Dr. Mike Yeadon, former Vice President and Chief Science Officer at Pfizer

April 9, 2021 Canterbury England

Interviewed by John Kirby

Research by Evan Dominguez


Two of the experimental gene-based injections have been paused or halted, and reports of clotting, stroke, anaphylaxis, miscarriage, Bell's Palsy, and a host of other neurologic and auto-immune disorders plague the others. And those are just the short-term risks. Has all humanity been enrolled in a vast and unimaginably dangerous phase-three clinical trial without our informed consent? All for a disease that for the overwhelming majority of us is, officially, 99.7% or better survivable...if we even get it? Dr. Mike Yeadon, formerly a Vice President and Chief Science Officer at Pfizer, believes the big experiment is well under way, and that the hypothesis it seeks to prove is as bold as it is terrible. A cogent and clear thinker who has been attacked in proportion to his qualifications, Dr. Yeadon, at great personal risk, issues a chilling warning, not just about the grave dangers surrounding the injections, but about the looming threat of digital health "passports" that will take inexorable control over every aspect of our lives. If we allow them. We have been warned.





Mike Yeadon:

I don't think a single fundamental sort of driving fact about this epidemic has been represented correctly and it's obvious to experienced scientists, like me, and when I've spoken to lots of my peers, they agree. So it's not like I'm an unusual person in thinking as I do. What's unusual is that I have come out and said so. But you would think that vaccine manufacturers should have done their homework and checked whether or not the piece of dead virus that they were having human cells manufactured through these gene based vaccines would not itself be harmful. But it seems to me, I can only assume they missed it. I put it to you in, any listener, can you think of a benign explanation for why you would want to give an experimental use authorized gene-based vaccine to millions, tens of millions, of people who cannot possibly die if they ran into this virus? And the answer is no, you can't, can you?

The pharmaceutical industry is already manufacturing so-called top-up or variant vaccines. If I'm right and they're not... these variants aren't different enough to warrant a different vaccine, and they are not, what is it that they're manufacturing? I don't know the answer to that question, but I'm actually terrified.

Once you're on the system and your whole life is permissioned by your status on the system, have you got a valid vaccine or not? Say you won't be able to go to the shops anymore, eventually you might not be able to buy gasoline or leave your house. Whatever the rules, the control is set, you will then be coerced into doing whatever they tell you. Is that really what you wanted? If not, you better start demonstrating because single individuals, like me, can do nothing. I can warn you and explain how much danger we're in, but you behind the camera, you watching, if you don't do something, these criminals are going to steal liberal democracy and freedom forever.

John Kirby:

I'm speaking with Mike Yeadon, who was a former executive at Pfizer Pharmaceuticals. Mike, would you just please introduce yourself and give us a little bit about your background?

Mike Yeadon:

Yes, certainly. So my name is Dr. Mike Yeadon. I'm a veteran of the pharmaceutical industry. I have a degree in biochemistry and toxicology, a PhD in respiratory pharmacology and 32 years of leadership in new drug discovery in allergy and respiratory, first in a number of large companies. Most recently Pfizer, where I left 10 years ago, was a chief scientist and head of allergy and respiratory research. And over the last 10 years, I've acted as an independent, consulting to several dozen startup biotech companies. And I was happy to be able to found and run successfully to completion my own biotech, that was then acquired by Novartis. So I'm an independent now, but I'm broadly experienced in the required sciences, specifically the life sciences required to understand disease pathology and potentially ways to intervene beneficially in those diseases.

John Kirby:

I guess it's safe to say that you're not anti-pharmaceutical as a general rule. You have been developing these for a number of years. Recently, you authored, or co-authored, a letter to the European Medicines Agency. Can you tell us what the substance of that letter was and what your concerns are?

Mike Yeadon:

Yeah. So of course I'm pro novel medicines, especially pro safe and effective medicines. And of course like anyone in that industry, I'm very troubled if something that doesn't work or is not safe is being rolled out, and that's my concern. So turning to the letter I co-authored with Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg in December, 2020, we wrote a petition really to the European Medicines Agency, because we were concerned that these gene-based vaccines were moving at too great a pace, that they had not acquired a sufficient safety database to allow these vaccines to be widely rolled out. We anticipated, as it turned out correctly, that in my view, completely reckless dispensing of these novel technology vaccines would go ahead. So what was the substance? Fundamentally, these are new technology products. There were no products of this kind where they use a gene, sometimes and a virus, to bring the gene inside the cells of the human body, get those cells to manufacture part of the pathogen. And it's that to which you respond to make an immune response, to become vaccinated.

Normal vaccines use an already dead pathogen. So this is quite different in that the genes for the pathogen are what's being injected and they're inviting your body to manufacture part of that pathogen. So I would say the unknown unknowns were a significant concern for us because we simply don't know what will happen downstream with that event, not been done before. The moment I'm seeing the way these vaccines are rolled out with the assurance that they're safe, even in the short-term and completely ignoring the potential for longer term side effects. Just imagine this scenario where 1% of people after a year or two, get some unexpected problem. What are you going to do? You've already given it to the majority of the population. So when we rolled them out with these vaccines to people who are not at any risk of dying from the virus, you know something very bad is happening.

So yes, we wrote the letter to the European Medicines Agency. Our broad concern was new technology. You need a good safety database. Didn't have it. Be careful. And then I had a list of specific concerns that people have focused on. But then just simply not there, just minor details. The main one is we just don't know what happens in the long-term with these new technology products. That's that.

John Kirby:

I don't think people recognize... I know in the United States, the FDA, the Food and Drug Administration has given these vaccines only what they call emergency use authorization. Is that the case in Europe as well? They've not been officially approved by the EMA?

Mike Yeadon:

Yes. None of these gene based vaccines have been through the normal research and development phase to completion. In fact, the ones that are being used in United Kingdom at the moment from Pfizer-BioNTech, AstraZeneca Oxford, and I think the Moderna one now, just arriving, all of these are still deep in their pivotal or Phase 3 clinical trials, and they don't finish for roughly two years. You're pointing out to the public that they're not just playing around, those two years are in order to gather evidence of robust continuing activity, what you want to happen and also to check whether or not anything bad happens. We just don't have that data. They've been given only emergency use authorization.

They claim it's an emergency. It's not obvious anymore that there is an emergency. There was perhaps a year ago. But in addition to that rather substantial question, there are numerous other pharmaceutical treatments like ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine now, vitamin D, corticosteroids, and all of these have been battered out of existence by, I believe, criminal people working for or around the government. Because if any of those things were approved, even off label, it would undermine the rationale for these vaccines that would then have to wait until they've finished their normal clinical development.

So we've only got them under emergency and it's only an emergency because they say so, and there are only no alternatives, which is also a requirement to get an emergency use authorization, because all of the viable alternatives have just been suppressed.

John Kirby:

Yeah. I wonder how this could happen because it feels like I seem to recall that there are provisions in international law against this. It seems like we are involved in what is effectively the largest Phase 3 clinical trial in human history, and people don't realize that they're participating in a clinical experimental trial. As I recall, the Nuremberg Code prevents this sort of thing. Subjects of human experimentation are meant to be able to give their informed consent, and I'm not sure that they have. How can this sort of, what seems to me, an egregious violation of international law that's been longstanding since the horrors of the Nazi experimentation, how can this be proceeding? How can so many governmental agencies all over the world be countenancing this? And if you could explain the Nuremberg Code and you know what it entails.

Mike Yeadon:

Yeah. So yes, I think that's a fair comment. It's like the largest Phase 3 clinical trials in world history. Yes, the Nuremberg Code that was put together after the Nazi doctor's trials, after the Second World War in which a number of doctors were prosecuted for having performed experiments on, of course, unwilling human subjects, some of whom died. And the court decided that these doctors should be, in many cases, subject to the death penalty and they were hung.


In the dark once occupied by their leaders are 23 Nazi doctors accused of many crimes in hospitals, concentration camps, and research centers, all the accused pleaded not guilty, but time had evidence alone will decide their future.

Mike Yeadon:

The Nuremberg Code was written after that, designed expressly to prevent involuntary experiments on human beings without their consent. I've looked at the consent forms for vaccination, the ones that have been available to me. None of them mentioned that these products are still in the experimental phase. I'm afraid is no question. They have not received regulatory approval anywhere. They don't always say that they have, but there's never a comment that these are experimental and therefore we don't know what's going to happen. When you don't know what's going to happen, even at a population level, I think it's fair to say it's an experiment and you're part of it. So yeah, people are just being told things like, "This vaccine is safe. Please come as soon as you're offered it and come and get it." And it seems to me that law and order has just largely failed in this country, and of course, I can't explain it.

My answer at this point when people ask me, is to say, "My answer is it's not my crime. I've identified, along with other people, that very, very improper and I would say dark things are happening, but as to why they're happening and who's driving it, I'm afraid I don't know. It's not my crime."

John Kirby:

Perhaps people supporting this vaccine rollout would reiterate once again that this is an emergency. Can we just go over the reasons, perhaps starting with some of the other mitigation efforts that you've noted in the past were not effective, and in fact, perhaps damaging. As you mentioned, and perhaps we could reiterate, there are treatments, effective treatments, that have been given. I happen to know that at certain wealthy and various areas of the United States hospital systems have been giving hydroxychloroquine and zinc. They've been giving ivermectin and steroids, et cetera, all with great success. So there are effective treatments available. How can we justify this as an emergency when even without treatments, the survivability rate of this disease, COVID-19, is 99.7% if you're under 65 or 70, and not much less than that even if you're older and have co-morbidities?

Mike Yeadon:

Yeah, it's a great question. There may have been an emergency certainly in the spring in the northern hemisphere last year. Although I wasn't an enthusiast of so-called lockdown, I could understand why terrified political leaders and their advisors might err on the side of caution. But I'm afraid nothing, in the UK at least, United Kingdom, absolutely nothing the government and their advisors have informed the public about any of the sort of key piece of information. Not one of them has been true. It's not just the occasional slip. For example, the polymerase chain reaction or PCR, no one defines its rate of false positives. Every test produces some positives when the virus is absent. We know this, but the authorities running it simply refuse to engage with scientists who say, "What is that rate operationally? You need to net that off, the gross." You just get abuse, trolling, and eventually censorship.

They also do not unify how many cycles of amplification, because it is an amplification technique. How many cycles before we all say, "If that's not positive, then we'll say the virus is absent." It's just the Wild West out there. So number of cycles, failing to define false positive rate, and from time to time, some labs, instead of using three probes or primers to identify unique spots in the virus, all three of which have to be positive to say, "Yes, that's consistent with the virus, genetic information being in the sample," sometimes they'll use two genes, sometimes one gene. And I'm afraid the unifying observation is that all of these cheating... bits of cheating really, serve to increase the number of, inverted commas, "cases." And that's not just a diagnosis, it also ends up being an attribution label. So if a person should die within 28 days of a positive test, how bad that test was, they're called a COVID death. And I just don't believe anything like the number of people who are claimed to have died absurdly with COVID, rather than of it, have actually died, even with it, let alone of it.

So everything we're being told has manufactured... or is amplified the harm and psychological fear and harm from this virus, from top to bottom. So bad testing, lies about the idea that you can be completely symptom free and yet represent an infection risk to people around you. That is a lie. And it's-

John Kirby:

Can you speak to that a little bit more? This idea of asymptomatic spread is, of course, the whole reason why the world has masked up, locked down, social distancing, all of this stuff rests-

Mike Yeadon:


John Kirby:

... on that central premise that healthy people can make other healthy people sick. What do you say to that?

Mike Yeadon:

So yes, the concept of asymptomatic transmission, as you say, that someone who's apparently perfectly well can represent a health threat to another person who's perfectly well, is simply not true. The total weight of evidence, actually, that was used to form this idea were I think six or seven case studies. A case study is usually an observation of one person. So that's the total data out of seven or eight billion people. It's six or seven case histories where someone asserted that a person who was positive by PCR, but according to the report had no symptoms managed to infect someone else nearby. When they infected them, it was only that they became PCR positive too.

Now, I think the vast majority of these were out of China, interestingly, and I'm afraid anything that's influential that comes out of research in China is approved by the Party. I'm afraid that's just the way it's always been.

And there was only one substantial claim for asymptomatic transmission in Europe. And I believe it was a subject that had come from China and visited a number of engineering plants in Germany. It was claimed they infected a lot of people, even though they were quote, "asymptomatic." But apparently very quickly after that report, it was corrected that the person actually was heavily symptomatic and they'd been using over the counter medicines to try and get through their day. So they really were symptomatic after all, and just like someone with flu or a cold, they'd barreled on through their day and they just had managed to infect people.

But I can explain to people very simply why it's not just my opinion and that of other people, that asymptomatic transmission isn't true. I can show you by reasoning. In order to be a good source of infectious virus, say it's me, I have to have a lot of virus in my airway. I can't infect you at a distance if I've got a tiny amount. That's because the world's full of pathogens all the time, and you're able to fight them off routinely, minute by minute, throughout your whole life. You have to have an amount, over an amount, such that it becomes an infective dose. And that only happens if you're in close contact with someone who's emitting lots of virus and in order to be emitting lots of virus, you have to have a lot of them in your body. If you have a lot of viruses in your body, you will have symptoms.

It's simply not possible for you to have a high viral load and for that virus to be attacking you and you have no symptoms and for your immune system to be fighting back and protecting you and for you to have no symptoms. It's simply not possible.

There might be a brief period of a few hours when the virus is growing quickly, the body's just starting to respond. You might not quite notice. You might not feel a hundred percent but you're not ill yet. That's called presymptomatic. And yeah, I guess it's possible a few people were infected that way. But the idea that transmission, a major contribution to epidemic spreading occurred in a person that was full of virus and had no symptoms, it's just bunk. And I'll just add one other thing that I think will chime with people that we are very good at noticing whether someone's a health threat to us, usually a respiratory threat to us. When you come up to a person, a relative or a stranger, without trying, you scan them and you're aware. Is their gait normal? Is their head normal? Are they looking at you clear-eyed or do they look hunch and a little bit ill?

And without thinking about it, if you don't know them and they look a bit ill, you will skirt around them. In a sense, you'll socially distance unconsciously. And so the two things I've just said there in order to be a good infectious source, you have to be, yourself, full of virus and you will be symptomatic. The only chance you would encounter someone like that in your community would be, I think, still averted, because if you saw someone stumbling around full of flu or a cold, you'd think, Oh my God, get around this person.

So it's my contention that there was almost no transmission in the community because there weren't symptomatic people. They would be feeling ill if they were in that situation. So there were hardly any infectious contacts in the general community. And you know what? That explains why lockdowns systematically across the world, haven't done anything.

And that's because the places where you do encounter symptomatic infectious people are where they've no choice to be there, either hospitals or care homes or occasionally your own domestic environment. Everywhere else you simply won't find infectious sources. So when you lockdown and smash the economy and civil society, of course you don't lower transmission. It wasn't taking place there, obviously not. So that's where I am on asymptomatic transmission.

But yes, you're right. It is a manufactured story. And it was on that basis that we're all told to wear masks, which don't work anyway. So even if it was true asymptomatic transmission, masks don't work anyway, because they'd been tested repeatedly over the years and they don't do anything against respiratory viruses. And that was the justification as well for mass testing millions of people who had no symptoms. And of course, as I said, early on, when you use tests on mass, a fraction of them will be positive even when the virus is absence and if you don't take account of that, you'll think, Lo and behold, there's all these millions of people who have this virus and they better be self-isolating for days or weeks.

This whole thing has terrified people. And it's all a lie. I don't think a single fundamental sort of driving fact about this epidemic has been represented correctly and it's obvious to experienced scientists, like me, and when I've spoken to lots of my peers, they agree. So it's not like I'm an unusual person in thinking as I do. What's unusual is that I have come out and said so. Most of my colleagues have more or less said, "My employer or my university doesn't want me to say anything that would be counter to the official line, so I'm just staying quiet." Whereas I decided I wasn't going to do that because something very bad is happening and it's getting darker.

John Kirby:

Now I want to get back to this question of censorship and self-censorship, but this idea that healthy people can't get other healthy people sick, even the few presymptomatic cases not withstanding. There seems to be not just basic common sense to that idea, but it seems that epidemiologists, immunologists, virologists the world over, doctors, regular MDs, would understand that intuitively based on their experience and in so many ways. How can we account for the general silence of so many of your colleagues and the medical community in general?

Mike Yeadon:

Yeah. So yes, I can't explain why the vast majority of people who definitely know better have chosen to remain silent. I don't know. What I can tell you is anyone, me included, who said things like I'm saying, which is there were problems, for example, with the PCR test in the UK. And I would comment about it and write articles about it. What I did notice is that immediately you did that, and the more qualified you are the worse it was, you would be attacked, for example, on Twitter, and eventually on main media. So for example, last year, the main UK broadcast, the British Broadcasting Corporation actually used well-known journalists to slander me in public. A lady called Emma Barnett, who runs the Women's Hour podcast. I'll name you Emma because you named me. And she made some statements about things I had not said that slandered me.

And on that occasion I told her, "She better take that lie back or I would sue." And they did indeed delete that portion. So basically they intimidate you and they will use either, I think, employed people on social media who do exist, to attack you and sometimes professional colleagues, one way or another, just taking a different view and they will attack you. And no one gets on any of the main media that doesn't have a view of that accords with what the government is saying. So I don't know whether they really believe it or not. I think some do and they're a bit thoughtless.

But I think, to answer your question, people who were a bit uncertain whether they were going to say anything or not, noticed that anyone who said anything got attacked, slandered, called a conspiracy theorist or a fool or wrong or a covidiot, someone who put other people's lives at risks. The accusations were endless.

Well the thing is, I'm not doing this for money. I've suffered injury, shall we say, to my reputation and my finances for speaking out, but I'm very confident in my position. Once you've arrived at that view, you know that attacks are manufactured, and so it's like they used to say about warfare. When you're over the target, that's when the flag is heaviest. So I think a lot of people... I'm not in their heads, so I don't know, but I think a lot of people chose to say nothing out of self-preservation, cowardice perhaps, or pragmatically. They realized they would just be destroyed. That's that.

I do think the origin in Britain was... We have a regulator of broadcasting in this country called Ofcom. I can't remember what it stands for. Office of Communications, something like that. And on the day of the first lockdown, March 23rd last year, they issued a four page guidance that said more or less, "We expect all broadcasters and that includes radio, TV, newspapers, to not say things that contradict the position of the government or their authorized health advisors," pretty much. Didn't quite say censorship but it said, "This is an emergency and it's not going to be appropriate for you to give the option of publicity to viewpoints that challenge that." And that still continues now, and we're about, I don't know, 55, 56 weeks into this emergency. So they laid a marker down pretty quickly and nobody on the main media, pretty much, said anything at all other than the government's official position.

And I think people noticed within a few weeks, it was, "That's not tolerated." So now we've had probably 11 and a half months of a single party line, and anyone who says anything knows there'll be attacked. So it's easy to understand why it's continued.

I actually am not able to answer your first question. Why is it that people didn't say something before the example of attacks had started, and I don't know. But I do know that friends of mine, some former friends actually, who damn well knew what was being said was a lie, and I asked for help and they said, "I'm not going to because it will threaten my position with the university and I won't get grants from certain granting bodies."

So yeah, plenty of people just self-preservation, cowardice, or as I say, maybe they were just pragmatists. Because I haven't got very far, my reward for trying to speak out has just been... I'm pretty much extinguished as a professional scientist.

John Kirby:

Well, I've seen this happening again and again. We've seen it happening all over the world. You know we've seen it happening to eminent epidemiologists like John Ioannidis, et cetera, et cetera, and of course the provisions that you're talking about that the British official censors have put in have been of course repeated throughout social media, YouTube, Twitter, et cetera, and we've experienced it ourselves on this channel.

And I want to thank you, by the way, for taking the risk that you've taken. I can tell you that it's much appreciated by many people all over the world and will continue to be. Let's hope it does some good. I want to give you a sample from a recent British publication. They call it The Summary of Modeling of Easing (Roadmap Step 2). And this is a short excerpt that I think is very telling it's buried in this document. It's on page 10. I don't know if you've seen it yet, but this is going back to the vaccine.

It says, "The resurgence in both hospitalizations and deaths is dominated by those that have received two doses of the vaccine, comprising around 60% and 70% of the wave respectively. This can be attributed to the high levels of uptake in the most at-risk age groups, such that immunization failures account for more serious illness than unvaccinated individuals. This is discussed further in paragraphs 55 and 56."

Well, what do you make of this? This seems to be an admission that people who have gotten their full complement of vaccine are more at risk of, I guess, the wild virus or who knows what? Immune dependent enhancement, antibody dependent enhancement? It's unclear what exactly they're saying, but they are essentially, it seems, admitting that if you've been vaccinated, you're now a greater danger of dying.

Mike Yeadon:

Yeah. I didn't read it like that. I mean, just a few things. Remember, these are models. They're models, please for God's sake, people. They're not chicken entrails. They don't have a time machine, right? They're not predictions of the future. What they are is mathematical models and the product of mathematical models, essentially, it's like a sausage factory. What you throw in one end and you turn the handle and a product comes out. So they're just telling you that they think if there's another wave, the subjects that would fall ill would come from the groups that you just described. I don't think they're necessarily saying that will happen because if they are, I will ask them, if I was in this room, "How the hell would you know that?" So I don't know why they've produced that forecast. It just looks like nonsense. But all of their models have been nonsense.

It's very strange that I've never seen that modeling group go back and say, "This is what we said what'll happen. Here's what happened and this is why you should have confidence in our forecast." And of course, the reason they haven't done that is that none of the forecasts have been even faintly close to the outturn. So I'm afraid our world seems to be being destroyed by credulous people paying attention to mathematical modeler's projections as to what will happen.

What I would say is, yeah, if the vaccine is effective and certainly the trials purport to show that, and I'm not in a position to say that that's not true... Although, I know some people say it's not true. But if the vaccines are effective, it's not possible to get what's called epidemic spreading. It doesn't matter... even if there were 20%, say, who are vulnerable, they might be vaccination failures. A percentage of people vaccinated don't become immune. That's true. But it will be very unlikely that they would acquire the virus because how could they, as I just described 10 minutes ago, they would need to encounter a source of infectiousness and there's very little of it and there were very few people who could be it. So I don't even understand the assumptions they've used in this most recent model that could possibly produce that outcome.

John Kirby:

Doctor, let's talk about what we've been observing in the short-term. I know one of the great concerns that we all share is what the long-term effects of this brand new experimental, some would call it a gene therapy injection is. But we've been seeing, and you and Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi have described short-term adverse reactions. What have we been seeing and how does that comport with some of the projections that you all were making?

Mike Yeadon:

Yeah, certainly. So, yes. I've been working with a number of scientists and physicians. We've called ourselves, I think it's Doctors for COVID Ethics, and we've written a number of times to European Medicines Agency, that's the agency that regulates medical products. We noticed just through the network, we were hearing that a number of people were suffering what we would call thromboembolic disorders. So disorders of blood clots and of bleeding, oddly enough.

And I was looking at some of the basic science, and with horror. I came across a number of papers that were written between 2000 and 2010 about the spikes. The spike proteins on the earlier SARS virus, 2003. And I realized to my horror that the spike protein is not a passive protein that the virus uses to anchor onto a sort of docking receptor on the outside of human cells, which he uses then to enter the cell. It's not a passive protein at all. It's biologically active. The spike protein is biologically active. It can be described as fusogenic, that is it prompt cells that it contacts to stick together, even including blood platelets. And as you probably will gather, once blood platelets start sticking together, that can be the initiation of a blood clot. And furthermore, those spike proteins are capable of initiating some of the steps of the blood coagulation pathway. So this is potentially a lethal combination.

I didn't know it at the time. I came across it a couple of months ago. But you would think that the vaccine manufacturers should have done their homework and checked whether or not the piece of dead virus that they were having human cells manufactured through these gene based vaccines would not itself be harmful. But it seems to me, I can only assume they missed it. What these vaccines all do is they encourage your body to manufacture that spike protein, or part of that protein and stick it on the outside of a cell or release it from those cells.

And so it struck me at the time that could be both an explanation for some of the thromboembolic disorders, and furthermore, you could expect that you would get some very serious cases. And let me just explain why.

By contrast with traditional vaccines, where you would be given a defined dose of a dead pathogen, so you'd know how much you were getting. With these gene based vaccines, you'll get a defined dose of it, but depending on where it lands in your body, as it distributes, how efficiently it's taken up, how efficiently it's copied, how well that genetic message is translated into the spike protein, you could end up with quite different outcomes. And I believe some people were unfortunate and perhaps had a greater distribution of the vaccine into perhaps certain vulnerable vessels in their brain. And perhaps in some of those people, the vaccine was taken up well and copied efficiently. And if you furthermore imagine, some of those patients were perhaps in an unstable position, they could easily be prompted to form a clot. That's all you need to hypothesize in order to explain the deaths in healthy young women, aged 20 to 50 with an extremely unusual cerebral vein sinus thrombosis.

But I think those side effects are occurring in other blood vessels that are moving relatively slowly. Certainly there are some in the abdomen, the so-called splanchnic vein. Any slow moving blood vessel, if you're unlucky enough to have a disproportionately large dose land there and to be efficiently taken up and efficiently copied, now you've got an amount of the spike protein that you really don't want in the inside of your blood vessels, lurking there, able to perhaps prompt the start of a serious adverse event.

So it is my contention that all of the gene based vaccines that work fundamentally like that, that they harness the body's ability to manufacture the spike protein or part of it, I think all of them should be regarded as having, to an extent, a class risk. I think you should regard all of them as having that risk. So one of the things I've been both annoyed and furious and terrified all at the same time, is this increasing push by government, certainly in the United Kingdom and I know in other places, to push this vaccine down and down into the younger and younger population.

Yet we know from the work of Dr. John Ioannidis and others, that the strongest risk factor for becoming very ill and dying after being infected by this virus is age. So if you're younger than about 70 and you don't have any pre-existing illnesses, you're really very unlikely to die. In fact, less likely to die with this virus than influenza. So why would anybody want to give it to someone under 50 who's well, under 40 who's well, or under 30 who's well? And I'm afraid my government is hell-bent on vaccinating everybody from the age of 18 and over. And at the same time, I think it's briefly paused, but there is an ongoing pediatric study as well. Of course, why would they do that? It's because they want to vaccinate all the children as well.

And I put it to you and any listener, can you think of a benign explanation for why you would want to give an experimental use authorized gene-based vaccine to millions, tens of millions of people who cannot possibly die if they ran into this virus? And the answer is, no, you can't, can you? So if you can't think of a benign explanation for what's happening, and remember it's not the only bad thing that's happening, you have to start looking for malign explanations.

I think I've come across what it is, and it's this damn vaccine passport. Now there's a lot of talk about vaccine passports, and then they're just nonsense. Let me just explain. If you're a vulnerable person and you've chosen to be vaccinated and all has gone well, and it will in most cases, you are now protected. You do not need to know the immune status of anyone around you in a football game or theater or a shop. You wouldn't benefit from the presence of a vaccine passport in the hands of anyone around you because you're protected by your vaccination. If on the other hand, you've chosen not to be vaccinated because you're young and healthy and you've looked at the statistics and you're not at risk from the virus, you don't need to know anyone else's immune status either. You don't need to see their vaccine passport. So neither the vaccinated nor the unvaccinated benefit at all from vaccine passports. But I can tell you who will benefit the people who are pushing it on you.

And guess what? If vaccine passports come into being, they will be the world's first common format digital ID for every person on the planet. And at least one editable health related flag, which will be is your vaccine passport valid or not. Then whoever controls that database can set the algorithm to allow someone who's got a valid vaccine passport to cross a boundary, like an international border or getting into a shop or a sports game, and it will prohibit people who don't have that from doing those things.

I've just explained to you that it doesn't benefit any of the people, but it definitely benefits the totalitarian controllers who have that database. It's never been like this in the world before, and I believe if it goes live, we'll not only be standing at the gates of hell, we'll just be given a little push and in we'll go.

Because once you're on the system and your whole life is permissioned by your status on the system, have you got a valid vaccine or not, then you can be made to do absolutely anything. So let me just imagine this situation. Six months time, your vaccine passport app pings, and there's a message there that says, "Dr. Yeadon, it's time to come down for your top-up vaccine," which we'll talk about in a minute. And there's another little ping. And it says, "And please bring your 10-year-old grandchild down. We've noticed they've not been vaccinated." And final comment will be, "Just need to let you know, if you don't comply with these two requirements within three weeks, your vaccine passport will expire and you will be excluded from your life and all parts of your life."

So you might think that you wouldn't let your grandchild be vaccinated, but I've just told you. I've shown you. If you let this damn thing go live, you'll be coerced into doing it. You will have no way out. You will have to comply.

And then why would you want to top-up vaccine? This is the thing that really catalyzed my recent series of interviews. I know as an immunologist, I would say one of my strongest suits is immunology, and I am absolutely confident that all the stories they are telling you around the world about variants is a lie. It's a complete fraud. I can exemplify. So we're all being told about variants, the Brazilian, the Kent, South African, and so on. I just asked people just to take a deep breath, recognize it's a big virus. It consists of what's called amino acids, 10,000 of them in strings, and then they're all folded up to form the characteristic shape that you know and hate.

If you go look for the virus that is most different from the one originally sequenced in Wu Han, about 16 months ago, you will find that the most different variance is only 0.3% different. So it's 99.7% identical. They're all of them 99.7% identical to the original. And you might be thinking that doesn't sound like enough to escape the human immune system, and you're right. It's not, and I can prove it. The 2003 SARS virus is related to SARS‑CoV‑2. They differ by about 20%, two zero. So about 80 times as much variation between those two viruses and any of the variants of the current one.

And I can assure you that when immunology researchers found scores of people who've been infected by SARS in 2003, they took blood samples from these volunteers. They confirmed two important things. One, all of the survivors still had really good immune memory to the virus they encountered 17 years ago. This is what you'd expect. But what was wonderful is they all also possessed what's called cross-immunity, that is their immune system recognize the new virus. And I'm not surprised. The human immune system essentially takes multiple pictures of any pathogen that it encounters, often between 15 and 30 pictures, and basically none of the variants change more than a couple of those pictures. So when you encounter the variant, having been immunized by infection or vaccination, it's impossible, it's not just implausible, it's impossible that your body doesn't recognize that variant as something it's seen before.

So your governments are lying to you, and in my case, United Kingdom has closed the border effectively, really restricted international travel. And the reason they give is because of these variants, which I know for certain is a lie. They're not a problem at all.

But furthermore, what's absolutely terrifying is two further bits of information, which I want your viewers and listeners to hear. The pharmaceutical industry is already manufacturing so-called top-up or variant vaccines. Now, if I'm right and they're not... these variants aren't different enough to warrant a different vaccine, and they are not, what is it that they're manufacturing? I don't know the answer to that question, but I'm actually terrified.

And then when I give you one last piece of information. A few weeks ago, the world's medicines regulators, including the FDA, European Medicines Agency and their sibling in Japan, and they issued a statement that said that "the variant or top-up vaccines are so similar to the parent vaccines from which they were derived, we will not require the drug companies to run any clinical safety studies on them." So, yes, you've got that right. If the drug company designs a vaccine on a computer, it'll go straight to manufacturing, and as long as it meets manufacturing quality standards, it can then be injected into the arms of hundreds of millions or even billions of people.

And remember what I said about the vaccine passports, once they're up and running, once it tells you to do something on pain of losing the validity of your vaccine passport, you will comply. Now, if you wanted to really-

John Kirby:

Doctor... Yeah, go ahead.

Mike Yeadon:

Yeah. If you wanted to be really terrified, since it's not my crime, I don't know why they're manufacturing top-up vaccines, and so I don't know what their intent is in injecting you. But you don't need a particularly vivid imagination to think that since so much of this crisis has been malign and there is no benign interpretation of what's going on, it certainly has the potential to be a very harmful event.

John Kirby:

What should people do when they're confronted with this pressure? And there's enormous pressure all over the world. It's not obviously just in the UK or America, it's everywhere. There's enormous pressure to take this vaccine. As you say, there's the looming passport, it's already been instituted in Israel.

Mike Yeadon:


John Kirby:

What should people do? What's the best response? How can we resist this?

Mike Yeadon:

Well honestly, it's not any harder than it sounds actually. It's to say, "Thank you very much for your generous offer of a free vaccine, but for my own reasons, I've decided to decline," and do not engage in debate with them. You don't need to explain your decision. You're a sovereign human being. You decide what goes into your body or not. So just say, "Thanks very much, but I'm declining," and do not engage them in discussions, even if they insist. You'll say, "Look, I've made my decision. Thank you very much." And then the other thing that must be done is to prevent the vaccine passport system coming into being. You're being told that it's necessary to regain confidence, but I've just explained that if your vaccinated you're protected. If you have chosen not to be vaccinated, you don't need to know. So no one needs to know anybody else's immune status.

There's no benign reason for it to come in. I think we can easily recover our confidence, frankly, just by being told the truth. That's what's needed, not some ghastly, nightmarish, totalitarian control system, because I'm afraid that's what it'll be. I actually think that was always the objective. So legislators, if you're listening or people who know people who are legislators, I'm afraid, get on their case. Explain to them that there are no advantages. Don't let them fool you into, "It'll only be a temporary measure." What, like income tax? Once it starts, there's no recovery from it. I've just explained and I've given you examples that if you're asked to do anything at all for yourself or in relation to your children and grandchildren, if you're told, "If you don't comply, we will henceforth turn off the validity of your vaccine passport." Say you won't be to go to the shops anymore. Eventually you might not be able to buy gasoline or leave your house. Whatever the rules the controllers set, you will then be coerced into doing whatever they tell you.

Is that really what you wanted? If not, you better start demonstrating because single individuals, like me, can do nothing. I can warn you and explain how much danger we're in. But you behind the camera, you watching, if you don't do something, these criminals are going to steal liberal democracy and freedom forever.