Michael Yeadon, PhD, on mRNA Vaccines

Michael Yeadon, PhD, former Chief Scientist in the Respiratory Division of Pfizer
speaks on mRNA vaccines, 19 April 2021

Interviewed by independent journalist Taylor Hudak ,
The Last American Vagabond, on Bitchute, the truthhunter7
Note:  This is an unofficial transcript. Audio was not great.
There will be errors, some small inaudible bits “[…?]”, small edits. 
All citation, kudos or kibbitzing, should refer to the original source at the bitchute website above.  Bitchute is a great source for material censored by YouTube and is worth supporting.

Taylor Hudak: The mRNA Covid vaccine is being advertised almost every place you go. Is this new vaccine safe and will it become mandatory?
I am independent journalist Taylor Hudak. [Twitter: @_taylorhudak]
To see answers to these questions, I turn to former vice president, Allergy and Respiratory Research at Pfizer, Dr. Michael Yeadon. This is a perspective you will not find anywhere else.

Michael Yeadon: I am a PhD research scientist. It’ll be 40 years today that I started my training, biochemistry, toxicology, followed by my research-based PhD in respiratory pharmacology, so I’ve covered a wide range of life sciences necessary to identify potential targets for new drugs to treat respiratory, allergy and immunological diseases, and then I’ve spent 32 years in pharmaceutical R&D, mostly in big companies. I left Pfizer 10 years ago as head of research world wide for respiratory. (I was Vice President and Chief Scientist for Allergy and Respiratory Research.) For the last ten years, I’ve been an independent entrepreneur advising several dozen
start-up companies. I’ve had the privilege of founding and successfully running my own biotech which was sold to Novartis four years ago.

TH: For the past year we’ve heard a lot about Covid-19. It has dominated mainstream press. One would believe, due to this coverage, that this virus is different from anything we have been exposed to before, that it is very deadly, and that the medical field is unsure how to treat it. Do you agree with that assessment? Can you explain what is Covid-19?
MY: No, I don’t agree with that assessment. I’d say its a really rather middling kind of virus. Yes it certainly has a heightened risk if you are elderly or already ill that it will kill you. It’s probably more lethal than influenza, say, to adults over 70. But the corollary is that it is less lethal than influenza to adults under 70, seriously
MY: The steepness of the risk factor rises strongly with Covid with age. Less so with influenza. As a result, it’s a really scary virus if you’re old and ill, but it’s less lethal to people under 70 than influenza. So if you ask: Is the policy response appropriate? No, it is not. Basically all of the working population is at less risk than from influenza. There’s no argument about it. So why have they done what they’ve done? Your guess is as good as mine.

TH: We’ve heard a lot about the new variants within the last six months or so, and I know you’ve been doing some research on this and you’ve just written a piece recently with Mark Girardot. [“How Worried Should We Be About the Variants?” 11 March 2021, updated 13 March] In this piece, it says “to date, no robust scientific evidence proves that any of the variants are more transmissible or deadly than the original. By definition variants are clinically identical.” “Once there is a clinical difference, then a new “strain” of the virus has emerged. Our knowledge of viral mutation shows they usually evolve to become less deadly and more transmissible.”
Could you explain the Covid-19 variants and if we should be concerned about them, and why is the media and the public health industry really causing alarm for this when perhaps there need not be such concern?

MY: Let’s take the first part first and then come back to the “why” question.
So, it’s a middling kind of virus. It’s worse than the common cold. However, it is the same class of viruses, coronaviruses, e.g., HKUY, and so on. There are 4 endemic common cold causing coronaviruses, and all that’s happened is that SARs-CoV-2 is a more lethal version of that. But it’s not unfamiliar to coronaviruses that have been among us for thousands of years.
MY: So…variants…This is a very large virus. It’s made of protein, of amino acids, the building blocks of protein. And this virus consists of about 10,000 of those building blocks. If you look for the variant that is most different from the original sequence from Wuhan in late December [2019], January [2020] a year & a third ago.
The thing that is most different -I was stunned to find that it’s only 0.3% different. It’s a slug of a virus in terms of changing its form.
In 16 months it’s moved 0.3%. The corollary if that’s true, it means all the variants are 99.7% identical.
MY: Visually, you might think they were the same. The same is true for your immune system. Normally your immune system, when it spots a pathogen, a new foreign organism, it cuts that organism up into a couple of dozen pieces, maybe hundreds sometimes, and goes through a molecular identity parade, offering each of those pieces in turn to your immune system until some cells in your immune system say, “hey, I recognize that little piece, and they’re advised to go off and multiply these cells that recognized the piece. And so on and so on, until you’ve taken the molecular identity parade of all the pieces the virus can be cut up into.
MY: So now, if a variant comes along, that is 0.3% different, 99.7% the same, and your body cuts it up into little pieces, you’d expect that most of those little pieces are identical to the pieces you cut up of the earlier virus. In other words, these small changes in the variants are hopelessly […too little?…] into fooling your body into thinking it’s a new pathogen. It’s a really important point. People talk about immune escape. They mean your body is fooled into thinking it is a new pathogen. It is simply not possible.
MY: Let me give you another yardstick so you can judge what I’ve just said. You may remember in 2003 an earlier SARs virus that did not spread so widely around the world, but it was alarming. SARs-CoV-2, the latest version, is 20% different from the 2003 SARs. That’s about 80x more distant than any of the variants of this coronavirus.
But there are some enterprising immunologists who managed to find some people who had been infected with SARs 2003
MY: and asked them if they’d be willing to donate some blood and they did. The immunologists extracted their T memory cells and asked 2 important questions. Do they still remember SARs 17 years later? They did. The cells of the people infected with SARs 2003 lit up when they saw the same virus. The second question was: if we give them today’s SARs virus, SARs-CoV-2, did they respond?
They all responded.
MY: That shouldn’t be that much of a surprise since 80% of the new virus and the old one are identical. So with that story, a 20% difference is completely inadequate to fool your body that it is a new virus. So why in the world would we possibly believe people telling you that 0.3% is enough to cause a problem? The answer is that it is not.
To your question about why? Why are we being told otherwise?
My straight answer is that it is not my crime, so I don’t know why they are doing it, but they are lying to us, directly telling untruthful statements
MY: I know, as an experienced immunologist, reading the literature, looking at theory and practice, it is a lie. And I worry about that.
TH: Now people hearing about this are probably alarmed but not surprised. A lot of people feel lied to right now. But it is still very scary. Can you think of possibly why we are being deceived?
MY: Yes, I worked out early on that we were not being told the truth.
Probably late April last year [2020], once the first lockdown was maybe 3 or 4 weeks old, and I’d seen that the peak of excess deaths had passed in the UK. I was relieved, I could see the number of daily deaths falling. And instead of the government saying, the worst of the wave has passed, go back to your normal lives, they said they’d lock you down again. Again and again. Til it was like mid summer. At that point..during that period, I worked out something very malign was going on. So, as to what that was, um, I kind of self-censored for several months, because I also did not have an answer. But, I’ve come to the scary conclusion that really what
this really is about is getting the world’s population on to a common database, with common format, where all of us will have a unique id, and at least one field editable which will contain either a thumb-up that your vaccine passport is valid, or a thumb-down to say it is not. Now it could be as many fields as you like added – I’m not a technologist so I can’t tell you what else could be done.
MY: But if this vaccine passport comes into being, if I am vaccinated, I’ll have an app, probably a QR code to show who I am, where I am, and that I am entitled, depending on what algorythm is in place that day, to cross a certain threshold or to conduct a particular transaction.
If on the other hand my vaccine passport is invalid we are prevented from crossing a threshold or performing a transaction. I call that totalitarian control.
MY: There would literally be nothing that I might want to do that wouldn’t be in the [gift?] of whoever controls that database. That, I believe, is the objective of this global fraud – to push everybody onto this first ever, interactive, common format, algorithm-driven, editable.
vaccine passport scheme. I think if that happens, that’s the end of liberal democracy.
MY: I can’t see a way in which you will be able to step off that platform, because the algorithm simply needs to say, you need a valid passport, in order to say, buy gasoline, shop, even use your bank card across an international border. Absolutely anything could, if they want to, require a valid passport. Here’s the thing just to frighten the hell out of you.
MY: Listen, because you might think that’s not too bad. Maybe our leaders will be more benign, but if they send you a reminder and says, you need to come for a Top-Up vaccine ―and I will talk about top up vaccines later. It also says, would you mind bringing in your 13 year old son? Your 12 year old daughter? And you might not want them vaccinated. At the bottom of the app it will say, if you do not comply with this request, your vaccine passport will expire in 20 days.
MY: So if you want […] system to coming into Force, there is nothing you can be asked to do that you are empowered to refuse, because the system will simply exclude you from your life.
So, yeah, that’s about why I think they’d be lying to us and it took me 10 or 11 months to arrive at that view. But it’s not my crime and there might be other reasons.
What I can tell you is that nothing you’ve been told is […] and genuine and honest.

TH: I’m going to ask you to speculate once again, do you believe that this has been pre-planned for some time now?
MY: Let me just say a couple things. I’m a kind of middle-class guy who’s adhered to the sort of professional circuit all of my life, just head down, worked hard, did reasonably well, would laugh at conspiracy theorists. I read middle-of-the-road newspapers. I would vote for party A or party B. I’ve never had a public position on anything. I’ve not campaign for a politician or cause or against a cause.
I would, until this year, have laughed at anyone who came up with what might be classified as a conspiracy theory. But I am now with that, as a backdrop, convinced we are in the middle of, as it were, a psychological operation, which is affecting substantial part of the world, and whose goals are wholly malign.
MY: I don’t know who the actors are. They guess at some of them and I don’t really care what the purpose is. It’s extremely bad, that we are, whether we’re locked down, our economies and our civil society, for prolonged periods, and there is simply no basis for doing that.
It’s damaged us severely, economically, socially, and psychologically.
I do believe ―to your question, has it been planned? Unfortunately, I realized over the last three months that multiple parties in the world have done, as it were, war games.
MY: They’ve done tabletop simulations of pandemics or chemical biological warfare. I kind of knew that, but I’d forgotten. I remember, I think it was Operation Atlantic Storm ―a lot of it was on TV. But I didn’t realize there were dozens of these things that run from 1993 to Event 201, in 2019.
[Event 201 The Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security in partnership with the World Economic Forum and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation hosted Event 201, a high-level pandemic exercise on October 18, 2019, in New York, NY. centerforhealthsecurity.org/event201/]
MY: So, basically, there’s been sufficient, coordination and planning for an event like this. And all you need to do is flick it a little bit and say,, well, if you want to manufacture this crisis, you use exactly the same management techniques as responding to a real external crisis.
So bottom line is, I’m afraid I’m drawn kicking and screaming and reluctantly to to the conclusion, it’s most likely it has been in planning for a long time, I’m afraid to say.
TH: Now just a year ago, those of us who were warning about the possibility of vaccine passports were called conspiracy theorists. Now it is something that is being discussed within our governments. We’re starting to see that happen. I also want to touch on lockdowns, the science behind them before we do get to the vaccines.
Do you think there was any justification ever to put an entire nation or the entire world on a lockdown and how damaging are lockdowns to one’s health?
MY: So the first question was there a justification? Absolutely not. Absolutely not.
And obviously, it’s hideously damaging because a lot of economic activitystops ―that will ratchet downwards the sort of general wealth of nations. We know that has adverse consequences on health. It isn’t just a free pass “Lockdown is neutral. Let’s see if we can save people from Covid.” Lockdown is very bad straight away. It’s enormously costly at every level socially […] medically as well.
MY: I think it’s worth just stating what justification was, and then I’m going to pull its arms and legs off. Justification was this is a dangerous new virus, a virus transmitted between people by human contact. That much is true.
So then they jump several steps and say, therefore, we can reduce the average number human contacts, we will slow transmission. They made a mistake there. It isn’t just, it isn’t even the number of human contacts that allows the epidemic to spread. It’s very specifically the number of infectious contacts. That’s very different. So everybody will know the never- heard-of-it-before-asymptomatic-transmission, the concept that a perfectly well person represents a respiratory virus threat to another person.
That was invented about a year ago, never been mentioned before in history.
TH: Let me stop you right there. This asymptomatic spread was previously not discussed within the medical field? Is that correct?
MY: Yes, when we go back and ask the question, you can’t find loads and loads of papers about this, which is surprising if it’s something that happens so commonly.
It’s being discussed. I think people were wondering, at what stage in the evolution of your disease and response to a virus, at what stage we become most infected. Would there be a stage where you could be very infectious and not aware?
And we’ve got to this idea of pre-symptomatic or quasi-symptomatic. Basically the virus is growing in your body and you are fighting back. Those two things result in symptoms. No question. Not possible to have body full of respiratory virus, to the point that you were an infectious source, and not have symptoms that others can see.
MY: That’s not possible. The point is, it’s not true that people without symptoms are a strong respiratory virus threat.
So where are these infectious contacts occurring. They’re not in the general community. Why aren’t they? Because to be infectious risk, you need to be full of viruses and symtomatic so you are ejecting virus droplets. Those people already have symptoms. If you’ve got a bad flu or bad case of Covid, not only do you have symptoms, you feel unwell, possibly very unwell, Possibly you’ve taken to your bed, possibly you in hospital.
MY: What you’re not going to be doing is living a normal life, going around the community shopping, and to work.
My point is this, I don’t think ever in the community that were a large number of infectious contact events. Therefore, removing those contacts by locking down the general population, you wouldn’t expect it to do much totransmission. So it isn’t a surprise that it didn’t have much effect.
The transformation occurring― it’s where people are immobilized, symptomatic, and ill, and in contact with well people. That sounds like a hospital to me, or a care home, possibly your own domestic residence.
MY: I think mostly hospitals and care homes, a poor second was domestic occasions. In the general community, I think almost no transmission. So, we smashed everything on false pretense, and it didn’t do anything to transmission, and now we know why.

TH: I want to talk now about the vaccines and in particular, the MRNA vaccine. This is the first time in history that we have seen the widespread use of mRNA vaccines. Can you explain the difference between a traditional vaccine and this mRNA vaccine?
MY: Yes, I can. A traditional vaccine going back hundreds of years ago with Edward Jenner, people like that. They would take either an attenuated version of the infection, something that was weakened. Often it would just be killed. You would basically grow up the bug, grow up the viruses, usually viruses. They would kill it, chemically modify it, and then give it to you. Your body would recognize some of the deceased pathogen and grow both antibody responses and so-called T-Cell, responses to those. So that if you encountered the real life thing you’d recognize this and say: I’ve seen this already, and I got special weapons and techniques and the like to defend my host.
MY: But these, these new vaccines are quite different. They don’t contain any of the pathogen. What they do contain is genetic code for a part of the pathogen. That’s messenger, RNA, which is something that sits between your DNA, your genes, and protein. It’s the message that that actually copies your genes into protein, something you can actually see.
MY: So for the first time, widespread use of messenger RNA based vaccines. I think the goal was they would inject that and it would find its way into some of your cells. Some of those cells would then copy the message, almost as if it was your own genes, and you would manufacture that piece of the pathogen, and you would respond to that.
MY: It struck me at the time as a kind of unnecessarily going around the house.
Why would you take three steps back when you could just give some of the dead pathogen? But it is true, that it’s not been used before. When I left big Pharma 10 years ago, that technology was still experimental,and the experimental targets, were all severe diseases like cancer. The reason was that, when I left 10 years ago, we still haven’t got over two key problems. One was to make enough of this messenger RNA that would be stable, so you could inject it or, or absorb it.
MY: It’s simply not stable. Why would it be? It’s meant to be something that’s only alive or only exists for a very short period of time as it copies your DNA into a protein and then it winks out of existence. It’s like a radio signal. It comes and you receive it, and then it’s gone. So it’s not meant to be stabilized. That was one of the problems when we try to manufacture it, it would often degrade after you made it or soon as you gave it to a cell or to an animal. The other problem was we couldn’t get it inside cells. It’s not surprising. You normally make it inside a cell. It works inside the cell, and it’s the product of mRNA that then goes off into the extracellular surface and does something in your body.
MY: so it’s not natural for mRNA to arrive externally and to travel inside a cell. You have defenses to prevent that very thing. Think why that might be? It’s stop foreign genetics from getting into your cellular machinery. You don’t want the stuff and you have extremely well developed fences that will cut that up or recognize it as a foreign […?]
MY: So I was extraordinarily surprised when I I learned this in the spring of last year, that multiple companies have adopted this technology for the production of vaccines. I have not felt good about that since that day, because I just think they must be less safe than conventional vaccines.
MY: What are some of the risk factors with the MRNA tvaccine and what can it possibly do to the body? MY: Yes. Good question. I can tell you some of things we don’t know. I did review the dossiers that were submitted to medicine regulators and what the innovators, the manufacturers have not done is described where in the body, the messenger RNA goes after administration. They also haven’t determine how long the effects of the messenger RNA last.
It might strike you as a tremendous surprise, why they’re not being asked to do that. And the answer is because they classified themselves as a vaccine and vaccines are not required to do this. And the reason is that they are normally just a piece of dead pathogen. We don’t really care. We know how they work with dozens of these things over the decades.
MY: So they’re not asked to identify where does it go? How long does it affect last now? I think they should have been asked to do that. I do accept that they are vaccines but I think that under classifies the misleadingly so. I think they should be called gene-based vaccines because that’s what they are. We don’t know where they go, we don’t know how long their effects lost and that’s why I’m concerned about potential side effects. In particular, I think all of the spike protein, gene-based vaccines share ―I’m not sure if.. I can only assume it was accidental that they all share a class risk effect and that’s because all of them are designed to go into your body, go into your cells somewhere, harness the cells machinery and make a piece of the pathogen, which is the spike, the things on the outside you see in the cartoons.
The Spike protein, as we know, is a docking protein. This allows the virus to bind to a cell receptor on the outside of human cell.
MY: But it’s not a passive binding protein, it’s biologically, active, it can prompt cells to stick together. It’s has so-called fusogenic properties. It can also initiate blood coagulation. If you imagine a person receiving the mRNA vaccine. It will travel around their body and deposit differently in each person. The archetypical pattern.
TH: Is this why people are getting blood clots post vaccine?
MY: I’m explaining. So you would expect a normal bell curve or distribution of where the vaccine goes. Some people they may get very little picked up. Loads of people might havea middling amount, but there will be some people on tail risk, on the right hand side. They might get a lot. The messenger might be picked up in a place where they’re vulnerable, maybe in a blood vessel in their brain or in some branch pointing a blood vessel. Now imagine you have to be one of the unlucky people took up a lot of that messenger RNA, and then manufactured lots of spike protein in that spot, because it’ll be a normal distribution, in every person. So if you’re the outlier of the outlier, the one in a few thousand,
you could end up producing a lot Spike protein in just the wrong place in your body. If you happen to be susceptible to formation of a blood clot, given what I just told you about properties of the spike protein, I would predict this is what you’d expect.
And sure enough, they found in Europe, I think several dozen cases of very fit women, quite young, 20 to 50 years old, who have died of a cerebral vein [..sinus thrombosis..?..muffled]Even the regulator is now said, we believe it is causatively associated.
MY: All of these gene based vaccines, I think, have this kind of tail risk effect, because unlike a conventional vaccine, where you get a defined dose, and that’s what you get,the ones that the encode something, you’ve got multiple properties. How does it distribute? How is it taken up? How efficiently is it copying?. I just think that automatically widens the envelope of the biological responses.
If you happen to be one of the people on the far right hand side, who gets a blood clot, it could kill you. And so that’s that’s where I think we’ve got to. As a toxicologist ―that was my first training― I would expect that […?] class effect.
Of course, I wouldn’t know whether it was worse or better with one messenger RNA vaccine than another, but I would say they should qualitatively have similar effects. So it is not enough to say, wow, don’t use the AstraZeneca one because of blood clots, use something else. I think they all produce spike protein. I would think, if you look properly, instead of looking the other way, you’ll see a similar spectrum of unwanted effects.

TH: So you mentioned some unlucky people, do you think that these potential risks are clinically significant?

MY: Yes, I do. I think that because, well, I’m afraid we have had some deaths through thromboembolic events, that’s blood clots and bleeding,
MY: that have occured in people where the background rate of that finding is very low, and that’s really why it’s come out. So, if you are healthy, young woman, you don’t have any special risks for blood clots, let alone in a particular vulnerable spot in your brain― you arrive at hospital, blinding headaches and they take a history and they do some diagnostics and they say this person has cerebral vein sinus thrombosis. Something like 50% of people who get that diagnosis die. It’s a really serious thing, Blood outflow from your brain is being occluded by a developing clot. It turns out that people of that age and disposition very rarely suffer I’m from this complication.
So when they saw seven cases one after the other, in a short period time and common factor was they had recently had one of these vaccines, it didn’t take long them long to think this could be it. Then another country had a similar cluster in the same kind of patient.
MY: I don’t think it’s the only in those cases that blood products are formed. It is really important that I communicate this. It’s that they were unable to avoid it. They couldn’t look the other way because cerebral vein sinus thrombosis is
so unusual, that to get seven cases, I think seven fatalities, quite close together, it’s not a background finding. What about people who are a little older, a little sicker? Blood clots are not uncommon, and as they keep telling us, well, you know, if you had double the rates, if you weren’t looking hard, you probably wouldn’t notice. It doesn’t mean it’s not there. In fact, I’m convinced there is blood clot risk, probably in all cohorts, both genders. It’s just what we’ve noticed because they couldn’t look the other way, because the background rate was so low, I’m sure the cluster had to [ascribe…?] to the drug.
TH: This is so incredible. I do want to ask you about the stage that we are in with this vaccine rollout? Are we still in the experimental stage?

MY: Yes, definitely surprised. I’m half surprised that you were asking me that because you and I know that these are they have received what’s called experimental use authorization, certainly in Europe and US, probably other places too.
What does that mean? It means the authorities have decided that there is a sufficient crisis going on, and that there are no alternative medical or pharmacological treatments. So we’ll let you use this, because it’s an emergency.
MY: I think it’s questionable, really, whether we’re still in an emergency. And if we’re not in an emergency, don’t you think it’s time to lift the authorization, because emergency-authorized, they are still in theirwhat’s called [..clinical?] phase 3 trials.
People probably know drug goes through phase one, healthy volunteers,
phase two, working out what dose in patients. Phase three is a big, long termsafety and efficacy trial. It usually take years, in this case, about two more years to go.
MY: So we’re still two years from the goal line, where we normally even tentatively allow these be rolled out in general population. Two years, and what’s happened in that time is that there are alternative medical and pharmacological treatments. People have heard of hydroxychloroquine or corticosteroids like budesonide, They’ve heard of ivermectin, an off-patent anti-parasitic.
All three have been shown ―really good quality trials, at least the same [..powers?] as the vaccine trials, have produced similar or better
MY: So why are regulators around the world just averting their eyes and refusing to look at these other small molecule treatments? And the answer is, if they do that then the emergency authorization for the vaccines terminates.
I’ve been very frustrated as a drug discoverer to learn that there are at least three or four alternative treatments, that I’d definitely want for myself and my relatives, if I had Covid-19. And the regulators have actively banned them, or they’ve said these are not suitable, or they’re just sort of gone deaf and dumb. They will not listen to a proposition.
MY: So where are we now with the rollout? I think we’re beyond reckless.
Even if you put the most positive spin on the [..clinical?] profile of these experimental vaccines, I think they should have been made available, offered to the people who were clearly elevated risk of dying if they’re infected with covid-19.
MY: I don’t think they should have been given to anyone else.
If you’re say, I’m, ah 60, I have no existing medical conditions. A male, 60, no prior conditions? ―Hardly anyone in Britain died even with Covid, in the last 16 months or so. Fewer people died with Covid in my country, with a description mine, than died falling off motorcycles, which is one of my hobbies.
So I just thought I’d mention that, just give you a flavour for the risk. Yet, we are vaccinating the entire population of the United Kingdom, including people much younger than than me, whose risks are much lower.
MY: Yet all of them are carrying toxicity risks whether known or not known. So it was always an inappropriate thing to have done.
I’m more troubled as time goes on ―marketing materials, persuasion campaigns, trying to sway pregnant women in their twenties to get vaccinated. Why? And what kind of unethical monster does that?And there are also pediatric trials going on, studies in children for disease they never get. In the UK, for example, not a single child who is fit and well, acquiredthis virus and died. Not one. And we have 10 million children under the age of 10.
Later in the year, they are [..taped, take?} according to the government’s plans, to be vaccinated. How can that possibly make any sense? There’s no clinical benefit, if they’re not susceptible to getting ill with the virus. No clinical benefit. How would you then offset the known risks? There’ll always be known risks, and then there will be things we don’t understand yet. We’re only two years from the goal line.
MY: But that’s partly why I’m doing these interviews. I believe we are beyond reckless, offering these vaccines, pushing these vaccines to people who are not at elevated risk from from dying from the virus. I just don’t understand any
ethical reason why you’d want to do this.
That’s what’s finally, let me kicking and screaming, to the view that if there isn’t a benign reason why it’s being done, there must be a malign reason. And I think that malign reason, which would explain why everybody’s vaccinated, is ―we’re going to force you guys, everybody, man, women and children, even babies onto a unique, world’s first vaccine passport based ID system.
And if people don’t resist this, I think it’s the end of liberal democracy everywhere.
MY: To be absolutely clear, I’ve spent 32 years of my professional life ―I’ve thoroughly enjoyed it, I was hugely privileged. I would say pharmaceutical R&D is, as a friend once described it, is the last truly important organized game for adults, trying to find what’s gone wrong in human disease. How can we intervene to help patients and to do so with the fewest amount of side effects? That’s the mission. So I’m massively in favor of new and exciting therapeutics, whether they’re creams or tablets, lotion, sprays, or vaccines. What I am pro is ― I am pro safe medicines. I’m very much against things that I think are risky and I’m very much against things when they used in in the wrong context.
MY: So you should give strong medicine to someone who has most to gain from it, and not give it to people who are not. So with that as a backdrop, my wife, similar description, same age, no chronic conditions ― we’ve checked and was no one of that description is dying with covid. My children in their 20s, fit and well, no prior conditions. Why in the world would I do anything, other than say, you don’t have a risk to reduce, you’re not at risk from this virus. Why would you want to spend any time and effort taking a risk to reduce this risk? So I would say, because of that, don’t do it. My parents are dead. If they were around, they would be in their mid 80s. If they were otherwise reasonably well, I might say, you know it might be worth considering taking it. There are […?] risks, but most people are not killed by the vaccine. And I do believe you’d have a measure of protection, so let’s talk about it.
MY: So, I’m not anti-vaxx. I’m not even anti all these vaccines in the right context. What I’m absolutely, solidly against is the way they’re being pushed into young and fit people not at risk from the virus and therefore they are bearing the adverse consequences, small or large, that’s never been supported before in a civilized society. It’s the sort of thing, nightmarish sort of bad behavior by businesses that one hears of occasionally. I just don’t want any part of this. 39:57
TH: Dr. Dolores Cahill of University College. Dublin has predicted that within three to five years of receiving this mRNA vaccine that people will unfortunately die as a result of receiving this vaccine.
(LH presents an excerpt from D. Cahill talk: “We know as well that the more harm from these mRNA vaccines will happen in the years to come. Anyone who’s over 70 who gets one of these mRNA vaccines will probably die within about 2 to 3 years, and I would say anyone who gets the mRNA injection, no matter what age you are, your life expectancy will be reduced. If you’re in your thirties, within 5 to 10 years.”)
TH: Do you agree with this assessment?
MY: I wouldn’t say I agree or disagree. I respect Dolores hugely. Comment though: we actually don’t know what will happen. This experiment has not yet been run to conclusion. I know she’s giving her honest opinion . I would say
she could be right, but I believe we don’t know enough to say what will definitely happen. She’s not wrong to point out that diseases like this, including SARs itself, and, I think, Dengue fever as well ―there have been peculiar situations where people with antibodies to to this pathogen, have sometimes experienced a phenomenon called antibody dependence, a worse disease. Antibody-dependent enhancement, it’s called. ‘Enhancement’ is not good in this case.
So I think that maybe where Dolores is coming from. What she might be doing is joining the dots from prior bad experiences, and saying that she thinks it’s a serious risk that it could happen.
41:41MY: I would go as far as that and say there’s a serious risk that might happen.
My bigger concern, though, if we can get on to variants? Because that’s that’s where Mike Yeadon’s greatest concern is. Others might disagree with me. So I’ve given a reply to Dolores concern and I would like, [impatience] at some point to get onto my[…?]. It literally keeps me awake at night.
TH: Yes, of course. Please do.
MY: I think I mentioned earlier that the variants are ―some people call them scariants― that they’re being used as a some psychological operation. I think there’s something in that. I sarcastically call them the stadients, because they’re really the same. All variants are so similar to the original. There’s no chance whatsoever, your body will see them as anything new.
So with that as a backdrop, isn’t it scary that politicians keep telling us about variants, about how we need to close the borders, and stop them moving around the world.
And don’t worry, the pontifical [whoops, auto-transcript typo worth keeping] pharmaceutical industry will make modified vaccine Is that will address that these new variants. And then I’ve heard recently, some of the pharmaceutical companies are actually manufacturing, top-up or variant vaccines.
But if Mike Yeadon is correct, and I am confident I am ―this is my strength, immunology― what I’ve just told you is absolutely true. They’re so similar to the original, it’s not just implausible, it’s impossible, that you would need new vaccine to accommodate, and yet you’re being told they’re necessary, being told they’re being manufactured. I’m quite frightened, because I’ve got this open question.
MY: What the hell is in those bottles of variant vaccine? The world’s regulators have said that they’re so similar to vaccines are already being used ―by the way, forgetting to tell us or remind us that they are only emergency use authorized anyway― but the regulators have said, we don’t need any clinical safety testing done on these on these variants. So, if you combine my talk about the vaccine passports, and how you would be compelled to or not do whatever the algorithm tells you. If you combine that with an opportunity to be told to go and get your variant vaccine, the pharmaceutical industry can make whatever the hell they want, put it in a vial, and you’ll go along and be injected with it.
MY: My significant fear is, if somebody wanted to wanted to arrange a situation where mass de-population could be accomplished, this would probably be a perfect way of doing it. All you need to do is add soupçon of fear periodically, maybe a new virus arises, and the media is full of fear-porn and vaccine, you would get it. You wouldn’t suspect anything, if you’ve not been thinking. But if in about three months, six months, a year later, whatever it is in those messenger RNA or cDNA top-up vaccines brings about whatever the design effect is, maybe it’ll make you ill, maybe it’ll kill you. Plausible deniability― a long-running human fight against horrible pathogens and sadly, all these people died.
That’s what I think, plausible deniability, scares from media, suppression of people like me, and alternative viewpoints.
Clearly manufacturing what I think are fraudulently […?] not needed products, and then a vaccine passport to prompt you, require you to go and get them.
It’s literally a nightmare, isn’t it? But it’s happening. What I’ve described is pretty much government policy. It’s not my crime, and if I’m wrong, and if any one listening has spotted where I’ve gone wrong, please, for God’s sake, write to Taylor [interviewer] and tell her, because I’ll sleep better.
I’ve asked this challenge in writing, in podcasts, and in face-to-face interviews, not one person has come back one suggestion for a benign interpretation of what is happening. It’s very scary.
TH: Absolutely, Dr. Yeadon, it has become very clear we are headed down a very dangerous path to be possibly existing in a biosecurity state. What can people do to stop this from happening?

MY: Yes, it’s great question. And it’s really why I am here. I would say, if you are not at elevated risk of dying, if infected, please do not have the vaccine. I’m not anti-vaxx, I’m pro safe medicines. Don’t take it because you don’t have an elevated risk that needs reducing. It would be like giving a twenty-year-old a flu vaccine. They probably wouldn’t come. They would say I’m not a risk. Why are you offering me this damn vaccine?
46:34 MY: If you’re twenty, your risk of dying from influenza is very low, but it’s higher than the chance of you dying of covid-19. It is. Dr. John Ioannidis’ calculations show this. If you under 70 or 60 you are at greater risk of dying from influenza than from Covid-19. So if you didn’t seek an influenza vaccine last season, why in the world would you want to covid-19 vaccine? You’re at less risk from that. So, there’s two things. One is, if you’re not at risk from the virus seriously risk, you know, elderly and/or already ill, don’t take the vaccine. Because if you simply choose not to have it, and enough of you, your peers, family, friends, workmates don’t take it, we can’t start the vaccine passport system, right?
You may have a good chance in North America because I think you’re way behind on percentage vaccination.
MY: We already lost in UK. We’re in the mid 60s percent, I think, of adults. There might even be pretty much more than anyone else. It’s the most vaccinated sort of first world country. We’re going to be the first that goes under, and I will be leaving the country, because it’s not going to be…it’s going to be dark.
So first would be, don’t be blandished, don’t be persuaded to take these damn vaccines. If you are not at risk from the disease, why in the world would you take the vaccine, even if they were completely safe, and they’re not.
The next thing is― campaign like hell against vaccine passports. Look, if you are vulnerable person and you’ve been offered the vaccine and accepted it and had a good experience, you’re now immune, you’re protected.
You don’t need to know the immune status of anyone by your side at the football game or in the queue at a supermarket or in your workplace, or even maybe in a restaurant. You don’t need to know it. You’re already projected.
Just like you would have been if you’d had the flu jab. You didn’t ask anyone else: ‘Excuse me, tell me your immune status is regarding influenza this year.’ If you are vulnerable and you’ve been vaccinated, you’re protected. You don’t need the faux protection of the vaccine passport. If you’re young and fit, you’re not vulnerable, anyway. Again, you don’t need to know the immune status of anyone near you. Guess who it is who does want the vaccine possible. It’s the people persuading you to have it. It’s the people who want to control us, you don’t need it . You don’t benefit from it. It will just make your life constrained beyond measure. So campaign against it. Don’t get vaccinated, unless you are highly vulnerable to the virus. Keep moving these countries that are vaccinating less. That’s my plan. I have to leave. I’m not going to be vaccinated, and I don’t think that’s going to be tolerated for much longer.
TH: This has been very insightful and eye-opening, Dr. Michael Yeadon.
MY: Thank you. Thank you for getting this message out to more people.
TH: And I want to thank you all for watching today. Make sure you share this video with your friends and your family. As you all know, this is a very suppressed topic in the mainstream news, but if you feel compelled to act after everything that you just heard and want to prevent a possible medical tyranny and dystopian vaccination.
TH: I highly suggest that you also visit doctors drs4covidethics.medium.com
You can also follow this organization on Twitter at @Drs4CovidEthics. This particular organization is comprised of doctors from around the world who are
upholding medical ethics and human rights in response to covid-19.
But lastly, I want to thank you all. Once again, make sure that you give this video a thumbs up and don’t forget to subscribe to the last American Vagabond. I’m independent journalist Taylor Hudak and I’ll see you all next time.