Jump to content
Chapala.com Webboard

If this guy doesn't know who does?


Recommended Posts

Quote

Former Pfizer VP Michael Yeadon maintains that since the infection fatality ratio of COVID-19 has not been high, the vaccines should not have been mandated.

Moreover, he heavily blasted the corporate media mantras that designate these as safe, effective, and necessary to end the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) virus pandemic.

Yeadon is a big pharma veteran with 32 years in the industry. He worked as the head of allergy and respiratory research at Pfizer from 1995 to 2011 and is the former founder and CEO of Ziarco, a biotech company acquired by Novartis. Furthermore, he has a doctorate in respiratory pharmacology and holds a Double First Class Honors degree in biochemistry and toxicology.

A shocking 1,223 deaths and 42,086 adverse events were reported to Pfizer from the first day of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine rollout on Dec. 1, 2020, to Feb. 28, 2021.

“The worst flu season over the last decade is worse than [the threat] posed by this new virus,” Yeadon told The Epoch Times via email.

“And what do we do in response to seasonal influenza? Well, nothing really, beyond offering—and not mandating—vaccines which aren’t much use.”

Of important note is that the exact number of fatalities in China, where the virus originated, has been suppressed by the communist regime and could be 366 times the official figure.

Yeadon said that being sure the vaccines would cause no harm in the long run should have been imperative.

“It was never appropriate to attempt to ‘end the pandemic’ with a novel technology vaccine. In a public health mass intervention, safety is the top priority, more so even than effectiveness, because so many people will receive it,” Yeadon states in a document he sent to The Epoch Times.

“It’s simply not possible to obtain data demonstrating adequate longitudinal safety in the time period any pandemic can last. Those who pushed this line of argument and enabled the gene-based agents to be injected needlessly into billions of innocent people are guilty of crimes against humanity.”

Yeadon argues that natural immunity was obviously stronger than any protection from the jabs, and cited an article by Dr. Paul Alexander that has over 150 studies attesting to naturally acquired immunity to COVID-19.

Yeadon feels that the novel vaccines should have not been given emergency use authorization (EUA) and that if he were directing the pandemic response, children, pregnant women, and people who already had contracted the virus would have been given a red light on the jabs.

“I would have outright denied their use in children, in pregnancy, and in the infected/recovered. Point blank. I’d need years of safe use before contemplating an alteration of this stance.”

He further argues that the vaccines were sure to be toxic and it was only a matter of degree of toxicity.

“Having selected spike protein to be expressed, a protein which causes blood clotting to be initiated, a risk of thromboembolic adverse events was burned into the design. Nothing at all limits the amount of spike protein to be made in response to a given dose. Some individuals make a little and only briefly. The other end of a normal range results in synthesis of copious amounts of spike protein for a prolonged period. The locations in which this pathological event occurred, as well as where on the spectrum, in my view played a pivotal role in whether the victim experienced adverse events including death,” Yeadon said.

“There are many other pathologies flowing from the design of these agents, including for the mRNA ‘vaccines’ that lipid nanoparticle formulations leave the injection site and home to liver and ovaries, among other organs, but this evidence is enough to get started.”

Earlier this month, a physician said that he has been seeing an unusual amount of fetal death and miscarriages linked to the COVID-19 vaccines—according to his observations—and noted that mRNA products, contained in nanoparticles, accumulate in the ovaries.

“From data that we have, there appears to be a concentration of the lipid nanoparticles, which are very, very small particles, which are in the vaccine that are injected into the arm,” Dr. James Thorp told The Epoch Times, “and then the vast majority of those are dispersed throughout the entire body.”

A lipid nanoparticle is a fat-soluble membrane that is the cargo of the messenger RNA.

“They appear to concentrate in the ovaries, and they appear to cross all God-made barriers in the human body, the blood-brain barrier, the placental barrier during pregnancy, into the fetal bloodstream, and all the fetal tissues inside the womb, crossing the blood-brain barrier in the fetus, the baby in the womb, which is very concerning,” he noted, since the eggs produced by women are limited in number, and they would be “exposed to a potentially disastrous toxic lipid nanoparticle.”

Another concern that Yeadon had not noticed during his initial study was that “the mRNA products (Pfizer & Moderna) would accumulate in ovaries.”

“An FOI request to the Japanese Medicines Agency revealed that product accumulation in ovaries occurred in experiments in rodents,” Yeadon said. “I searched the literature based on these specific concerns and found a 2012 review, explicitly drawing attention to the evidence that the lipid nanoparticle formulations as a class do, in fact, accumulate in ovaries and may represent an unappreciated reproductive risk to humans. This was ‘a well known problem’ to experts in that field.”

A 2012 study says that after testing with different mouse species and Wistar rats, “a high local accumulation of nanoparticles, nanocapsules, and nanoemulsions in specific locations of the ovaries was found in all animals.”

Referring to the study, Yeadon told The Epoch Times that “the authors tell untruths. They say something like ‘there was no increase in anti-syncytin-1 antibodies.’”

“No, that’s wrong. Their data is clearly 2.5X increased after vaccination and obviously statistically significant (functional significance is looking confirmed by the miscarriage rate),” Yeadon noted.

“What they’ve done is cute. They’ve chosen a completely arbitrary level they scribed on the figure below which they claim nothing matters. No evidence whatsoever for that claim. In fact, in the discussion, they confess we don’t know the relationship between antibodies and the impact on function.”

Yeadon believes that the pharmaceutical industry “definitely knew,” since 2012, that the lipid nanoparticles would accumulate in the ovaries of women that took the vaccines.

“No one in the industry or in leading media could claim ‘they didn’t know about these risks to successful pregnancy.’”

Another recent study found that Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine goes into liver cells and is converted to DNA, a process called reverse-transcription.

 

https://www.theepochtimes.com/people-who-pushed-idea-of-universal-vaccination-are-guilty-of-crimes-against-humanity-former-pfizer-vp_4462787.html

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, econ man said:

If this guy doesn't know who does?

 

Not you.

ooooh---good one---HA--These pharma companies are all in it for the money-- They all should be Rico'ed and put out of business--all those profits are ripe for corruption--all the uninformed will get boosted to infinity and beyond------HA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Mainecoons said:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Yeadon

Michael Yeadon is a British anti-vaccine activist[1][2] and retired pharmacologist who attracted media attention for making false or unfounded claims about the COVID-19 pandemic and the safety of COVID-19 vaccines.[3][1] The Times has described him as "a hero of Covid conspiracy theorists"[4] and "a key figure in the antivax movement".[5] He previously served as the chief scientist and vice-president of the allergy and respiratory research division of the drug company Pfizer, and is the co-founder and former CEO of the biotechnology company Ziarco."

 

Another nut case obviously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Jreboll said:

For anyone wanting to know more about Michael Yeadon:

https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/health-coronavirus-vaccines-skeptic/

Here goes MC again scrounging around lookin for someone who backs his beliefs.  That’s like an old whore going to shanty town looking for business wanting to find anyone. Anyone.

OUCH !-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The usual ad hom from the heavily vax biased.  You all can never seem to come up with factual rebuttals, just personal attack sources.

Why is that do you suppose?

What is the connection here?

https://www.brightworkresearch.com/how-the-fake-covid-fact-checker-reuters-does-not-disclose-pfizer-financial-connections/

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Mainecoons said:

The usual ad hom from the heavily vax biased.  You all can never seem to come up with factual rebuttals, just personal attack sources.

Why is that do you suppose?

What is the connection here?

https://www.brightworkresearch.com/how-the-fake-covid-fact-checker-reuters-does-not-disclose-pfizer-financial-connections/

 

Full disclosure:

i have no financial or legal connection to any pharmaceutical company.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, AlanMexicali said:

Of  couse you would. LOL

And you should be.

Another guy who would know:'

Quote

However, it’s worth exploring numerous studies and concerns that Wikipedia has a left-wing bias, including from Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger.

 
 

The sheer volume of content on Wikipedia, as well as its nature as an encyclopedia rather than a collection of journalism and breaking news headlines, makes it hard for us to assess Wikipedia as we typically do for news outlets, but we thought it useful to explain the most common claims of Wikipedia bias in this blog post. You can vote on what you think the bias of Wikipedia is here, or email us feedback.

AllSides uses Wikipedia frequently as a source on our balanced topics pages, and it is the 13th most popular website in the world, so Wikipedia’s bias is worth discussing. Sanger has accused Wikipedia of bias, and some have noted the site’s entries related to communism and socialism fail to mention the crimes and genocides committed under those regimes. Studies have found Wikipedia employs left-wing bias in its word choice, relies more on left-wing news sources for its citations, and sanctions conservative editors at a 6 times higher rate. People typically point to five studies that have found evidence of Wikipedia’s left-wing bias; AllSides hasn’t found any claims of conservative bias leveraged at Wikipedia; the encyclopedia Conservapedia was created in response to purported Wikipedia liberal bias.

https://www.allsides.com/blog/wikipedia-biased

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Mainecoons said:

The usual ad hom from the heavily vax biased.  You all can never seem to come up with factual rebuttals, just personal attack sources.

Why is that do you suppose?

What is the connection here?

https://www.brightworkresearch.com/how-the-fake-covid-fact-checker-reuters-does-not-disclose-pfizer-financial-connections/

 

Because the vazzers screwed up and are in denial that they got scammed--I bet a lot of them are looking for a detox;  good luck with that one--they are in the realm of the unknown--

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look this was never a vacine but a therapeutic.  And the people 25 and under had a larger chance to die in a car accident then from covid.  And the test from Isreal are showing those who got vacinated are more likely to catch all future variations then the unvacxed.

Edited by Mexicoafterlife
Mis spelling
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Mexicoafterlife said:

Look this was never a vacine but a therapeutic.  And the people 25 and under had a larger chance to die in a cat accident then from covid.  And the test from Isreal are showing those who got vacinated are more likely to catch all future variations then the unvacxed.

It was not sold that way.  Remember "two shots and return to normal life?"

Then it was one booster.

Then it was two boosters.

Then it was, these "vaccines" neither prevent getting or spreading covid but you won't get as sick.

Now it is repeated boosters.

Sure.  :D 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Mainecoons said:

It was not sold that way.  Remember "two shots and return to normal life?"

Then it was one booster.

Then it was two boosters.

Then it was, these "vaccines" neither prevent getting or spreading covid but you won't get as sick.

Now it is repeated boosters.

Sure.  :D 

Yeah I remember the first week we were still in the USA living full time in our 40' country coach magna rv and they said it was going to kill 60 to 80 million Americans! So me and my wife took it all very seriously.  Then the real numbers came out and we went ohh well the govt lied to us again. We are both vets so we are used to it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Jreboll said:

Another brilliant immunologist!

No just someone who has critical thinking skills and gets all the info so I can make informed choices. And not a sheep who just follows the herd lead by the federal govt with its ohh so great record of telling the truth. Lol

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Mexicoafterlife said:

Look this was never a vacine but a therapeutic.  And the people 25 and under had a larger chance to die in a car accident then from covid.  And the test from Isreal are showing those who got vacinated are more likely to catch all future variations then the unvacxed.

Love how this post says you edited it due to mispelling, yet it still has 4 spelling errors. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, mudgirl said:

Love how this post says you edited it due to mispelling, yet it still has 4 spelling errors. 

Lol didn't know baby boomers had so many spelling nazis.  But if that is all you can find then I did good because you couldn't make a good argument for or against.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Jreboll said:

Aren’t you defining yourself. Highly trained sheep seems is what you did for a living.

I served my country as did my wife during a time of war someone had too.  And then to help protect the citizens from very dangerous and evil people.  So if you say sheep it's your opinion. But from what I have seem you spent your whole life not doing anything for the country you prospered from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Mexicoafterlife said:

Lol didn't know baby boomers had so many spelling nazis.  But if that is all you can find then I did good because you couldn't make a good argument for or against.

Just seems like if you are going to rant about vaccines, you might want to learn how to spell the word correctly. It's hard to give credence to people's point of view when they appear to be poorly educated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...