid they’re lying or mistaken. You must not vaccinate your children. So we should target these interventions to those who might benefit from them, because they generally will be willing to bear whatever the side effects are, in exchange for that benefit. So healthy younger people, certainly sixteen down, really should not even have been on the map for vaccination, because they survive. Secondly, there are really good treatments, as I’ve mentioned.

[5:10:46]
And so, with… good therapies and people’s strong immune system if they’re younger and well, there was no need to vaccinate world. And then– I mentioned children– yes, pregnant women. I made a special examination of this for my toxilogocal background. I was just appalled when I heard a leading doctor I think, from the Royal College of Obstetrics and Gynaecology in London– the Royal College is meant to be the acme of medical quality, hopefully and ethics. And this woman appeared on national radio and proceeded to tell people that if they are pregnant, they really should get vaccinated. And don’t worry, these are perfectly safe.

[5:11:29]
I’ll look you in the eye now and tell you that the studies have not been done to examine the safety of these vaccines in pregnancy. There has been no formal study, and there’s no reproductive toxicology packages complete in industry. I worked in [the] industryfor 32 years. I can tell you we were not allowed to dose healthy female volunteers of childbearing age without insisting that they use, you know, highly effective contraceptive methods. And generally within do it at all. We just didn’t do it until we had reproductive toxicology because we were all, you know, rightly fearful of the potential to damage a growing baby.

[5:12:13]
So it… is literally nonsense– this is one of those things you should wake up to: you know, any listener knows that Thalidomide changed the landscape forever, in terms of precautions, in terms of, you know, medications in… pregnant women, for… the reasons we understand. And so if your conscious policy includes encouraging pregnant women to get vaccinated– when they are by definition relatively young and relatively well or they probably wouldn’t have got pregnant and therefore [are] not likely to suffer severe effects of the virus– why would… it make any sense to administer these experimental, you know, therapies?

[5:12:50]
And… then worse than that, I– I’ve written affidavits and opinions to say there are two or three lines of evidence that would lead me to be extremely concerned for the potential for harms. And unfortunately, it actually does look like we were right about that. But, you know, I’m not going to push it any further. But my main point [as] I said in the last few minutes– I’ve drifted a little bit– is just to say if this was a public health measure, you would only administer these vaccines to people who could benefit most from it, to the people most likely to get ill and die. And that would exclude healthy young people. It would certainly exclude children. It would definitely exclude pregnant women.

[5:13:31]
And here’s the other thing: it would definitely exclude anyone who’s had the virus and recovered. There are scores of papers showing that people who’ve had the virus and recovered have full complements of T-cells of multiple types. That means that they will recognise the virus andany variants and remain well. And that is in fact empirical observation. So when you see your governments threatening the unvaccinated including people have recovered– they are more immune than… the people who have been vaccinated.

[5:14:02]
So I just don’t understand how anyone can go on about, you know, “You’re being, anti-vax.” No… I’m anti-conspiracy _fact_. That’s what’s going on.

[5:14:15]
So, then moving on to the… “hot lots”. I mentioned earlier earlier that I came up with an explanation for why many people have no side effects and some people get very ill and even die. And that might be true, but the reason I even thought of it was that you should expect pharmaceutical mass manufacturers to be good at least at one thing. And they are very good at this: consistent high quality, purity manufacture, batch to batch to batch. They’re very good at this, because that’s what their business is.

[5:14:48]
They manufacture, you know, tablets, capsules, sprays, injections in the billions of doses. We think of something like Lipitor, a cholesterol lowering drug. It’s given to a substantial minority of the population in older age, you know, one tablet a day forever. They would have made tens of billions of doses. Not easy to make these genetic vaccines, but, you know, making a few hundred million, I… think would be absolutely in the wheelhouse of Janssen – J&J and Pfizer at least. Moderna was a new company, so I can’t… say. But I… would– I trust, trusted that these companies were doing what I knew they were very good at doing, what they did for their business.

[5:15:30]
And then, I stumbled across a couple of people independently who’d been doing their own analysis of the VAERS database. What they were doing– and no one else seems to have done it– was they were pulling the the vaccine batch or lot number, might be like eight digits, six digits, a mixture of alphanumeric symbols, and comparing the profile of adverse events with– comparing one… lot to another lot to another lot with the same manufacturer. And their expectation would be… like a… scattering of adverse events across all the states and all of the lots.

[5:16:08]
But they didn’t find that. This person found that something like ninety percent of the adverse events were associated with like less than ten percent of the lots. And I remember seeing that some months ago, and I immediately knew the significance of it. Because like I’ve said, although I’m not a– not in any way amanufacturing expert, I worked for decades with people who were. And I knew their… pride and the necessity of meeting those sort of anti-adulteration regulations, which require, you know, tremendously reproducible product from lot to lot to lot. And so I’ll briefly describe– Manufacturing of medical products like this proceeds in two steps.

[5:16:51]
The first step is to make the active molecule. In this case, it would be mRNA or DNA with a virus, with an attenuated virus. So we would think of that as the first step. It’s drug substance, it’s the actual active component. And then, once you’ve got that it will generally be formulated someway make– in this case, it’s going to be in some sort of dilution material, might be medical saline. Sometimes though it’ll be mixed up with binding agents, colorings, lubricant, shiny coat on a capsule or tablet. And that’s called drug product. So the first step is to make the active, and the second step is to formulate it and finish with the drug product.

[5:17:28]
Now each of those steps is associated with a series of acts. You might start with a raw material, two raw materials, and then warm them up and manufacture a third product and then purify that. And that might be a step. And the manufacturer submits to the regulator it’s… pharmaceutical production plan. And each of those steps is gone through by experts in the regulator, and they agree that the steps are appropriate and that the limits, the range of outcomes on testing, are appropriate. And only if they are would you be permitted to go to step two, three, four, five until you’ve completed all the steps.

[5:18:07]
So I’m… elaborating a little bit to tell you that they don’t just throw everything into a bucket like homebrewing beer, stir it a bit and put it in the packet. All– this is done with just incredible levels of control, as you’d expect. You want it to be reproducible. So, the effects of– if they follow the what’s called the good manufacturing practise or GMP manufacturing practises as required by medical regulator even for emergency approved products. It would– it should be the case that the lots are– effectively contain the same stuff, whether it– wherever it was made and whenever it was made. It’ll be the same stuff. I know they’re capable of doing that.

[5:18:50]
Now if _that’s_ true, if you draw a lot at random from VAERS system and examine the outcomes, the performance, that is the number of people who have reported adverse events, it ought to be pretty similar, from batch to batch to batch. If it’s very different I’m afraid I can tell you with certainty– I would be able to prove this mathematically, if needed, in court– it is not possible to go from two or three adverse events reported for a given lot, and another lot had five thousand adverse events. It’s not possible, if you only vary the product a little bit. You might imagine, well they’re doing this at speed, it’s novel, it might be a bit hard on them. No. If you only have a small difference, you only get a small difference in the performance.

[5:19:35]
If you go from nothing, effectively, to the worst outcomes ever reported to the VAERS, I am prepared to state and to prove that that means it’s not the same material in the… lots that have produced bad side effects. I– what I’ve just told you, you may not appreciate the significance of it. It’s not the same stuff. So if you thought it was Pfizer, BioNTech covid-19 vaccine that was used in the clinical trials… some of the batches contained something different. I.. cannot know what it is, but it’s definitely not not the same stuff.

[5:20:13]
So yes, I think, Corbin, if you could just throw open that short presentation. I’ve run over a little bit, but I think… it visually will help people. You don’t need very much. So as I’ve explained on this first slide, if it contains the same product, the performance should be pretty similar. just a little variation. Will you step forward? Yeah. So, I’m not the analyst. In fact, it’s an irony: I’m the person speaking, I’m the only person who is not capable of doing the sort of information technology. But one reason I’m speaking is because of my deep experience, pharmaceutical research and development and knowledge, from people who _are_ experienced about manufacture. what I’ve described is true. And also, the people who are doing this work… you know, we’re self-starters, we’ve got a degree of independence, and we’re all speaking out because something awful is happening. Can we move to the next slide, please Corbin?

[5:21:06]
Yeah, as I’ve mentioned again in my instroduction, it’s quite normal, I’m afraid for– every medicine will have some kind of side effects. I think it was a very old– ancient physician, Paracelsus, that said all medicines are poisons. It’s just question of dose. And that’s kind of true, that rat poison used at very low doses or its modern analogy can be really useful to thin your blood. But that means you need consistency from dose to dose to dose. And it was true that in the first half of the 20th century, many pharmaceutical outfits– they were probably quite small at the time– were occasionally careless if not outright reckless and had adulterated products, that is products that were not the same from tablet to tablet or injection to injection.

[5:21:56]
And so that brought about… sort of these FDA regulations that relate to so-called adulteration. Really, it’s about reproducibility, purity and so on. The next slide…

[5:22:11]
Yes, so I think I’ve just said that. So… for the lawyers. It’s very important. My colleagues who put this together told me something I didn’t know. Because those regulations were formed to make sure that badly manufactured products were never again foisted on the public, they said that if it’s not made as you have described, made consistently– so there will be a tiny variation, a fraction of a percent, perhaps, that’s allowed, batch to batch– we will declare it to be adulterated. And the thing is that adulteration per se, manufacturing and release of materials which I… am certain, and others in this team agree are performing very differently, one from another, by definition means it’s not the same stuff. By definition it’s adulterated, and I think by definition that… they have broken various laws. Next slide please.

[5:23:06]
Yeah. So this is really important. Again, the initial analyst just looked at the covid-19 lot numbers and just found that the side effects were not uniformly, even pseudo-uniformly spread across the lots. But what this other colleague has done is to say, well, let’s compare, let’s… look at the thing that’s most comparable– all the injected products against influenza. And it turns out– as you can see, it’s decades of data and it’s about 22, 23 thousand lots, manufacturing lots– and if you look to the right, the covid mRNA vaccines five lines down, similar number, 25 thousand. So there are similar numbers of lots. But if you look at the Serious Adverse Events, you can see a five-fold difference there, from 9 thousand to 47 thousand. And in terms of deaths, I think that’s like eight times worse. So something very peculiar is happening. Go to the next slide please.

[5:24:11]
Now this is– these next couple of sides are the crucial ones. So along the bottom there are the– meaningless to me– numbers associated with all these injectable flu vaccine products over many, many years. And on the vertical axis are the number of serious adverse events. And you can see there were just a couple of exceptions, one with about 22 serious adverse events– a serious adverse events is something that would bring you to a hospital, extend your hospital stay, could threaten your life, require urgent intervention to save your life, something like that. These… are not a sore arm or a bad headache. This is something really bad.

[5:24:24]
But with the exception of the one on the left there with 23 serious adverse events, a lot might contain several tens of thousands of doses. We don’t know what it is every time, but what we can say is that since the– as I show in a moment– since the number of adverse events can vary thousands of fold, it won’t– it is not possible for the difference in batch size or lot size to be the whole explanation for the differences. Might contribute to it, but we’ve done some preliminary examination where we have managed to find out exactly how many doses there were in a group of lots. And when we looked at the relationship between the number of doses in the batch number of adverse events in the batch, there’s no relationship. So that– that’s not the driver.

[5:25:40]
So with the flu vaccines, there were just two lots– we don’t know what– why that was. Something went wrong and do a relatively large number 22 and 37. But look at the rest: hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands of lots where, on average– my eye is telling me that there’s a smoothed average is around four. Four serious adverse events per lot. And– but most– more importantly than that, I think you’ll agree, it kind of looks like static, just the– you know, it’s a background noise. Remember if you dose a large population, you could dose them with saline and get this effect, because people do get ill. You might put on red socks today and have a heart attack. Obviously, the red socks didn’t cause your heart attack, but if you’re tracking the relationship between your new product with socks and side effects, you would end up with a product– with a profile that looks like this.

[5:26:35]
So side effects associated with the interventions do not necessarily mean that it’s bad. As I mentioned earlier, this sort of correlation is not causation. But I wanted to– and this is really good work by my colleague– I want to show you what I– what we think, the normal well-manufactured consistent high quality product looks like in the real world when you give it to, you know, millions of people over time.

[5:26:59]
So now that’s– with that established, and baseline is around four, the highest value of 37. Korbin, if you could show us the next slide. I think it is the next slide… yes.

[5:27:09]
So this by now should start take your breath away. So these are the covid vaccines. There are… three manufacturers, because it’s for US commercial utilities, it’s just these three. We don’t know about AstraZeneca. But remember I said that the rolling average was about four adverse events. Well, you know, the scale, the Y axis here– four is it thicker… than the axis. The thin blue line at the bottom is more than four. And the red line… this is the worst ever you could see. There was like a single case out of 22,300 flu vaccine batches that was 37. But really… that’s probably way over what… The representative was somewhere around four. But that’s the top. Look how many batches of covid products are worse than that… _and yet_ let me just point out– for example right in the centre there 6514835461 looks like it’s either, you know, one or two. And then its neighbour 102.And then suddenly you come on… this one here: EN6201 and it’s– looks like it’s six– 600 serious adverse events. Again, these are the ones that are, you know, if you had a serious adverse event yourself, you’d think all ready to die, quite close to death.

[5:28:42]
And look at the number of them. And so… a number of things I want to point out here. One is the extreme level of side effects that we’re seeing. Orders of magnitude– I would say just the rolling average here, it’s looking like– I don’t know– between a hundred and two hundred, instead of four. That– these are really toxic products. They really are toxic products, but– And that’s bad enough, but as I argued, if you’re a cancer sufferer, you might accept a dangerous intervention if, on balance, it could extend your life or– and its quality by a year or so.

[5:29:16]
But… these pruducts have been given to the general public, most of whom are perfectly well. That’s the normal deal with a vaccine– you’re perfectly well, you turn up at the doctor’s office, get an injection, and you leave, and you’re still perfectly well. And all that’s happened is you’ve acquired a defence against the specific pathogen…. That’s the deal.

[5:29:36]
What we shouldn’t have is that you occasionally get seriously ill and sometimes you die. That’s not a good deal. That is what is happening from these products, and they’re being pushed on everyone. When, as I have argues, if you are recovered, infected, you’re immune. If your child not vulnerable to the virus. Just healthy young people: not. And pregnant women: we do not know that it’s safe and should not– the caution principle– be administering it.

[5:30:00]
And yet… your governments are pushing these on you. It’s not a public health measure. If it was a public health measure, the three or four things I’ve just said would be true. It’s not a public health measure. And all the stuff I said earlier about discarding normal pandemic handling plans and replacing them by absurd lies that have had the effect of frightening people– and we think that that was the objective.

[5:30:28]
Now you’ve seen this information. And your economy is on the verge of absolute extinction. And I– so I think… that’s the evil triumvirate: frighten people, damage the economy, force them– persuade them or force them, yeah if necessary to accept these injections, some of which are killing people.

[5:30:50]
Why would they want to do that? This is why I got to the conclusion. I could– I racked my brain. There may be other explanations. It’s not money, by the way. The pharmaceutical companies, of course, are having an absolute field– you know, whatever, a high water mark in terms of profitability. That can not be the motive. It’s the _effect_ of using big pharma to drive these products into the population. I can’t– why it can’t be the motive: because there are huge numbers of industry sectors that are absolutely almost into the ground. In the airline industry, I don’t know how they’re surviving. They have almost two years of
non-normal operation. Hotel and catering, holiday trade, you know, all of these things.

[5:31:33]
So remember that the only people who could possibly make this happen, or at least have to agree in order this happens in their world, would be the owners of– you know, people who own– what Catherine Austin Fitts calls, you know, Mister Global. Global big capital. So… I’m absolutely sure that money alone, profit alone, is not the motivation, because 8 or other– a couple of sectors doing really well, but 8 sectors are doing so badly as to more than outweigh the benefits to, that accrue to the drug companies. But let’s just go back to that slide please, Korbin if we could.

[5:32:14]
Yeah. Because there’s something– not just is that [there is] this extreme toxicity, but it’s the _variability_. Now I pointed out– let’s just look at the Pfizer bunch, because there’s a nice range there. “Nice” is the wrong word, sorry. I’m look– sound like a scientist. These are _people_. These these are people who suffered, and some of them have died. But as you cast your eye across the, you know, across the axis at the bottom, you can see that some of the numbers there are associated with very small numbers. They’re so small that you can’t see it registering on the thickness of the X axis marked– Y axis marked zero.

[5:32:50]
And yet close to it, there are a whole bunch of batches that have got, you know, 400,600 serious adverse events per lot. And they’re roughly the same size. That means there’s not the same product. That it’s got this Pfizer covid-19 it says on the box or on the vial. It’s not the same stuff. It’s not the same stuff. I– I’m certain. It’s not an assessment, it’s… not “maybe”. I’m absolutely certain. I can– there is something called “the law of mass action”, which applies to all biological properties I’ve ever seen. And if it does come to court, I will walk you through the history of that, why it’s that shape, and why this means it cannot be the case that these middle Pfizer lots are the same material as the ones immediately to the left and to the right.

[5:33:37]
These drug companies are highly professional outfits. They know how to manufacture reproduciblyly, and we saw that with the flu vaccines over decades. They know how to do it; they haven’t done it. I’m afraid I’ve come to the conclusion that they’ve been doing it on purpose, because they’re so professional. And after a year, they know this data. This data is… their window onto the world. They can go into VAERS, then can filter for their own products and their lot and batch numbers, and they can see what’s happening. They know.

[5:34:09]
So the fact they haven’t stopped this tells me that they’re at least okay with it. And I feer that this is deliberate. Why might it be? Why might it be deliberate? Well as… we’ve seen over the last two years, big techs like Google, Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and so on have persistently said, “We’re not having anyone making a comment or a recording that disagrees with what the public health officials say, and we’re going to call that misinformation. And we’re going to basically censor you and maybe de-platform you.”

[5:34:47]
What that means is that a qualified person like me, and I promise I have no axe to grind whatsoever, other than telling you what I think… is true, which is that… we’re facing a global crime. People like me cannot speak to the public, because the tech companies have decided not to let me. And that’s true of mainstream TV, mainstream radio. I’ve only ever appeared on radio… where they maligned me, just told me lots of lies. And I– so I then threatened them, and they deleted the recording. This tells you something, doesn’t it– that I was correct.

[5:35:19]
So… what do I– yes, so the– it’s the combination of big tech, big media– by that I mean mainly TV– around the world, they control what’s coming into your house. So if you just turn your TV on over the last few years in the same way that you ever have, you’re only going to hear a one-sided, and in my view, it’s mendacious, it’s completely misleading description of what’s going on.

[5:35:44]
You’ll never hear things like this and you should, you should see both sides of it. The fact you’re not allowed to, I think it tells you that they know there’s something bad going on, and they’re going to make damn sure that people like Dr Mike Yeadon and Dr Robert Malone and Dr Peter McCullough and so on, never– will never darken the studios of BBC or CNBC. Because if we were given an hour, I think we could destroy this story. Easily. I think we’re plausible, we’re being honest, and I get absolutely nothing from making up stories. I’m describing in horror.

[5:36:16]
So I’ve said that the variability is extreme. And I’ve said that the media controls the message, and they censor people like me. If they want to tell you that there’s a nasty variant that has just come along, that’s killing more people than previously, you have no way of knowing if that’s true or not– I don’t think you should trust anything they say about this, because they definitely lied about everything else I’ve been able to hear.

[5:36:42]
But let’s say they did say that. Let’s say they said there’s a new variant or a new virus, that’s, say, ten times more lethal than covid. And don’t worry, the innovative pharmaceutical industry has rustled up a new vaccine. And, you know, run and get your… your top-up, your booster. your new vaccine. What happens if they chose to give you that one that’s called EN6201, instead of the one with EN1201? Well, the answer is: you know, probably thousands of people are going to die. And imagine all the manufacturers doing that, and… over time and across the world.

[5:37:19]
All the time the media is giving you a very frightened message, and the appropriate response– if this, if these guys were being honest– would be, okay let’s… deploy these vaccines as we tune them and so on. But it’s all lies. It’s all misleading. And I worry tht what you’ve seen in front of you there– I’ve described it to other people. I said, I’m worried that this is calibration of a killing weapon. That if somebody wanted to say that there are viruses or vaccines let us say 10 times more lethal than covid, so killing one in a hundred people instead of one in a thousand, roughly. They could just move along and just deploy batch X or batch Y or batch Z.

[5:38:02]
And… that’s what would happen. I’ve got no reason to make this stuff up, you know. I’m not– I’ve never been a conspiracy theorist. If anything, I’d be the sort of person that would chuckle at other people having conspiracy theories. And of the course, now I realise what a muck I’ve been for the last 61 years… believing what I’ve been told.

[5:38:22]
So… the bottom line, you can see it from here, it’s not the same stuff in each glass bottle. That’s offense in all sorts of ways against the Adulterated Drugs Act. It cannot be accidental, because they are professionals that know how to manufacture consistently. It’s not possible that this is small variation in product because its, you know, an emergency situation, difficult to make. No, the Law of Mass Action would mean that in order to get these enormous differences in (quotes) “performance” in serious adverse events we would have to have a very sizeable difference– I would say, I don’t know, ten- or hundred-fold difference– in an active. If there was an accident that produced these side effects, I’m confident– and if we did the experiments I’d be roughly right. I’ve done hundreds of experiments like that, not with people, of course– and it, you knew, you would need to go up by thirty, a hundred, three hundred, to go from baseline to these numbers. I’m absolutely sure about that. I’d bet a lot of money on it.

[5:39:19]
So, because they’re good at manufacturing, because this data is available, has been available to them all the time, they can look as the VAERS data comes in. So they’ve known about this, and that means they’re good with it. You know, they’re good with it. So it’s either intentional or if… whatever. If it has proven too difficult to manufacture, they’re still– they should still not be allowed to discharge these, as it were, into the public environment, because, you know, they’re very lethal.

[5:39:47]
I’m trying to think. There’s something very important I was going to say. Yes — some people said to me, “Mike, these are a brand-new product, as you’ve said”, and early on we heard, I think the Pfizer product had to be stored at minus 80 centigrade. “So that means they’re a bit unstable, a lot unstable. Maybe, Mike, what’s happening is they’re just going off occasionally — bad handling, people not used to a cold chain, what’s called a “cold chain” like this.

[5:40:12]
Well, I don’t think that’s true. One: when products degrade, they generally lose activity. A piece of it falls off. If you imagine a car degrading, might lose one wheel and the top part of the engine. It doesn’t suddenly turn into a lethal, you know, flying machine. it will lose function. And that’s what I would expect to happen. Now. on a one-off, yeah maybe, maybe a novel product like this might break in half, and you end up with two super-toxic bits of mRNA. But we’re seeing the same thing with three products, made by three different companies. And we’re seeing two different technologies.

[5:40:48]
So Moderna and Pfizer are mRNA. The Janssen is DNA, you know. No, it’s not possible. I’ve just said the rule of thumb is: degradation results in loss of function, not acquisition of extr– exquisite toxicity. And we’ve got three products and two technologies doing that. No, that’s not the explanation.

[5:41:05]
They– whoever– I don’t– and here’s the thing: I’ve no idea what it is they have done, but… I’m more frightened of these vaccines than I was before seeing this work with my colleague. So… that’s– I think that’s the long and short of it, really. Yeah. So, all of the early stuff, you know, you’re being lied to, and I can prove that, on several occasions. And I would like to say, to direct people who haven’t seen me before to my interview with Del Bigtree on Highwire. And that, I think, will educate you on what I was seeing as the principal lies.

[5:41:37]
And then I certainly would like to attach a short– I think it’s 16 minutes, with three or four people talking, that will provide you convincing evidence that the authorities knew that asymptomatic transmission was complete garbage. And if… that’s true– and it’s true, it’s garbage– everything else falls to pieces.
And then, when we come to the vaccines, if they were a public health measure, they would be directed only to the people who most could get benefit from it, and never to children, healthy young people, pregnant women and those who have already recovered. And yet, coach and horses have been driven right over those.

[5:42:12]
So… that’s about where we are. And the reason I’m here is: I want to work with anyone… through the Corona Committee and anywhere else that can help wake people up. Because I don’t know how to fix this, but if enough people say, you know, We’ve had enough now. We’re not going to comply with it any more– I noticed in northern England, there were a group of several hun– several thousand children from secondary school in Lancashire, and they formed a union. Wolfgang and I were talking about unions a few days ago. And they just said, “You know what, we’re not– stuff you– we’re not wearing a mask to school any more. And no, we’re not going to put these cotton buds up our nose twice a week. Not doing it any more.” And that’s all we need to do, because I… am telling you, there is no– there is no unusual threat in your environment, except from your government and their policies. and the pharmaceutical industry. There’s nothing… going on other than, you know, the sort of psychological warfare and economic damage and then these wretched vaccines.

[5:43:15]
So… we can… still take our old normal, hopefully in a better form, back. But it requires us to just take a little courage in our hand and say, “I do not comply any more. I do not comply.” And you’re not doing anyone any good by complying. You’re not saving yourself, and certainly not saving your children. So… that’s what we need to do. They can’t arrest everybody, right? One or two people decide to be– to demonstrate, they could be arrested. If ten thousand school children say “We’re not going to school with masks and testing.” and just cross their arms and say, “What are you going to do, then?”

[5:43:53]
You know, they– that’s how you take it back. That’s how we take it back. Anyway, I’ll pause now. I’ve talked for quite a long time, I think.

Robin Monotti: [5:44:00]
Can I ask you. Can I ask you a question, Mike?

Mike Yeadon:
Yes.

Robin Monotti:
About those… the graphs: with the X axis…

Mike Yeadon:
Yes.

Robin Monotti: [5:44:13]
Do we… assume that there has been an alternation between batches, or the lots, with the most adverse events between the three different companies, in the sense that in… a temporal dimension, not all of the adverse batches have been, let’s say released at the same time. Can we… deduce that?

Mike Yeadon: [5:44:39]
No. There was an initial analysis done… by one of the team, and they made the assumption– a reasonable but incorrect assumption– that the alphanumeric number ordering was the same as time ordering of release of the vaccines. And because of that assumption, they produced, you know, a really worrying pattern of a severe– very toxic batches, then a gap, then slightly less toxic, than gap and less toxic and so on. I… don’t– we can’t make that deduction any more. It might be true, but xxxing that analysis is being done.

[5:45:13]
And similarly, we have not yet looked to see whether the most toxic Janssen batch was released at the same time as the least toxic Pfizer batch. Eell have to do additional work. Personally, I don’t think that was necessary, because the manufacturer– they know exactly where, you know, each batch goes, you know, to which state, which medical centre, you know, which… office, and then eventually which patient’s arm. They dou know where every dose has gone. And so you could have, you know, toxic batches from more than one company being administered at the same time.

[5:45:49]
I think you– if– you’re raising an implicitly very important question, actually, because. I think by… chance you would think that there would be sometimes an overlap and sometimes not and if we… see a pattern that looks non-natural, Reiner, I think… that would be additional strong evidence of premeditation. So we should go and do that. I think that’s very good question. So I can’t answer your question, but I think I understand– I _think_ I understand, Robin, if that was what was behind it.

Robin Monotti: [5:46:17]
And the last one was again about the patterns, whether we can assume that or not, yet. And as you answered, maybe we can find out more. The– when you we look at this graph, it seems that the adverse events numbers step up, and almost– especially in the Pfizer one, and then peak, and then step down. Is that again just the way that the batches have been organised around the X axis, which is arbitrarym or is there any– could… we see any pattern of stepping up and stepping down, which would… an experiment.

Mike Yeadon: [5:46:49]
Yes, yes. No, it does look– that bit does look real. For any one manufacturer, if you just slice their map from the… others on that graph, because you can’t– you can deduce date order for a manufacturer. So I think if you look at that Pfizer block, I think it goes from left to right, you know, from January 2021 to last month [December, 2021], something like that. And so the general trend is to lowering of numbers of serious adverse events. What I don’t know: is that… because the number of doses being administered per day or per week, is that– has that flattened off? Because we’re now mostly in the phase, I think, of administering what they call “boosters”, or third doses. So… or it could be– well, there’s a number of possibilities. So why is the number of adverse events in a unit time reducing now? Because it does seem to be that. It could be that the system is being played with. You know it could be that we’re simply not seeing all the data. They call that “throttling”. I don’t know what that means, but it’s basically somebody… might be cheating and holding back some of those records. That’s possible.

Dr Wolfgang Wodarg: [5:47:57]
They don’t even– they don’t need to put them in an order so that you can see a linear decline,

Mike Yeadon:
No.

Dr Wolfgang Wodarg:
They just can’t do it in a way which seems to be arbitrary, which seems to be by chance.

Mike Yeadon:
Yeah.

Dr Wolfgang Wodarg:
But they know which batch contains what.

Mike Yeadon:
They do.

Dr Wolfgang Wodarg & Mike Yeadon: [talking simultaneously]
I am having does then they have this surgeon the dose finding studies with this doctor toxicity studies and we don’t see a systematic thing just your big cloud of many years in the batches and then we see the baseline so but maybe–

Mike Yeadon: [5:48:36]
You’re right, Wolfgang. You’re absolutely right. The manufacturers can recreate the batch numbers and their–

Dr Wolfgang Wodarg:
Sure.

Mike Yeadon:
chemical findings and so can. I presume they know what their– yeah.

Dr Wolfgang Wodarg:
They can place them in different regions. If they can supply them here and there, so that there is no systematic visible.

Mike Yeadon: [5:48:56]
Exactly that. That’s another thing, actually, I forgot to mention: that if… this was… innocent, then you would expect, would you not, that a batch, or lot, would go to, on average, the same number of states each time. so whether that range is two to ten or three to four, whatever it is. You… would expect themto be doing the same kind of thing. Might vary a little bit, because obviously some states like New York California Florida Texas are very big, and others like Vermont, whatever, are quite small. But, you know, as you smear the doses across… the nation and go down the age band, you would expect… a batch that seems benign to go to the same number of states as the batch that turns out to be toxic– if it was innocent. You know, we need to… go check this. But certainly, as of a couple of weeks ago, our findings were: the most toxic batches were going to the largest number of states. And that’s– if that’s confirmed, Reiner, again, evidence of premeditation.

[5:49:57]
How would they know ahead of time to distribute, to dilute the most toxic batches across the largest numbers of states? Well… there isn’t. No.

Dr Wolfgang Wodarg:
There is even this trick to disguise the whole thing because they recommended the first… shot and second shot, take a different one.

Mike Yeadon:
Yes.

Dr Wolfgang Wodarg:
And if you if you do this, it’s even more difficult to find out the systematic which is in it.

Mike Yeadon: [5:50:24]
Good point. No, that’s… Yes, I’m not sure… yes, I think in most nations– I don’t know.
Actually I’m not sure. I thought it. It did make some up

Dr Wolfgang Wodarg:
They did explicitly recommend to take a different one the next time.

Mike Yeadon:
That’s so crazy, Wolfgang, isn’t it.

Dr Wolfgang Wodarg:
Yes.

Mike Yeadon: [5:50:44]
The clinical trials were _not_ done like that, so we have… no safety data for that. And so when you see things like that, ladies and gentlemen, you should be very afraid, because people–

Dr Wolfgang Wodarg: [5:58:55]
There is one other– there is one other dimension. We just see the… very actual reactions of the… health reactions or toxic reactions. We don’t see the long-term damage which may… occur. And so something is in the cloud we don’t– we do not yet recognise. But because they have all the data and they have all this… data collection of the people well what– they have the health data, they have the vaccination data, they have the testing data and they have the genetic data even, if they analyze the PCR. So they can really find out a lot by those… trials.

Mike Yeadon:
Yes.

Dr Wolfgang Wodarg:
Find out whether the agents are worthwhile to be further developed on the…

Mike Yeadon: [5:51:44]
That’s aery good point you make, Wolfgang, that, you know,yes, that we awaspy known an precedentedly large number of people have reported injury and, indeed, death. The numbers of deaths are, you know, are– they’re huge for… a vaccine, but they’re not large, say, compared with the normal death rates. So, you know, in advance, plump, elderly western populations at somewhere around one percent. Just under one percent of the population, mostly the old people, die every year. And if the vaccines have killed as many as one in a thousand, which is like a tenth, that would be awful and te rrible crime, but it’s not on it’s own going to move the needle on population.

[5:52:25]
But if they… do propose xxxx return with more toxic materials in the future, or, to Wolfgang’s point, maybe 900– 9999 people haven’t yet on what’s in store for them. You know, if you’ve been… given one of these materials, I just don’t know what’s in it. Does that prime you for a very serious medical event in– you know, if you should encounter some second stimulus. If I was a bad person, I could definitely design some nasty things using this technology, easily.

Dr Wolfgang Wodarg: [5:52:57]
Yeah, Mike, you have the experience. You know… how long it takes to prepare such a study.

Mike Yeadon:
Yes.

Dr Wolfgang Wodarg: [5:53:04]
It is not just a study which is just improvised, … but it’s a study, it seems to me this is an experiment they prepared at least ten years ago. Because you have all those vaccines there now are running in trials. 128, says WHO, with two of them with self-replicating viruses. And this was published long ago. We just heard it. The veterinary– they tried it out with… animals already, self-replicating viruses. And now it’s in the clinical studies with all those 120different–

Mike Yeadon: [5:53:44]
Yes. What Wolfgan is saying, and he’s absolutely right, and I can exemplify. It’s far too fast. If those programmes were initiated in response to, you know, December 2019 and onwards, then that’s, what, two years, something like that, the… preclinical phase– the amount of time spent in the lab thinking about it, doing experiments, optimising, selecting the drug candidate, manufacturing, doing toxicology you wouldn’t be– you would be extremely unlikely anyone had got into the clinic. Maybe you could do it more quickly these days. But if they’re all in phase two I’m afraid–

Dr Wolfgang Wodarg: [5:54:25]
Mike, you know better than anyone that those people know what they want to show for their investors and what they want to hide.

Mike Yeadon:
Yeah. Yeah, that’s true. That’s very worrying. Yes. Go ahead.

Viviane Fischer: [5:54:40]
I’d like two things. like one thing is is it possible to see like what kind of age group were affected by the respective toxic, do you know, batches? And the other thing is is like when we talked about this beforehand, you said that there’s only very few people maybe needed to do these kind of variations, if it’s done on purpose. I mean, it wouldn’t change anything because obviously it’s out there to see for everyone, both for, like government plus for the pharmaceutical companies themselves. So emi– I mean if it was, like a natural process or like a, you know, like a– just a problem of production, they would immediately interfere and change the system or take out like a recent try to resolve the problem or even, like put, like a moratorium on it or something like that. So it’s clear that it’s, you know, must be– what’s very likely that it’s something, like on… purposeful that’s going on. But, like how many people would you actually see– to be involved and also would it be possible to look at the age toxicity?

Mike Yeadon: [5:55:47]
So I’ve noted… that question. it’s a good one. I will… get o– get back to the team. And I think it might be useful to have a different person from the team. There are so many very good questions. They may have the answers and I just don’t. Like I said, I’m not the actual analyst, but your question about how many people would need to be involved– and it’s rather worrying that it might be a very small number. You think about it, these are basically gene sequences that are either sequences of RNA bases one joined to another, or DNA bases. And we have machines that will synthesise that. Then once you synthesised it, you can copy it, ironically using PCR. It was originally invented as a manufacturing technique, not an analyticaltechnique. So the process is fully automated, once you programme what it is you want the machine to make, and maybe it makes it in pieces, as I was describing different drug substances earlier. Maybe it’s made in a few pieces, and you warrant that each of the pieces is what you want, and then you aneal them together using molecular biology.

[5:56:58]
That could be how they do it. But when the machine is humming away and manufacturing a gene sequence, it looks exactly the same to a supervisor or a shift worker putting raw materials in and whatever. Whatever it’s making, it looks exactly the same. So it might be only– it _could_ be as little as one controling mind… for the whole thing, for certain per company. You don’t have to have a team of forty, so cogitating and arguing. If you know what
you’re doing, and all you’re going to do is change the code, one person would be enough. Of course, I don’t _know_ what they’re doing. Some people have said, Oh, maybe they’ve added a chemical. I don’t know. Yeah, I literally don’t know. But if they haven’t, they might have just modified the gene sequence, so that a different effect than the one we expected to happen will actually happen.

[5:57:48]
I don’t know how we’re going to get it out of them. It’s– these things are actually very hard. I, you know, I don’t want to go over this in great depth, but when I first heard that they were using these and intended them as a mass vaccination– when I left Pfizer ten years ago, techniques or materials like this were almost a laboratory curiosity. We did attempt to use them in some experiments in cells and cell culture, and they didn’t work very well. And there were toxicities associated with them, delivery to the inside of cells was problematic, stability of the material, even identity of what you were adding to the cell culture was often difficult to be really sure about. So the idea that within ten years numerous companies are able just to manufacturers these like M&Ms and Smarties, that doesn’t fit. That’s not possible.

Dr Wolfgang Wodarg: [5:58:43]
We have some big responsibility now.

Mike Yeadon:
Yeah.

Dr Wolfgang Wodarg:
Plus we have to think to spread this news and I am– I find it very very interesting that there is this homepage where you can find out “how bad is my batch”.

Mike Yeadon:
Yeah. That’s one of the team.

Dr Wolfgang Wodarg:
Trying to find it in Google but I did not get it. Google hides it. And I have put it on my home page. You have to take a different searching machine after– different Internet programmes to find it, but it’s very good. All batches are there, even the actual ones that I use now, that are on the market. And I have to say to all doctors: please, doctors, now when you know that there are dangerous ones and that there are less dangerous ones, if you really go on giving those jabs, you should at least have a look whether the batches _you_ got, to inject, are those which are dangerous, where you kill your patients, or whether they are less… they make less harm.

[5:59:58]
But yeah, this– And also the pharmacists, what they have in their stock, they should have a look. And they should try to find out– and first have to know what sort of batch they use. And then– they _should_ use, and then give it. But if, you know– And every patient, too, he should ask his doctor, Doctor, did you check it, it’s a batch or not? And this makes the doctor even be aware that there are bad batches.

[6:00:33]

tbc


Imprint / Privacy Policy / Contact Send / support