Former Pfizer Vice President Mike Yeadon discusses his thoughts as to why the lockdown was a mistake, and why the government strategies to manage the pandemic are only making things worse.
[EDITED (for brevity) TRANSCRIPT OF THE FOLLOWING VIDEO]
"I’ve worked my entire life on the research side of the pharmaceutical industry, both big pharma and also biotech. My specific focus has been inflammation, immunology, allergy in the context of respiratory diseases."
"I became very perturbed about increasing restrictions on the behavior and movement of people in my country, and I could see no reason for it then and I still don’t."
"Government’s response to emergencies is guided by the scientific group who sit together under the Strategic Advisory Group for Emergencies [SAGE]. SAGE has got several fundamental things wrong and that has led to advice that’s inappropriate, has horrible economic effects, but has had continuing medical effects in that people are no longer being treated properly."
SARS-CoV-2 was 80% similar to another virus called SARS that moved around the world a bit in 2003. When I heard that there was this coronavirus moving across the world, I wasn’t worried. Since there are four common cold causing coronaviruses, quite a lot of population would have a substantial protective immunity. Milkmaids never suffered from things like smallpox. The reason they had the protection was that they were exposed to a more benign-related virus called cowpox. Edward Jenner acquired some of the liquid from a person infected with cowpox. He got some of this and he scraped it into the skin of a small boy. He obtained some liquid from some poor person that was dying of smallpox and infected the boy. Lo and behold, the boy did not get ill. And that gave birth to the whole field of what’s called vaccination.
At this time of year, about 1 in 30 people have a cold caused by one of these coronaviruses. People exposed to having had a cold caused by one of these coronaviruses are immune to SARS-CoV-2. 30% of the population was protected before we started. SAGE said it was zero which is impossible to justify. The percentage of the population that SAGE asserts have been infected to date by the virus is 7%. A document they published in September 'Non-Pharmaceutical Interventions' says more than 90 percent of the population is still vulnerable [unbelievably wrong!]. On the percentage of care home residents who have antibodies: they picked out residents that never were PCR-positive. These were people who never got infected. 65% of them had antibodies to the virus. There was a high prevalence of immunity in that population prior to the virus arriving.
Big story in the media: the percentage of people with antibodies against the virus in their blood was falling. This was cast as a concern, "immunity to SARS-CoV-2 doesn’t last very long". Anyone with knowledge of immunity would reject that. It’s not the way immunity to virus works. That would be T cells. If the antibodies are falling gradually over time, the prevalence of the virus in the population is falling. That’s why the antibody production gradually subsides.
Less than 40 percent of the population are susceptible. That’s too small a number to support a growing outbreak [community immunity, herd immunity]. SAGE says we’re not even close. The best science by the best scientists in the world, published in the top peer-reviewed journals, says they’re wrong. That is more than 60% of the population are now immune. It’s simply not possible to have a large and growing pandemic.
Why are we not talking about the 50% that have got T cell immunity? I believe, fundamentally, it is over. The number of people dying of SARS-CoV-2 in the capital is less than 10, so it’s down by 98%. The reason it’s down is because there are too few people in London susceptible to allow the virus to magnify, to amplify, to get an epidemic.
Why isn’t the media telling us that the pandemic is over? It’s not over because SAGE says it’s not. I found, to my horror, that all the way through the spring and summer SAGE did not have on their committee someone who was an immunologist.
There is a test that’s performed where people have their noses and tonsils swabbed [PCR test]. What they’re looking for is a small piece of genetic sequence [RNA]. It’s going to be found if they were infected weeks or even sometimes a small number of months ago. If you’ve been infected and you’ve fought off the virus, you’ll have broken dead bits of virus. Over a period of weeks or months, you bring up cells that contain broken dead pieces of the virus that you have conquered and killed. The PCR test is not able to detect whether the viral RNA has come from a living virus or a dead one. A large proportion of the so-called positives are what I call cold positives. They’re identifying viral RNA in the sample but it’s from a dead virus that can’t hurt them.
They’re not going to get ill.
They can’t transmit it to anybody else.
They’re not infectious.
Why are we using this test that cannot distinguish between active infection and people who’ve conquered the virus? This test has never been used in this way. It’s the kind of technique you would use for forensic purposes. You would not be doing these tests by a windy supermarket car parking. It’s not suitable at all and shouldn’t be done in the way it’s been done. It’s subject to many handling errors. If this was a test being used for legal purposes, the judge would throw out this evidence and say it’s not admissible. It produces positives even when there’s no virus there at all.
The pandemic having passed through the population won’t return. Why won’t it return? They’ve got t-cell immunity. Just because the antibody falls away, doesn't mean you've lost immunity again. That’s not the way the human immune system works.
[cont. in video]
https://vladtepesblog.com/2021/05/05/new-interview-with-former-pfizer-vp-dr-michael-yeadon/
No comments:
Post a Comment