In a recent article, Dr. Michael Yeadon, who “spent over 30 years leading new [allergy and respiratory] medicines research in some of the world’s largest pharmaceutical companies,” and retired from Pfizer with “the most senior research position in this field,” wrote:
There is absolutely no need for vaccines to extinguish the pandemic. I’ve never heard such nonsense talked about vaccines. You do not vaccinate people who aren’t at risk from a disease. You also don’t set about planning to vaccinate millions of fit and healthy people with a vaccine that hasn’t been extensively tested on human subjects.
The British national’s comments come at the end of a comprehensive criticism of the Scientific Advisor Group for Emergencies (SAGE), a government agency of the U.K. tasked with advising the central government in emergencies. SAGE has played a predominant role in determining public lockdown policies in the U.K., including those recently implemented, as a response to the COVID-19 virus.
After pointing out that SAGE lacked essential expertise in the field they are addressing, with “no clinical immunologists” as members, Yeadon highlights two fundamental errors they have made in their presuppositions which cause their overall conclusions to go radically awry leading to the “torturing [of] the population for the last seven months or so.”
Yeadon states this notion is “ridiculous because while SARS-CoV-2 is indeed novel, coronaviruses are not. There’s no such thing as an ‘ancestor-less virus’.” Indeed, he points out, there are at least “four, endemic, common-cold inducing coronaviruses … [which] circulate freely in UK and elsewhere.” Those who have been infected by “one or more of these endemic, common-cold producing coronaviruses in the past, have a long-lived and robust [T-cell] immunity, not only to those viruses, but to closely related viruses. SARS-CoV-2 is one such closely-related virus.”
Striking once again at the competence of SAGE, Dr. Yeadon states, “To not expect such cross-over is … to demonstrate the lack of the requisite understanding to build a model reliable enough to use.”
Further, he states, that the common PCR test which is used for detecting COVID-19 “cases,” may come out positive when someone is infected with one of these common cold coronaviruses rendering this test that much less reliable. Of course, based on the final results of these tests, many thousands of individuals have been ordered to disrupt their lives and “self-quarantine” for up to 14 days.
Finally, drawing from the scientific data, Dr. Yeadon concludes that due to previous exposure to common-cold coronaviruses, “a significant proportion (30%) of the population went into 2020 armed with T-cells capable of defending them against SARS-CoV-2, even though they had never seen the virus… SAGE was naively wrong to assume ‘everyone was susceptible’.”
SAGE’s second erroneous assumption is “The belief that the percentage of the population that has been infected can be determined by surveying what fraction of the population has antibodies” developed due to infection with COVID-19.
Because of this assumption, “SAGE believes that less than 10% of the population have so far been infected by SARS-CoV-2.”
However, Yeadon clarifies that it’s “well understood that not every person, infected by a respiratory virus, goes on to produce antibodies. And many people, having prior immunity, never get properly infected anyway.”
While almost all of those with significant symptoms, who were admitted to a hospital, produce antibodies, those with “milder responses to the virus” do not “all produce antibodies.” Nevertheless, all of those infected have been shown to have “T-cells in their blood, capable of responding to SARS-CoV-2,” and thus they still develop immunity.
Drawing from two independent methods, which arrive at the same general conclusion, Yeadon demonstrates that the real infection rate is “in the mid-20s to low-30’s per cent,” and thus SAGE’s estimate of 7% “is a gross and amateur underestimate.”
With a false presumption that 100% of the population is susceptible to the virus, along with only 7% having been infected, it is the view of SAGE, that “the pandemic has only just begun.” Yeadon clarifies, however, that this is “palpable nonsense.”
Since it is demonstrable that “around 30% of the population had prior immunity,” and if one includes some young children who are “resistant,” 40%, and while considering that the infection rate is “somewhere [in] the mid-20s to low-30s per cent,” this means that around 65 to 72% of the population currently has immunity to COVID-19.
And considering the reality of herd immunity, when susceptibility to a virus falls this low, at around 28 to 35%, “that population can no longer support an expanding outbreak of disease,” and thus the virus “wanes and disappears.”
Therefore, Yeadon concludes, “the pandemic is effectively over and can easily be handled by a properly functioning NHS (National Health Service). Accordingly, the country should immediately be permitted to get back to normal life.”
He further stipulates that he is “incandescent with rage at the damage” SAGE has “inflicted” on the U.K., charging that they have “either been irredeemably incompetent” or “dishonest,” and thus “they should be disbanded immediately and reconstituted,” as “they haven’t a grasp of even the basics required to build a model and because their models are often frighteningly useless.”
Despite an estimated 65 to 72% of the population now having immunity to COVID-19, a percentage which indicates a critical level of herd immunity, Operation Warp Speed in the United States appears intent to follow the globalist campaign advanced by Bill Gates and vaccinate all 328 million people in the nation with the Pfizerproduct or others emerging for approved distribution in the coming months.
Notwithstanding the fact that no vaccine has ever been successfully developed for any coronavirus, and such an endeavor would normally take years to safely and adequately complete, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has permitted the fast-tracking of this process skipping the standard stage of testing on animals to directly test these vaccines on humans.
Immediate results from some of these trials have included “severe” complications, involving headaches, fever, body aches and symptoms similar to a “severe hangover.” Further, as the New York Times emphasized, Pfizer’s initial claim that their vaccine was “more than 90 percent effective,” was “delivered in a news release, not a peer-reviewed medical journal. It is not conclusive evidence that the vaccine is safe and effective.”
And given the enormous scale of the stated goal, of administering these chemicals to hundreds of millions of people, when there is normally some rate of severe complications to the use of vaccines, the negative results may be significant. For example, one study of influenza vaccines administered to adults over 65 years of age, found a rate of approximately 1% which experienced severe side effects. If a COVID-19 vaccine is merely similar for individuals in the same age bracket (54M in population), that would equate to 540,000 individuals in this age bracket alone who may need medical care in a hospital system which provides less than 925,000 total beds.
Curiously, there is evidence that at least the United Kingdom is preparing for a high number of adverse effects due to the COVID-19 vaccinations. That government’s Medicines & Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), posted a bid request stating that “For reasons of extreme urgency,” they seek “an Artificial Intelligence (AI) software tool to process the expected high volume of Covid-19 vaccine Adverse Drug Reaction (ADRs).” It goes on to explain that “it is not possible to retrofit the MHRA’s legacy systems to handle the volume of ADRs that will be generated by a Covid-19 vaccine,” and that this “represents a direct threat to patient life and public health.”
Other concerns about the Pfizer vaccine is that it would be the first to use “an as-yet-unproven technology platform that relies on something called messenger RNA, usually shortened to mRNA.” Moderna, another corporation striving to develop a COVID-19 vaccine, is also venturing to utilize this mRNA platform. In May, Children’s Health Defense reported that clinical trials for Moderna’s vaccine had a 20% “serious injury rate” in its high-dose group.
Debi Vinnedge, executive director at Children of God for Life, a pro-life organization which specializes in the moral evaluation of vaccines, told LifeSiteNews, “[I]f Moderna and Pfizer are the ones supplying the first rounds of vaccines and they mandate it, that could be a disaster. They are both using brand new technology with the mRNA that has never been used in a vaccine before and they are pushing this through in a matter of months of testing, rather than the typical 4-6 years of testing.”
A report from Civic Science (CS) indicates “a steady decline in the percentage of U.S. adults who say they’re ‘very’ comfortable with vaccines overall.” In fact, CS states, “the monthly percentage of those highly comfortable with vaccinations at large fell more than twenty percentage points since the start of 2020 (69% in January compared to October’s 47%).”
In addition, “only 22% percent of those surveyed say they would get the vaccine right away,” and CS concludes, “it’s clear that hesitancy to receive a future vaccine … is running rampant across the country” and this “sheds light on just how difficult it is for many to trust a future vaccine right now.”
Serving to counteract this trend, Yale University, in collaboration with the U.S. government, sponsored a study to determine the most effective means of persuading Americans to take the COVID-19 vaccine.
The study tests a variety of approaches, such as appeals to “Personal freedom,” “Economic benefit,” “Self-interest,” fears of “Guilt,” “Embarrassment,” and actually being a coward.
While several of the appeals are straightforward arguments, others hint at a willingness to use public shaming to elicit compliance.
One, for instance, “asks the participant to imagine the guilt they will feel if they don’t get vaccinated and spread the disease,” with variants exchanging guilt with anger or embarrassment. Another suggests someone who refuses vaccination “doesn’t understand how infections are spread or who ignores science.” Another declares that “those who choose not to get vaccinated against COVID-19 are not brave.”
The findings of this study will likely influence the messaging of state officials and academic institutions who have discussed mandating vaccination, as well as advertising campaigns surrounding a vaccine once it is completed.
Other strategies of coercion being developed include the “bundling” of vaccine mandates “with other safety net services,” for the poor, including “food security, rent assistance, and free clinic services” for “vulnerable populations,” with “Black and minority communities” receiving special mention.
And the District of Columbia (DC) is advancing a bill which circumvents parental consent when it comes to their minor children being given a vaccine. The “Minor Consent for Vaccinations Amendment Act of 2019,” states, “this bill permits a minor of any age to consent to receive a vaccine where the vaccination is recommended by the United States Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. It also establishes that if a minor is able to comprehend the need for, the nature of, and any significant risks inherent in the medical care then informed consent is established.”
According to The Vaccine Reaction, “The bill would not only permit children aged 11 years and older to give consent for doctors and other vaccine administrators to give them vaccines without their parents’ knowledge or consent, but would also require insurance companies, vaccine administrators and schools to conceal from parents that the child has been vaccinated.”
The report clarifies, “If this bill passes, it is clear that minor children will be at risk of being pressured and coerced into getting a COVID-19 vaccine behind their parents’ back.”
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., nephew of former U.S. president John F. Kennedy, environmental attorney, author, and founder of Children’s Health Defense, has been raising awareness about vaccines injuring children for decades. In addition to the organization’s firm opposition to the DC bill above, Kennedy has singled out Pfizer as one of several vaccine producers with a record of incurring criminal penalties for their products.
“In the past 10 years, just in the last decade, those companies have paid 35 billion dollars in criminal penalties, damages, fines, for lying to doctors, for defrauding science, for falsifying science, for killing hundreds of thousands of Americans knowingly,” Kennedy said during the debate.
“It requires a cognitive dissonance for people who understand the criminal corporate cultures of these four companies to believe that they’re doing this in every other product that they have, but they’re not doing it with vaccines.”
Following the announcement of Pfizer’s “90 percent effective” coronavirus vaccine, with the anticipation of imminent release, the firm’s stock price rose “15 per cent from $36.40 … to $41.94 per share,” at which point the company’s CEO and Chairman, Albert Bourla, sold 61.8 per cent of his shares in the company “for almost $5.6 million.” The Independent reports that in response to inquiries Pfizer replied that this transaction was an “automated process, set up earlier this year” where “shares are sold provided they go above a pre-agreed price.”
While a government, media and corporate campaign prepares to “inoculate 300 million Americans by spring of 2021,” the voice of Michael Yeadon, along with those of tens of thousands of other medical scientists and practitioners remain suppressed and unheeded.
“Any such proposals” of universal inoculation, Yeadon writes, “are not only completely unnecessary but if done using any kind of coercion at all, illegal.”
“I would completely understand and would consider accepting early use of a vaccine only if done with fully informed consent and, even then, only if offered to the most vulnerable in our community. Other proposals have, to me, the whiff of evil about them and I will oppose them as vigorously as I have followed the pandemic so far,” he concluded.
32,000 Health Experts Sign Declaration Against Lockdowns
“The most compassionate approach … is to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity.”
BY OMID GHOREISHI
More than 32,000 medical doctors and other health scientists from around the world have signed a petition against lockdowns put in place to curb the spread of COVID-19, saying that the measures are causing “irreparable damage.”
As of Oct. 13, more than 23,000 of those signatories were medical practitioners and 9,000 were medical and public health scientists. They have joined more than 400,000 members of the general public in signing the petition.
The petition is co-authored by Dr. Martin Kulldorff, a Harvard professor and epidemiologist with expertise in detecting and monitoring infectious disease; Dr. Sunetra Gupta, an Oxford University professor and epidemiologist with expertise in immunology; and Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, a Stanford University Medical School professor and epidemiologist with expertise in infectious disease and vulnerable populations.
“Coming from both the left and right, and around the world, we have devoted our careers to protecting people. Current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and longterm public health,” reads the petition, titled the Great Barrington Declaration, after the Massachusetts town where it was crafted by the three experts on Oct. 4.
The declaration says lockdowns result in worsening cardiovascular disease outcomes, fewer cancer screenings, lower childhood vaccination rates, and deteriorating mental health, to name a few issues, all of which will lead to high mortality in the years to come.
“Keeping students out of school is a grave injustice,” the doctors write.
Instead of shutting everything down until a vaccine is available, the experts say focus should be on minimizing mortality and social harm until herd immunity is reached. Herd immunity refers to when a population becomes immune to an infectious disease, which the signing doctors say will eventually be reached for all populations, and can be assisted by, but not dependent upon, a vaccine.
“Fortunately, our understanding of the virus is growing. We know that vulnerability to death from COVID-19 is more than a thousand-fold higher in the old and infirm than the young. Indeed, for children, COVID-19 is less dangerous than many other harms, including influenza,” the declaration states. The declaration says public health officials should aim to protect the most vulnerable population, while allowing those who are not vulnerable to “resume life as normal.”
“The most compassionate approach that balances the risks and benefits of reaching herd immunity, is to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection, while better protecting those who are at highest risk.”
Measures to protect the vulnerable population, the declaration says, can include examples such as minimizing staff rotations at nursing homes, delivering groceries and other essentials to retired people living at home, and the elderly meeting family members outside rather than inside when possible. Meanwhile, all members of society should take simple hygiene measures such as hand-washing and staying home when sick to bring down the herd immunity threshold, the doctors say.
But young low-risk adults should be allowed to work normally, rather than from home; schools should be opened for in-person teaching; and extracurricular activities such as sports should be resumed, the declaration says.
“Arts, music, sport, and other cultural activities should resume. People who are more at risk may participate if they wish, while society as a whole enjoys the protection conferred upon the vulnerable by those who have built up herd immunity,” the declaration says.
Dr. Matt Strauss, one of the Canadian doctors who has put his name to the declaration, told the Toronto Sun that most medical professionals he has talked to agree that the lockdowns are bringing more harm than benefit.
“I don’t even think my opinion is a minority opinion among the experts I work with,” said Strauss, a critical care physician and professor at Queen’s University School of Medicine.
In August, Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said the United States doesn’t need another lockdown to contain COVID-19, provided that Americans embrace “five or six fundamental public health measures.”
Fauci, a member of the White House coronavirus task force, told Politico’s “Pulse Check” podcast on Aug. 5 that “we can get through this without having to revert back to a shutdown,” but only if everyone follows such basics as wearing masks, social distancing, and thorough hygiene.
Meanwhile, a study published in the British Medical Journal last week says that while initial restrictions were effective at reducing the burden in intensive care units in UK hospitals, maintaining the lockdowns would prolong the pandemic and increase the number of deaths.
“The model predicted that school closures and isolation of younger people would increase the total number of deaths, albeit postponed to a second and subsequent waves,” says the study, based on the data used by the British government when it imposed lockdowns in March. Isabel van Brugen contributed to this report.
Fully referenced facts about Covid-19, provided by experts in the field, to help our readers make a realistic risk assessment. (Regular updates below)
“The only means to fight the plague is honesty.” (Albert Camus, 1947)
For full article go here