America\u2019s Frontline Doctors<\/em>\u00a0(AFLDS) spoke to former Pfizer Vice President and Chief Science Officer\u00a0Dr. Mike Yeadon<\/strong><\/a>\u00a0about his views on the COVID-19 vaccine, hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, the regulatory authorities, and more.<\/p>\n At the outset, Dr. Yeadon said \u201cI\u2019m well aware of the global crimes against humanity being perpetrated against a large proportion of the worlds population.<\/p>\n \u201cI feel great fear, but I\u2019m not deterred from giving expert testimony to multiple groups of able lawyers like Rocco Galati in Canada and\u00a0Reiner Fuellmich<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0in Germany.<\/p>\n \u201cI have absolutely no doubt that we are in the presence of evil (not a determination I\u2019ve ever made before in a 40-year research career) and dangerous products.<\/p>\n \u201cIn the U.K., it\u2019s abundantly clear that the authorities are bent on a course which will result in administering \u2018vaccines\u2019 to as many of the population as they can. This is madness, because even if these agents were legitimate, protection is needed only by those at notably elevated risk of death from the virus. In those people, there might even be an argument that the risks are worth bearing. And there definitely are risks which are what I call \u2018mechanistic\u2019: inbuilt in the way they work.<\/p>\n \u201cBut all the other people, those in good health and younger than 60 years, perhaps a little older, they don\u2019t perish from the virus. In this large group, it\u2019s wholly unethical to administer something novel and for which the potential for unwanted effects after a few months is completely uncharacterized.<\/p>\n \u201cIn no other era would it be wise to do what is stated as the intention.<\/p>\n \u201cSince I know this with certainty, and I know those driving it know this too, we have to enquire: What is their motive?<\/p>\n \u201cWhile I don\u2019t know, I have strong theoretical answers, only one of which relates to money and that motive doesn\u2019t work, because the same quantum can be arrived at by doubling the unit cost and giving the agent to half as many people. Dilemma solved. So it\u2019s something else. \u201cThere is no medical rationale for it. Knowing as I do that the design of these \u2018vaccines\u2019 results, in the expression in the bodies of recipients, expression of the spike protein, which has adverse biological effects of its own which, in some people, are harmful (initiating blood coagulation and activating the immune \u2018complement system\u2019), I\u2019m determined to point out that those not at risk from this virus should not be exposed to the risk of unwanted effects from these agents.\u201d<\/p>\n AFLDS<\/strong>: The Israel Supreme Court\u00a0decision<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0last week cancelling COVID flight restrictions said: \u201cIn the future, any new restrictions on travel into or out of Israel need, in legal terms, a comprehensive, factual, data-based foundation.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n In a\u00a0talk<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0you gave four months ago, you said<\/em><\/p>\n \u201cThe most likely duration of immunity to a respiratory virus like SARS CoV-2 is multiple years. Why do I say that? We actually have the data for a virus that swept through parts of the world seventeen years ago called SARS, and remember SARS CoV-2 is 80% similar to SARS, so I think that\u2019s the best comparison that anyone can provide.<\/p>\n \u201cThe evidence is clear: These very clever cellular immunologists studied all the people they could get hold of who had survived SARS 17 years ago. They took a blood sample, and they tested whether they responded or not to the original SARS and they all did; they all had perfectly normal, robust T cell memory. They were actually also protected against SARS CoV-2, because they\u2019re so similar; it\u2019s cross immunity.<\/p>\n \u201cSo, I would say the best data that exists is that immunity should be robust for at least 17 years. I think it\u2019s entirely possible that it is lifelong. The style of the responses of these people\u2019s T cells were the same as if you\u2019ve been vaccinated and then you come back years later to see if that immunity has been retained. So I think the evidence is really strong that the duration of immunity will be multiple years, and possibly lifelong.<\/em>\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n In other words, previous exposure to SARS \u2013 that is, a variant similar to SARS CoV-2 \u2013 bestowed SARS CoV-2 immunity.<\/em><\/p>\n The Israel government cites new variants to justify lockdowns, flight closures, restrictions, and Green Passport issuance. Given the Supreme Court verdict, do you think it may be possible to preempt future government measures with accurate information about variants, immunity, herd immunity, etc. that could be provided to the\u00a0lawyers<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0who will be challenging those future measures?<\/em><\/p>\n Yeadon: \u201cWhat I outlined in relation to immunity to SARS is precisely what we\u2019re seeing with SARS-CoV-2.<\/strong> \u201cSo, theoretically, people could test their T-cell\u00a0<\/strong>immunity<\/a>\u00a0by measuring the responses of cells in a small sample of their blood. There are such tests, they are not \u201chigh throughput\u201d and they are likely to cost a few hundred USD each on scale. But not thousands. The test I\u2019m aware of is not yet commercially available, but research only in U.K.<\/strong><\/p>\n \u201cHowever, I expect the company could be induced to provide\u00a0<\/strong>test kits<\/a>\u00a0\u201cfor research\u201d on scale, subject to an agreement. If you were to arrange to test a few thousand non vaccinated Israelis, it may be a double edged sword. Based on other countries experiences, 30-50% of people had prior immunity & additionally around 25% have been infected & are now immune.<\/strong><\/p>\n \u201cPersonally, I wouldn\u2019t want to deal with the authorities on their own terms: that you\u2019re suspected as a source of infection until proven otherwise. You shouldn\u2019t need to be proving you\u2019re not a health risk to others. Those without symptoms are never a health threat to others. And in any case, once those who are concerned about the virus are vaccinated, there is just no argument for anyone else needing to be vaccinated.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n My understanding of a \u201cleaky vaccine<\/a><\/strong>\u201d is that it only lessens symptoms in the vaccinated, but does not stop transmission; it therefore allows the spread of what then becomes a more deadly virus.<\/em><\/p>\n For example, in China they deliberately use leaky Avian Flu vaccines to quickly cull flocks of chicken, because the unvaccinated die within three days. In Marek\u2019s Disease, from which they needed to save all the chickens, the only solution was to vaccinate 100% of the flock, because all unvaccinated were at high risk of death. So how a leaky vax is utilized is intention-driven, that is, it is possible that the intent can be to cause great harm to the unvaccinated.<\/em><\/p>\n Stronger strains usually would not propagate through a population because they kill the host too rapidly, but if the vaccinated experience only less-serious disease, then they spread these strains to the unvaccinated who contract serious disease and die.<\/em><\/p>\n Do you agree with this assessment?\u00a0<\/em>Furthermore, do you agree that if the unvaccinated become the susceptible ones, the only way forward is HCQ prophylaxis for those who haven\u2019t already had COVID-19?<\/em><\/p>\n Would the Zelenko Protocol work against these stronger strains if this is the case?<\/em><\/p>\n And if many already have the aforementioned previous \u201c17-year SARS immunity\u201d, would that then not protect from any super-variant?<\/em><\/p>\n \u201cI think the Gerrt Vanden Bossche story is highly suspect. There is no evidence at all that vaccination is leading or will lead to \u2018dangerous variants\u2019. I am worried that it\u2019s some kind of trick.<\/strong><\/p>\n \u201cAs a general rule, variants form very often, routinely, and tend to become less dangerous & more infectious over time, as it comes into equilibrium with its human host. Variants generally don\u2019t become more dangerous.<\/strong><\/p>\n \u201cNo variant differs from the original sequence by more than 0.3%. In other words, all variants are at least 99.7% identical to the Wuhan sequence.<\/strong><\/p>\n \u201cIt\u2019s a fiction, and an evil one at that, that variants are likely to \u201cescape immunity\u201d.<\/strong><\/p>\n \u201cNot only is it intrinsically unlikely \u2013 because this degree of similarity of variants means zero chance that an immune person (whether from natural infection or from vaccination) will be made ill by a variant \u2013 but it\u2019s empirically supported by high-quality research.<\/strong><\/p>\n \u201cThe\u00a0<\/b>research<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0I refer to shows that people recovering from infection or who have been vaccinated ALL have a wide range of immune cells which recognize ALL the variants.<\/b><\/p>\n \u201c<\/strong>This paper<\/a>\u00a0shows WHY the extensive molecular recognition by the immune system makes the tiny changes in variants irrelevant.<\/strong><\/p>\n \u201cI cannot say strongly enough: The stories around variants and need for top up vaccines are FALSE. I am concerned there is a very malign reason behind all this. It is certainly not backed by the best ways to look at immunity. The claims always lack substance when examined, and utilize various tricks, like manipulating conditions for testing the effectiveness of antibodies. Antibodies are probably rather unimportant in host protection against this virus. There have been a few \u2018natural experiments\u2019, people who unfortunately cannot make antibodies, yet are able quite successfully to repel this virus. They definitely are better off with antibodies than without. I mention these rare patients because they show that antibodies are not essential to host immunity, so some contrived test in a lab of antibodies and engineered variant viruses do NOT justify need for top up vaccines.<\/b><\/p>\n \u201cThe only people who might remain vulnerable and need prophylaxis or treatment are those who are elderly and\/or ill and do not wish to receive a vaccine (as is their right).<\/strong><\/p>\n \u201cThe good news is that there are multiple choices available: hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, budesonide (inhaled steroid used in asthmatics), and of course oral Vitamin D, zinc, azithromycin etc. These reduce the severity to such an extent that this virus did not need to become a public health crisis.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n Do you feel the FDA does a good job regulating big pharma?\u00a0<\/em>In what ways does big pharma get around the regulator?\u00a0<\/em>Do you feel they did so for the mRNA injection?<\/em><\/p>\n \u201cUntil recently, I had high regard for global medicines regulators. When I was in Pfizer, and later CEO of a biotech I founded (Ziarco, later acquired by Novartis), we interacted respectfully with FDA, EMA, and the U.K. MHRA.<\/strong> \u201cRecently, I noticed that the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) had made a grant to the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA)! Can that ever be appropriate? They\u2019re funded by public money. They should never accept money from a private body.<\/strong><\/p>\n \u201cSo here is an example where the U.K. regulator has a conflict of interest.<\/strong><\/p>\n \u201cThe European Medicines Agency failed to require certain things as disclosed in the \u2018hack\u2019 of their files while reviewing the Pfizer vaccine.<\/strong><\/p>\n \u201cYou can find examples on\u00a0<\/strong>Reiner Fuellmich<\/a>\u2019s \u201cCorona Committee\u201d online.<\/strong><\/p>\n \u201cSo I no longer believe the regulators are capable of protecting us.\u00a0<\/strong>\u2018Approval\u2019 is therefore meaningless<\/a>.<\/strong><\/p>\n \u201cDr. Wolfgang Wodarg and I petitioned the EMA Dec 1, 2020 on the genetic vaccines. They ignored us.<\/strong><\/p>\n
\nby Mordechai Sones
\n<\/em><\/strong>America\u2019s Frontline Doctors<\/p>\n
\nAppreciating that, by entire population, it is also intended that minor children and eventually babies are to be included in the net, and that\u2019s what I interpret to be an evil act.<\/p>\n
\nThe study is from one of the best labs in their field.<\/strong><\/p>\n
\nAlways good quality interactions.<\/strong><\/p>\n