Dr. Mike Yeadon: Pandemije je konec! Drugi val je na podlagi lažno pozitivnih testov za COVID-19!

30.9. 2020

Dr Yeadon ima diplomo na področju biokemije, toksikologije in farmakologije ter doktorat iz farmakologije. Film s slovenskimi podnapisi je na strani: https://vimeo.com/476941470

*

Nekdanji izvršni direktor farmacevtskega velikana Pfizer in znanstvenik dr. Yeadon pravi, da ni znanosti, ki bi nakazovala, da bi se moral zgoditi drugi val. "Načrtovali so ga na podlagi lažno pozitivnih rezultatov" novih primerov "v osnovi nezanesljivih testov COVID. Polovica ali celo "skoraj vsi" testi za COVID so dali lažno pozitiven rezultat. Prag imunosti črede bi lahko bil precej nižji, kot so mislili prej, in morda je bil že dosežen v mnogih državah. "

V intervjuju prejšnji teden je bil dr. Yeadon odločen: 

"Vladna politika, ekonomska politika, politika državljanskih svoboščin, v smislu omejevanja ljudi, držanja razdalje itd, temelji na popolnoma lažnih podatkih o tem koronavirusu. Glede na "obliko" vseh pomembnih kazalnikov v svetovni "pandemiji", kot so hospitalizacije, uporaba JILa in smrtnih primerov je pandemije v bistvu konec. gripa ... vendar ni znanosti, ki bi trdila, da bi se moral zgoditi drugi val."

V knjigi, ki je izšla ta mesec v soavtorstvu Yeadon in dva njegova kolega, "Kako verjeten je drugi val?" , znanstveniki pravijo:

»Na splošno je bilo opaziti, da je v vseh evropskih državah in več ameriških zveznih državah krivulja dnevne smrti in časa, podobna kot v Združenem kraljestvu. Mnoge od teh krivulj niso le podobne, ampak so skoraj nemogoče. Podatki za Združeno kraljestvo, Švedsko, ZDA in svet so razvidni iz tega, da se je v vseh primerih umrljivost marca povečala do sredine ali konca aprila, nato pa se je začela zmanjševati, da bi se izenačila konec junija in traja vse do danes. Stopnje smrtnosti pa na podlagi testiranja PCR naraščajo in naraščajo navzgor in navzdol. "

Stopnja umrljivosti zaradi koronavirusa se je od maja zmanjšala na 0,2%. To je blizu običajni gripi, katere umrljivost je 0,1%. Trenutna stopnja umrljivosti je precej nižja od začetnih predpostavk marca in aprila, ki jih je navedel dr. Anthony Fauci - 20 do 30%!

Dr. Yeadon je poudaril, da je "nova" okužba s COVID-19 nova le v smislu, da gre za novo vrsto koronavirusa. »Trenutno skozi populacijo prosto krožijo štiri vrste, ki so najpogosteje povezane s prehladi: 229E, NL63, OC43 in HKU1, ki so endemični in povzročajo nekatere prehlade, ki jih imamo, zlasti pozimi. Vsi so presenetljivo podobni novemu koronavirusu. "

Znanstveniki trdijo, da ima velik del populacije že, če ne protitelesa proti koronavirusu, določeno stopnjo imunosti T-celic zaradi izpostavljenosti drugim sorodnim koronavirusom, ki so krožili veliko pred koronavirusom.

»Glavna sestavina našega imunskega sistema je skupina belih krvnih celic, imenovana T-celice, katerih naloga je zapomniti si košček virusa, s katerim smo okuženi, tako da se lahko prave vrste celic hitro razmnožujejo in zaščitijo, če dobimo sorodne okužbe. Odzivi na zdravilo COVID-19 so prikazani v več deset vzorcih krvi, odvzetih darovalcem pred prihodom novega virusa. Zdaj je bilo ugotovljeno, da je vsaj 30% našega prebivalstva že imelo imunsko prepoznavo tega novega virusa, še preden je sploh prispel ... COVID-19 je nov, koronavirusi pa ne. "

Za doseganje čredne imunosti zadostuje 15-25% okužene populacije

"Epidemiološke študije kažejo, da z obsegom prejšnje imunosti, za katero lahko zdaj upravičeno domnevamo, da je le 15-25% okužene populacije dovolj, da ustavi širjenje virusa," pravi dr. Yeadon.

Za test PCR, ki se uporablja po vsem svetu, je dr. Yeadon pravi:

Več kot polovica pozitivnih rezultatov bo verjetno napačnih, potencialno vsi. Testi PCR dejansko merijo "preprosto prisotnost delnih zaporedij RNA, prisotnih v nedotaknjenem virusu", kar je lahko del mrtvega virusa, zaradi katerega posameznik ne more zboleti, ga ni mogoče prenesti in ne more nikogar drugače zboleti.

Pozitivno ne pomeni nujno prisotnosti sposobnega virusa. V doslej omejenih študijah so številni raziskovalci pokazali, da nekateri preiskovanci ostanejo pozitivni na PCR še dolgo potem, ko sposobnost gojenja virusa iz brisov izgine.To imenujemo "hladno pozitiven" (da bi ga lahko razlikovali od "vroče pozitivnega", nekdo ki je dejansko okužen z nedotaknjenim virusom). Ključno pri "hladno pozitivnih" je, da niso bolni, niso simptomatski, ne bodo postali simptomatski in ne bodo mogli okužiti drugih. "

- Ta mesec so v Bostonu po odkritju 400 lažno pozitivnih rezultatov ustavili laboratorij za testiranje koronavirusa. Analiza PCR testa na medicinski spletni strani medrxiv.org navaja: "Podatki testov na podobnih virusih, ki temeljijo na PCR, kažejo, da testiranje na osnovi PCR daje dovolj lažno pozitivnih rezultatov, da lahko pozitivni rezultati postanejo zelo nezanesljivi v številnih scenarijih od dejanskega sveta. "

- Profesor z Oxfordske univerze Carl Heneghan, direktor Oxfordskega centra za medicino, ki temelji na dokazih, v julijskem članku piše "Koliko lažnih pozitivnih učinkov diagnosticira COVID?" "Če izključimo trenutno prakso in rezultate testov, Covid-19 ne bo nikoli izginil."

- Predsednik Tanzanije je svetu dokazal, kako lažen in nezanesljiv je test PCR, tako da je v testni laboratorij na skrivaj poslal vzorce koz, ovac in papaje. Vsi so bili pozitivni na COVID 19.

- Avgusta je švedska vlada odkrila 3.700 lažno pozitivnih rezultatov na COVID.

Drugi valovi koronavirusa niso verjetni

Dr. Yeadon je izpodbijal idejo, da se vse pandemije pojavljajo v kasnejših valovih, navaja pa še dva izbruha koronavirusa, virus SARS leta 2003 in MERS 2012. Kar se morda zdi, da sta dva vala dejansko dva enojna vala, ki se pojavita v različnih geografskih regijah . V primeru MERS je dejal:

»Pravzaprav gre za več posameznih valov, ki vplivajo na geografsko različne populacije v različnih časih, ko se bolezen širi. V tem primeru so prvi večji vrh zabeležili v Savdski Arabiji, drugega pa nekaj mesecev kasneje v Republiki Koreji. Vsako področje je bilo analizirano posamično po značilnem posameznem dogodku.

Na vprašanje o epidemiji španske gripe leta 1918, ki je v prvi svetovni vojni prišla v zaporednih valovih, je Yeadon poudaril, da gre za povsem drugačen virus in ne iz družine koronavirusov. Drugi so krivili splošno podhranjenost in nehigijenske razmere iz zgodnjega stoletja. Vojaki prve svetovne vojne so bili močno prizadeti, živeli so v mrzlem blatu in v razmerah, ki so najhujše za imunsko odpornost.

Drugi argument, ki so ga Yeadon in sodelavci predstavili v svoji knjigi, je, da ni bilo razlike v rezultatih, povezanih s sklepi.

"Oblika krivulje umrljivosti glede na čas pomeni naraven proces in ne tistega, ki v glavnem izhaja iz človekovih posegov. Švedska je sprejela pristop laissez faire s kvalificiranim svetovanjem, vendar brez splošnih blokad. "

Za Covid Circus je najbolj odgovoren profesor Neil Ferguson

Prof. Ferguson je poučeval na Imperial College, njegov računalniški model je bil sprožilec (dokaz) vladam, da so sprožile drakonske ukaze, da so se proste družbe čez noč spremenile v virtualne zapore. Od družbenega distanciranja, zapiranja podjetij, nošenja mask ....

https://www.aier.org/article/imperial-college-predicted-catastrophe-in-every-country-on-earth-then-the-models-failed/

Doktor Yeardon je s prezirom v glasu dejal, da noben resen znanstvenik ne daje veljave Fergusonovemu modelu. Toda vlade držav se še vedno držijo Fergusonovega modela.

Zato se pridružuje drugim znanstvenikom pri razpisovanju vlad, kateri sledijo Fergusonovemu modelu, na predpostavkah katerega temeljijo vsi sklepi na svetu. Eden od teh znanstvenikov je dr. Johan Giesecke, nekdanji glavni znanstvenik v Evropskem centru za nadzor in preprečevanje bolezni, ki je Fergusonov model označil za "najvplivnejše znanstveno delo" in tudi "enega najgrešnejših".

Ferguson je tako trdil (napovedal), da bo Švedska plačala strašno ceno brez zapiranja, do 40.000 smrtnih žrtev COVID do 1. maja in 100.000 do junija. Število smrtnih primerov na Švedskem je zdaj 5800. Švedska vlada pravi, da sovpada z sezono blage gripe. Švedska še nikoli ni zaprla restavracij, barov, športov, večine šol ali kinodvoran. Vlada ljudem ni nikoli naročila, naj nosijo maske.

Dr. Yeadon v intervjuju z ogorčenjem govori tudi o življenju, ki je bilo izgubljeno zaradi politike zaklepanja, in o neštetih življenjih, ki bi jih bilo mogoče rešiti, vendar velik NE, zaradi odpovedanih operacij in drugega zapoznelega zdravstvenega varstva.

Svet je spoznal prevaro, imenovano Covid 19

Ameriški kongresnik pravi, da je prepričan v "vladni načrt", da zapiranje nadaljuje do uvedbe obveznega cepljenja. Ker se že na glavnih televizijskih omrežjih predvajajo novice o skrivnostnem, "novem" virusu, ki je zdaj pripravljen za ponovni napad.

V Nemčiji je bila ustanovljena organizacija 500 nemških zdravnikov in znanstvenikov, ki pravijo, da je bil odziv vlade na virus COVID v veliki meri nesorazmeren z dejansko resnostjo bolezni.

CDC, pa tudi ameriška delovna skupina za koronavirus pod vodstvom dr. Deborah Birx je izjavila, da je opredelitev smrti zaradi COVID fleksibilna in da pravila, če je le mogoče, dajejo prednost imenu COVID. To odpira možnost zelo napihnjenega števila smrtnih primerov. V New Yorku je uprava guvernerja Andrewa Cuoma pod zvezno preiskavo za vse drugega, razen za podpisovanje smrtnih odredb za tisoče starejših, ko je država bolnike s COVID poslala v domove za ostarele.

Dr. Joseph Marcela z zelo zanesljivega spletnega mesta z medicinskimi informacijami, o katerem se veliko trguje, je natančno preučil trditve zdravnikov o cepivih za spremembo genetike. Spletno mesto Defense One je poročalo, da lahko FDA kmalu odobri trajne biočipe pod kožo, ki jih je mogoče injicirati z isto brizgo, v kateri je cepivo.

Dr. Roberto Petrella: "Covid-19 je okrajšava za" potrdilo o cepljenju "z umetno inteligenco. Številka 19 pa je leto, ko je bila ustvarjena. Covid ni ime virusa. To je ime mednarodnega načrta za nadzor in zmanjšanje populacije. Razvija se v zadnjih nekaj desetletjih in začeli so uresničevanje tega, 2020. Kar virus ponovno aktivira, je oslabljena imunost prejšnjih cepiv. Kar nam želijo vbrizgati, so doslej najslabša cepiva. Dobesedno se gre v pekel s ciljem množične depopulacije, več kot 80% prebivalstva. Ne testirajte se, testi niso zanesljivi, trdijo proizvajalci testov. "

Dr. Stojan Aleksev: "Pri" bolnikih s tako imenovanim "COVID 19" virusom, evropski patologi niso odkrili protiteles, specifičnih za COVID 19! Torej, nemogoče je izdelati cepivo za neobstoječi virus! Nihče ni umrl zaradi koronavirusa! Verjamem, da je SZO najboljša kriminalistična zdravstvena organizacija! "

Znameniti nemški zdravnik dr. Wolfang Wodarg: »NE Cepite se proti koroni! Želijo vam spremeniti gene s cepivom! «

http://www.resnicax.si/dr-mike-yeadon-pandemije-je-konec-drugi-val-bi-morali-uvesti-na-podlagi-lazno-pozitivnih-testov-covid?fbclid=IwAR2EbC3Ni9Sb_gf-nzUq-JAdcKFrzNPOED4prwRb5ETqRxjk0qnfMIhEhco

https://lockdownsceptics.org/lies-damned-lies-and-health-statistics-the-deadly-danger-of-false-positives/

https://www.corbettreport.com/coronastats/

*

Dr. Yaedon: Laži, preklete laži in smrtonosna nevarnost lažno pozitivnih testov

https://lockdownsceptics.org/lies-damned-lies-and-health-statistics-the-deadly-danger-of-false-positives/

Laži, preklete laži in zdravstvena statistika - smrtonosna nevarnost lažno pozitivnih rezultatov 20. septembra 2020 dr. Michael Yeadon

Nikoli nisem pričakoval, da bom napisal kaj takega. Sem navaden človek, nedavno upokojen iz kariere v farmacevtski industriji in biotehnologiji, kjer sem več kot 30 let poskušal rešiti probleme razumevanja bolezni in iskati nova zdravila za alergijske in vnetne motnje pljuč in kože. Od nekdaj me je zanimalo reševanje problemov, zato mi pritegne pozornost, kadar pride kaj biološkega. Ko je prišlo leto 2020, je prišel SARS-CoV-2. O pandemiji sem pisal čim bolj objektivno. Znanstvena metoda nikoli ne zapusti osebe, ki se je izučila in delala kot profesionalni znanstvenik. Prosim, preberite ta članek. Moji soavtorji in jaz ga bomo predstavili običajnim strogim strokovnim pregledom, vendar je ta postopek počasen in številna nova znanstvena dela so bili letos predstavljena prek strežnikov za predtisk in drugih manj običajnih spletnih mest.

Medtem ko smo pozorno spremljali podatke, smo se vsi sprva osredotočili na žalostno zadevo smrti. Zdelo se mi je izjemno, da večina ljudi, s katerimi sem se pogovarjal, pri razpravi o smrtnih primerih, povezanih s COVID-19, ni imela pojma o velikem številu smrti. Na vprašanje, približno koliko ljudi letno umre v Združenem kraljestvu v običajnih okoliščinah, od katerih je vsaka osebna tragedija, običajno niso vedeli. Moral sem jih obvestiti, da je umrlih približno 620.000, včasih manj, če smo imeli blago zimo, včasih precej višje, če imamo sezono hude gripe. To številko omenjam, ker vemo, da je približno 42.000 ljudi umrlo s COVID-19 ali z njim. Čeprav gre za ogromno število ljudi, je v Združenem kraljestvu to 'le' 0,06% prebivalstva. Ni naključje, da gre za skoraj enak delež tistih, ki so umrli s COVID-19 ali od njega v vsaki od močno okuženih evropskih držav - na primer na Švedskem.

Letna smrtnost zaradi vseh vzrokov je 620.000 ljudi, kar je 1.700 na dan, poleti je število nižje, pozimi pa višje. Tako je bilo od nekdaj v zmernih pasovih. Torej, v tem kontekstu je 42.000 smrtnih primerov enako smrtnosti od vseh vzrokov v približno ~ 24 dneh. Prosim, vedite, da ne zmanjšujem pomena, ampak samo poskušam dobiti nekaj perspektive. Takšno število smrtnih primerov ni redko in se lahko pojavi v hujših sezonah gripe. Cepiva proti gripi sicer malo pomagajo, toda v zadnjem desetletju je cepljenje doseglo 50-odstotno učinkovitost. So dobra, vendar še nikoli niso bila čarobne krogle za respiratorne viruse. Namesto tega smo se naučili živeti s takšnimi virusi, od številnih prehladov pa vse do pljučnic, ki lahko ubijejo. Zdravila in skrb za človeka delajo po svojih najboljših močeh.

Torej, dalje k temu članku. Gre za testiranje, ki ga opravimo z nečim, imenovanim PCR - ojačevalno tehniko, ki je biologom bolj znana kot raziskovalno orodje, ki se uporablja v naših laboratorijih, ko poskušamo ugotoviti mehanizme bolezni. Iskreno presenečen sem bil, ko sem ugotovil, da se včasih uporabljajo pri preverjanju prebivalstva na bolezni - presenečen, ker je to zelo zahtevna tehnika, nagnjena k nevidnim napakam in je precej težavno z njo pridobiti zanesljive informacije, zlasti zaradi izjemnih količin razmnoževanja, vključenega v poskus pridobivanja sekvenc virusne genetske kode. Test PCR ne more razlikovati med živim virusom in kratkim zaporedjem RNA od virusa, ki se je pred tedni ali meseci razlomil na koščke.

Verjamem, da sem ugotovil resno, res usodno napako v testu PCR, ki se uporablja pri tako imenovanem pregledu stebra 2 vlade Združenega kraljestva - torej pri testiranju številnih ljudi v njihovih skupnostih. Skozi to bom šel previdno in podrobno, ker sem znanstvenik in mi ni všeč, kamor me bo ta preiskava pripeljala. Nisem posebej političen in imam raje kompetentno in pošteno upravo kot sedanje izbrane politike. V Združenem kraljestvu smo zelo razumni in nismo preveč skrajni. Še posebej zadržan sem glede tega, da mi z upoštevanjem dokazov ne preostane drugega, kot da pokažem, da je Minister za zdravje Matt Hancock zavedel Spodnji dom (House of Commons) in v radijskem intervjuju tudi dal zavajajoče izjave. To so resne obtožbe. To vem. Nisem neusmiljena oseba. Ampak to vseeno pišem, kajti tisto, kar sem odkril, je izjemnega pomena za zdravje in dobro počutje vseh ljudi, ki živijo v državi, ki sem jo vedno klical domovina.

Nazaj k zgodbi in nato k dokazom. Ko je prvi (in mislim, edini) val COVID-19 prizadel Združeno kraljestvo, sem se skoraj s vsemi drugimi zelo bal. Star sem 60 let in dobrega zdravja, toda ko sem izvedel, da imam približno 1-odstotno tveganje za pogubo, če bi dobil virus, sem odkril, da se še zdaleč nisem pripravljen posloviti. Torej, nisem bil presenečen ali jezen, ko je prišla prva zapora (lockdown). Verjetno se je bilo zelo težko odločiti. Preden se je končalo prvo tritedensko obdobje, pa sem začel razvijati razumevanje dogajanja. Stopnja okužbe, za katero je bilo izračunano, da na vrhuncu vsak dan okužila več kot 100.000 novih ljudi, je začela padati in je pred zapiranjem padala. Okužba se je še naprej širila, vendar z vedno manjšo hitrostjo, in to smo videli na prelomnici vsakodnevnih smrtnih žrtev na mračni tiskovni konferenci vsako popoldne. Zdaj vemo, da zaklepanje (lockdown) sploh ni vplivalo na širjenje virusa. To lahko ugotovimo, ker je interval med med ujetjem virusa in smrti pri tistih, ki niso preživeli, daljši od intervala med zaklepanjem in vrhom dnevne smrtnosti. O tem dejstvu ni nobenega polemike, zlahka ki bi ga bilo mogoče dokazati, vendar se zavedam, da se nekateri radi pretvarjajo, da je pandemijo spremenilo zaklepanje (lockdown), morda zato, da bi upravičili visoko ceno, ki smo jo vsi plačali. Ta cena ni bila samo ekonomska. Vključevala je smrt, ki se ji je bilo mogoče izogniti zaradi bolezni, ki niso COVID-19, saj so bile zdravstvene storitve omejene, da bi se osredotočili na virus (op.prev.: SARS CoV-2). Nekateri pravijo, da je zaklepanje (lockdown) neposredno in posredno ubilo toliko ljudi kot virus. Ne vem. To ni nekaj, o čemur sem se želel poučiti. Ampak to omenjam, ker posegov v vse naše življenje ne bi smeli izvajati zlahka. Zaradi takšnih dejanj so ne le neprijetnosti, ampak resnično trpljenje, izguba dohodka, prijateljstev - sidra, ki so za nas vse zelo pomembna, so bila odrezana zaradi teh ukrepov. Prepričani moramo biti, da je nagrada vredna cene. Čeprav je negotovo, da je bilo, sem prvo zaklepanje podprl, saj nismo vedeli, s čim se soočamo, in odkrito, skoraj vsi ostali so to storili, razen Švedske. Zdaj pa odločno nasprotujem nadaljnjim posegom v tisto, za kar sem se prepričal, da je brezploden poskus "obvladovanja virusa". Po mojem mnenju smo – ki ga delijo tudi drugi, od katerih so nekateri na primernem položaju za oceno razmer - bližje koncu pandemije glede števila smrtnih primerov kot pri njeni sredini. Menim, da bi morali vsem ranljivim ljudem zagotoviti najboljšo zaščito, sicer pa previdno nadaljevati življenje. Mislim, da bomo sčasoma vsi postali bolj podobni Švedom. V zadnjih tednih pa ni ušlo nikogaršnji pozornosti, da je prišlo do oznanil, ki se zdijo vsemu svetu kot uvod v še bolj brezplodne in škodljive omejitve. Pomislite na sredino poletja. Bili smo v času po odpravi lockdowna in kljub zaskrbljenosti zaradi natrpanih plaž, velikih demonstracij, odpiranja trgovin in lokalov, je bila glavna novica v zvezi s COVID-19 pomirjujoč in nezadržen padec dnevnih smrtnih žrtev. Opazil sem, da je bila naša krivulja upadajočih smrtnih žrtev, v primerjavi s številnimi bližnjimi državami, preveč položna. Prijateljem znanstvenikom sem celo omenil, da se je ugotavljala prisotnost nekega fiksnega signala, ki se je pomešal z resničnimi smrtnimi primeri zaradi COVID-19. Predstavljajte si, kako razveseljivo je bilo, ko je bila definicija smrti zaradi COVID-19 spremenjena, da se je ujemala z opredelitvijo v drugih državah, in v trenutku se se je naša upadajoča številka smrtnih žrtev ujemala z drugimi po svetu. Bil sem prepričan, da se bo. Tisto, kar smo doživeli in čemur smo bili priča, je bila strašna vrsta dinamičnega ravnovesja (ekvilibriuma). Virus, ki ubije le malo ljudi, nato pusti preživele, ki so skoraj zagotovo imuni - virus, na katerega je bilo morda od 30 do 50% ljudi že prej imunih, ker ima (SARS CoV-2) sorodnike in smo se nekateri že srečali z njimi, predstavlja v celoti strašen, a tudi fascinanten biološki proces . V zadnjih dneh je bil v BMJ objavljen zelo zanimiv prispevek, ki ponuja potencialno podporo tej trditvi. (https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3563 Covid-19: Do many people have pre-existing immunity?) Zdaj, ko smo se naučili o nekaterih nenavadnih lastnostih novega virusa, boljšega zdravljenja (protivnetni steroidi, antikoagulanti in zlasti kisikove maske in ne ventilatorji v glavnem), je „stopnja smrtnosti“ tudi za najtežje prizadete posameznike zdaj precej nižja kot pred šestimi meseci. Ker ni nobene temeljne, medicinske ali znanstvene literature, ki bi govorila, da pričakujemo "drugi val", sem postal bolj pozoren na to besedno zvezo, ki se je pojavila na televiziji, radiu in tiskanih medijih istega dne - in ki jo od takrat dalje neusmiljeno ponavljajo. Pred kratkim je z menoj imela intervju Julia Hartley-Brewer v svoji oddaji talkRADIO in takrat sem vlado pozval, naj nam razkrije dokaze, na katere so se zanašali pri napovedovanju tega drugega vala. Zagotovo imajo nekaj dokazov? Mislim, da ne. Iskal sem in sem za to zelo usposobljen, pri čemer sem se opiral na akademske prijatelje in vsi smo bili presenečeni, ko smo ugotovili, da sploh ni ničesar. Zadnja dva nova koronavirusa, SARS (2003) in MERS (2012), sta imela vsak en val. Tudi "valovi" gripe iz 1. svetovne vojne so bili skoraj zagotovo serija posameznih valov, ki so vključevali več virusov. Verjamem, da je vsak pogovor o drugem valu čista špekulacija. Ali je morda nekje v modelu, ki je po moje nepovezan s svetom dokazov? Smiselno bi bilo pričakovati nekaj omejenega, "ponovnega oživljanja" virusa, saj se ljudje ne mešamo kot v kozarcu vode, ampak bolj pavšalno, človeško. Najbolj ste v stiku z družino, prijatelji in sodelavci in to so ljudje, s katerimi si na splošno izmenjujete prehlade. Dolgo obdobje uvedenih omejitev, je poleg običajnih življenjskih preprečilo, da bi se zadnjih nekaj odstotkov virusov mešalo s prebivalstvom. Z gibanjem med počitnicami, novimi službami, obiski daljnih sorodnikov, uvajanjem novih pogojev na univerzah in v šolah poteka dokončno mešanje. To ne bi smel biti strašljiv proces. To se zgodi z vsakim novim virusom, vključno z gripo. Samo še nikoli v zgodovini ga nismo lovili po podeželju s tehniko, ki je bolj primerna biološkemu laboratoriju, kot parkirišču v supermarketu. Zelo dolg, a nujen uvod. Del zelo očitnega "projekta strašenja", ki vključuje druge valove, je bilo dnevno štetje "primerov". Pomembno je razumeti, da po besedah strokovnjakov za nalezljive bolezni, s katerimi sem se pogovarjal, bi beseda „primer“ morala pomeniti več kot zgolj prisotnost nekega tujega organizma. Vsebovati mora znake (stvari, ki jih opazijo zdravniki) in simptome (stvari, ki jih opazite). In v večini tako imenovanih »primerov« tisti, ki so bili pozitivni na testiranju, sploh niso imeli znakov ali simptomov bolezni. Veliko se je govorilo o asimptomatskem širjenju in kot biologa me je to presenetilo. Skoraj v vsakem primeru je človek simptomatičen, ker ima veliko obremenitev z virusi, ki bodisi napadajo njegovo telo bodisi se imunski sistem bori proti njim, na splošno pa potekata oba procesa. Ne dvomim, da je bilo nekaj primerov asimptomatskega prenosa, vendar sem prepričan, da to ni pomembno.
Glede na vse to se je vlada odločila, da osebo imenuje "primer", če je njen vzorec brisa pozitiven na virusno RNA, kar se meri v PCR. Vzorec osebe je lahko pozitiven, če ima virus, in tako bi tudi moralo biti. Pozitivni so lahko tudi, če so imeli virus pred nekaj tedni ali meseci in so si opomogli. Obstaja majhna možnost, da bi se na PCR test lahko odzvali tudi sorodni, a različni koronavirusi v velikih količinah, ki lahko povzročijo nekatere prehlade, ki jih imamo, čeprav mi ni jasno, ali se to tudi dogaja. Toda obstaja končna nastavitev, v kateri je človek lahko pozitiven in to je naključen postopek. To ima lahko več vzrokov, saj na primer tehnika ojačevanja ni popolna in tako ojača zaporedja "vab", nameščenih v vzorec, s ciljem združiti se s sorodno virusno RNA SARS-CoV-2. K takim pozitivnim rezultatom PCR testa lahko prispeva še veliko drugih razlogov. To so tako imenovani lažno pozitivni PCR testi.
Pomislite na kateri koli diagnostični test, ki bi ga zdravnik morda uporabil na vas. Idealen diagnostični test pravilno potrdi vse, ki imajo bolezen, in nikoli napačno ne pokaže, da bolezen imajo zdravi ljudje. Takšnega testa ni. Vsi testi imajo določeno stopnjo šibkosti pri ustvarjanju lažno pozitivnih rezultatov. Pomembno je vedeti, kako pogosto se to zgodi, kar imenujemo stopnja lažno pozitivnih. Če je 1 od 100 vzorcev brez bolezni napačno pozitiven- bolezen ni prisotna - temu rečemo 1% lažno pozitivna stopnja. Dejanska ali operativna stopnja lažno pozitivnih vrednosti se včasih bistveno razlikuje glede na različne nastavitve, tehnične operaterje, metode zaznavanja in opremo.
Osredotočam se izključno na stopnjo lažno pozitivnih PCR testov v drugem stebru, ker večina ljudi nima virusa (v zadnjem času približno 1 na 1000 ljudi in prej poleti približno 1 na 2000 ljudi). Ko je količina bolezni, tako imenovana razširjenost, majhna, je lahko kakršna koli stopnja lažno pozitivnih testov velik problem. Ta težava je lahko tako resna, da je brez sprememb (PCR) test brezupno neprimeren za delo, ki se od njega zahteva. V tem primeru je bil in je še vedno test v drugem stebru zadolžen za identifikacijo ljudi z virusom, vendar, kot bom pokazal, tega ne more storiti. Zaradi visoke stopnje lažno pozitivnih rezultatov in nizke prevalence je skoraj vsak pozitiven test, tako imenovani »primer«, ki ga je od maja letos ugotovil 2. steber, LAŽNO POZITIVEN. Ne le nekaj odstotkov. Ni lažna samo četrtina ali polovica pozitivnih PCR Testov, temveč celo okoli 90%. Preprosto povedano, število ljudi, o katerih nam turobno govori gospod Hancock, je približno desetkrat precenjeno. Prej poleti je bilo število precenjeno za približno 20-krat. Dovolite, da vas popeljem skozi to. Če pa boste lahko najprej prebrali jasno napisano delo prof. Carla Heneghana, sem bolj prepričan, da vam bom z uspehom razložil ta dramatičen zaključek. (Tukaj je povezava do evidence števila (PCR) testov, ki združuje 1. steber (bolnišnica) in 2. steber (skupnost): https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/how-many-covid-diagnoses-are-false-positives- ) Predstavljajte si, da se s testnimi palčkami, ki jih vidite na televiziji, testira 10.000 ljudi. Imamo dobro oceno splošne razširjenosti virusa iz ONS (op. prev: Nacionalnega urada za statistiko), ki so popolnoma neodvisni (od testiranja 2. stebra) in testirajo le nekaj ljudi na dan, približno en odstotek ljudi, nedavno testiranih v 2. stebru. Smiselno je domnevati, da tisti, ki se testirajo, večinoma nimajo simptomov. Ljudi so pozvali, da se testirajo le, če imajo simptome. Vendar pa vemo iz televizijskih novic in zgodb na družbenih omrežjih osebja za vzorčenje, iz strogih navodil Ministra za zdravje in presenetljivega dejstva, da so na številnih lokacijah po državi lokalni sveti z letaki po hišah - ulico za ulico- pozivali ljudi, naj pridejo in se testirajo. Bistvo je, da je smiselno pričakovati, da je razširjenost virusa blizu številu, ki ga je ugotovil ONS, ker oni vzorčijo naključno in pobrajo simptomatske in asimptomatske ljudi sorazmerno z njihovo prisotnostjo v skupnosti. Glede na najnovejšo raziskavo britanskega Nacionalnega urada za statistiko (ONS) je bil virus v prvem približku odkrit pri 1 od 1000 ljudi. To lahko zapišemo tudi kot 0,1%. Torej, ko vseh teh 10.000 ljudi testirajo v 2. stebru, bi pričakovali, da bodo našli 10 resnično pozitivnih rezultatov (lažno negativni rezultati so lahko težava, kadar je virus zelo pogost, vendar je to v tej sestavi skupnosti statistično nepomembno in zato sem se odločil to zanemariti in sem raje osredotočil le na lažno pozitivne rezultate PCR testa). Kakšna je torej lažno pozitivna stopnja testiranja v drugem stebru? Že mesece nas to skrbi. Zdi se, da ni znana, čeprav, kot sem že omenil, to morate nujno vedeti, da ugotovite, ali ima diagnostični test kakršnokoli vrednost! Kaj vemo o lažno pozitivni stopnji? No, vemo, da so bili vladni znanstveniki zaradi tega zelo zaskrbljeni, zato je bilo poročilo o tej težavi poslano SAGE dne 3. junija 2020. Citiram: „Dokler ne razumemo operativne lažno pozitivne stopnje britanskega testiranja RT-PCR tvegamo, da bomo previsoko ocenili pojavnost COVID-19, povpraševanje po sledenju in obseg asimptomatskih okužb. " V istem poročilu so avtorji koristno našteli najnižjo do najvišjo lažno pozitivno stopnjo v desetinah testov z isto tehnologijo. Najnižja vrednost lažno pozitivne stopnje je bila 0,8%. Dovolite mi, da pojasnim vpliv lažno pozitivne stopnje 0,8% na 2. steber. Vrnemo se k našim 10.000 ljudem, ki so se prijavili na testiranje, in je bilo s testom PCR po pričakovanju ugotovljenih deset ljudi z virusom (0,1% razširjenost ali 1: 1000). Zdaj pa moramo izračunati, koliko lažno pozitivnih rezultatov jih spremlja. Šokantni odgovor je 80. 80 je 0,8% od 10.000. Toliko lažno pozitivnih rezultatov bi dobili vsakič, ko bi uporabili test 2. stebra na skupini te velikosti. (op. prev: testiranje 10.000 ljudi s PCR testom daje 10 pozitivnih rezultatov z dejansko okužbo virusa SARS CoV-2 ter 80 lažno pozitivnih rezultatov, kjer ljudje niso okuženi) Učinek tega je v tem primeru naslednji: kjer je bilo v drugem stebru testiranih 10.000 ljudi, bi bili rezultati na primer povzeti v naslovu tako: "Danes je bilo ugotovljenih 90 novih primerov" (10 resničnih pozitivnih primerov in 80 lažno pozitivnih). Vemo pa, da je to izjemno napačno. Ubogi tehnik ne ve, da je v tem primeru bilo le 10 resničnih primerov okužbe. 80 primerov jih v vzorcu ni imelo niti koščka virusne RNA. Res so bili lažno pozitivni. Kako slabo je to bom razložil ob drugi priložnosti, zdaj pa nazaj k diagnostiki. Če ste se prijavili na test in je bil pozitiven, bi pričakovali, da vam bo zdravnik povedal, da imate bolezen, na katero ste se testirali. Običajno pa bodo odgovorili na nekoliko drugačno vprašanje: "Če je pacient pozitiven na tem testu, kakšna je verjetnost, da ima bolezen?" Običajno bo zdravnik za dober diagnostični test lahko rekel: približno 95%, vi pa boste lahko živeli s tem. Če je bil rezultat zelo resen, na primer za raka, lahko opravite drugačen potrditveni test. Toda v našem primeru 2. stebra, kakšna je verjetnost, da ima oseba, ki je bila na testu PCR pozitivna, dejansko COVID-19? Grozni odgovor je: verjetnost je 11% (10 deljeno z 80 + 10). Test PCR skoraj za desetkrat poveča število primerov COVID-19 (90 deljeno z 10). Ali vas je še strah? Tista dnevna slika, ki vam jo prikažejo s "primeri", ki se rastejo v desno smer? To je grozno pretirano. Kot bom pokazal, to ni napaka. Prej poleti je ONS pokazal, da je razširjenost virusa (SARS CoV-2) nekoliko nižja, 1 na 2000 ali 0,05%. To se ne sliši veliko, vendar je. Zdaj bo testiranje stebra 2 našlo polovico manj resničnih primerov v skupini naših 10.000 prostovoljcev, torej 5 resničnih primerov. Toda napaka v testu pomeni, da bo vseeno našel 80 lažno pozitivnih rezultatov (0,8% od 10.000). Torej še huje. Naslov bi bil "Danes odkritih 85 novih primerov". Zdaj je verjetnost, da ima oseba, ki ima pozitiven PCR test, v resnici virus SARS CoV-2 absurdno nizkih 6% (5 deljeno z 80 + 5). Prej poleti je isti PCR test število primerov COVID-19 pretiraval za 17-krat (85 deljeno s 5). Tako je enostavno ustvariti domnevno veliko epidemijo. Samo prezrite problem lažno pozitivnih rezultatov. Pretvarjajte se, da jih ni. Ampak nikoli niso nič.

Ta PCR test je usodno napačen in se MORA takoj umakniti in se v tej nastavitvi nikoli več uporabiti, razen če bo dokazano, da je popravljen. Primeri, ki sem jih navedel, so zelo blizu tega, kar se dejansko dogaja vsak dan, medtem ko berete to. Potrebno je, da vprašam, ali je Minister Hancock vedel za to usodno napako? Ali je vedel za učinek, ki jo je nedvomno imela in jo še vedno ima, ne le na poročila o številu primerov, ampak tudi na pojav tesnobe pri ljudeh? Rad bi verjel, da je vse nedolžna napaka. Če bi bilo tako, pa bi moral Minister zaradi očitne nesposobnosti odstopiti. Toda ali gre za napako? Vemo, da so interni znanstveniki pisali SAGE-u in zagotovo bi ta kratek, a šokanten opozorilni dokument pritegnil pozornost Ministra za zdravje? Če bi bil to edini dokaz, bi se morda nagibali k temu, da dvomite vanj. Toda dokazi postajajo kot zakleto vse bolj očitni. Pred kratkim sem s soavtorji objavil kratek članek o naših stališčih.Takrat, to je bilo pred približno enim mesecem, še nisem mislil, da bom to razumel. Pa sem izkušen znanstvenik na področju biomedicinskih raziskav, ki sem vajen obravnavati zapletene baze podatkov in verjetnosti. 11. septembra 2020 sem bil gost v pogovorni oddaji talkRADIO Julije Hartley-Brewer. Med drugim sem gospoda Hancocka pozval, naj objavi dokaze, ki poudarjajo njegovo zaupanje in načrtovanje za "drugi val". Teh dokazov še nihče ni prikazal javnosti. Zahteval sem tudi, da razkrije operativno lažno pozitivno stopnjo pri testiranju 2. stebra.

16. septembra sem se vrnil v Julijino oddajo in se tokrat osredotočil na vprašanje stopnje lažno pozitivnih rezultatov (1m 45s - 2min 30 shttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Su0wMysBYPM&feature=youtu.be ). Prebral sem analizo Carla Henegana, ki je pokazala, da čeprav bi bila lažno pozitivna stopnja le 0,1%, kar je 8-krat nižje od katerega koli podobnega testa, še vedno daje večino lažnih pozitivnih rezultatov. Tako moja kritika ni napačna, tudi če je dejanska lažno pozitivna stopnja nižja od mojih predvidenih 0,8%. 18. septembra se je gospod Hancock, tako kot se pogosto pojavlja, spet pojavil v oddaji Julije Hartley-Brewer. Julija ga je neposredno vprašala (od 1min 50s naprej), kakšna je lažno pozitivna stopnja v 2. stebru. G. Hancock je dejal: "Manj kot 1%". Julia ga je spet vprašala, kolikšna je točno, in ali je sploh vedel? Na to ni odgovoril, potem pa je rekel, "to pomeni, da je verjetnost, da je nekdo lažno pozitiven, v vseh pozitivnih primerih zelo majhna".

To je resno zavajajoča izjava, saj je napačna. Verjetnost, da je navidezno pozitiven primer (op.prev.: PCR testiranja) lažno pozitiven, je med 89 in 94% ali skoraj gotovost. Omeniti velja, da tudi takrat, ko je Nacionalni urad za statistiko (ONS) zabeležil najnižjo razširjenost virusa doslej, lažno pozitivna stopnja pri testiranju 2. stebra nikoli ni padla pod 0,8%. Za Ministra za zdravje se je situacija potem še poslabšala. Mislim, da je 17. septembra g. Hancock od Sir Desmonda Swayneja prejel vprašanje o lažno pozitivnih rezultatih. Jasno je, da je sir Desmond spraševal o 2. stebru. G. Hancock je odgovoril: “Moj pravi častni prijatelj mi je zelo všeč in želim si, da bi bilo to res. Razlog, da imamo nadzorno testiranje, ki ga je opravil Nacionalni urad za statistiko (ONS), je zagotoviti nenehno preučujevanje nacionalnega reprezentativnega vzorca, ki kaže stopnjo primerov. Najnovejša raziskava ONS, objavljena v petek, kaže na naraščanje v skladu s povečanim številom testov, ki so bili pozitivni."

Na vprašanje Sir Desmonda ni odgovoril, ampak je odgovoril na vprašanje, ki ga je sam izbral. Je zdravstveni minister zavestno zavedel Spodnji dom (parlamenta)? S sklicevanjem samo na ONS, ko sploh ni omenil lažno pozitivne stopnje testa v 2. stebru, je ugrabil del skrbnega poročila ONS, ki ima nižjo lažno pozitivno stopnjo, da bi pretihotapil skrito in zelo visoko lažno pozitivno stopnjo v 2. stebru. Bralec se bo moral o tem odločiti sam. Testiranje 2. stebra poteka že od maja, vendar šele v zadnjih tednih doseže več sto tisoč testov na dan. Učinka dnevnega porasta števila ljudi, ki so opisani kot "primeri", ni mogoče zanemariti. Vem, da povzroča strah, tesnobo in zaskrbljenost zaradi možnosti novih in neupravičenih omejitev, vključno z zaklepanjem (lockdown). Nimam pojma, kakšne motivacije ima g. Hancock. Toda uporabljal je in še naprej uporablja močno napihnjene rezultate testiranja 2. stebra, ki imajo strahotno napako in pogosto se pojavlja v medijih, kjer močno poudarja potrebo po dodatnih ukrepih (noben od njih, ponavljam, ni dokazano učinkovit). 

Zelo dobro poznate graf primerov, ki je trenutno prikazan v večini televizijskih oddaj. Namen je prikazati število primerov, ki so se spomladi povečali in nato padli in nedavni porast primerov. Temu grafu je vedno priložen naslov, da je bilo "v zadnjih 24 urah odkritih toliko tisoč novih primerov". Vedeti morate, da obstajata na tej sliki dve veliki prevari, ki v kombinaciji zelo verjetno zavajata in povzročata tesnobo. Razširjenost grafa kaže, da gre za namerno izbiro.

Prvič, graf je zelo zavajajoč glede spomladanskega vrhunca primerov. To je zato, ker takrat nismo imeli zmogljivosti za testiranje skupnosti na prisotnost virusa. Kolega je prilagodil graf tako, da prikaže število primerov, ki bi jih odkrili, če bi bila na voljo zmogljivost za dobro pregledovanje skupnosti. Učinek je močno povečanje vrha spomladanskih primerov, ker je zelo veliko primerov za vsako hospitalizacijo in veliko hospitalizacij za vsako smrt. Drugič, kot upam, da sem vam pokazal in prepričal, bi bilo treba poletne in sedanje primere okužbe, ki so nastali zaradi resno pomanjkljivih testov 2. stebra, popraviti - zmanjšati za približno desetkrat.

Verjamem, da se resnični primeri okužbe nekoliko povečujejo. To pa velja tudi za gripo, ki je niti ne merimo dnevno niti ne poročamo o njej v vseh novicah. Če bi, bi bili hvaležni za to, da je v prihodnosti zelo verjetno, da bo gripa večje tveganje za javno zdravje kot COVID-19. Verjamem, da popravek primerov (v grafu zgoraj) nedavni porast incidence COVID-19 postavlja v veliko bolj razumen kontekst. Mislil sem, da bi morali videti to razliko, preden sprejmete svojo sodbo o tej žalostni zgodbi.

Obstajajo zelo resne posledice grotesknega prevelikega ocenjevanja tako imenovanih primerov v testiranju skupnosti v 2. stebru, za katere menim, da so ga zavestno postavili. Morda g. Hancock verjame v svoj izvod o stopnji tveganja, s katero se zdaj sooča širša javnost? Ni na meni, da to pojasnim. Ta velika pretirana ocena primerov je upočasnila normalizacijo javnega zdravstva. Vsi se zavedamo, da je dostop do zdravstvenih storitev v različni meri omejen. Številne specialistične storitve so bile spomladi močno okrnjene in po nekem okrevanju so nekatere še vedno med tretjino in pol manjše od običajnih zmogljivosti. To je povzročilo nenehne zamude in povečanje čakalnih vrst za številne operacije in zdravljenja. Nisem usposobljen za oceno škode za zdravje naroda in posameznikov kot neposredne posledice tega podaljšanega čakanja na drugi val.

Če gremo v zimo s to konfiguracijo, bo poleg že šestmesečnega omejenega dostopa do zdravnikov neizogibno prišlo do velikega števila smrtnih primerov, ki se jim ni mogoče izogniti. To je že dovolj resna obtožba. Manj očitni, v celoti pa dodatni vplivi izhajajo iz strahu pred virusom, neprimerno povečanega po mojem mnenju, ki vključuje: škodo ali celo uničenje velikega števila podjetij, zlasti malih podjetij, s spremljajočo izgubo sredstev za preživetje, izgubo možnosti za izobraževanje, obremenjevanje družinskih odnosov, motnje hranjenja, naraščajoči alkoholizem in zlorabe v družini ter celo samomori, če omenimo le nekaj.

Na koncu želim opozoriti, da je bilo samo v zadnjih 40 letih v Združenem kraljestvu sedem uradnih epidemij / pandemij; AIDS, prašičja gripa, Creutzfeldt-Jakobova bolezen, SARS, MERS, ptičja gripa in letna sezonska gripa. Vse je bilo zelo zaskrbljujoče, vendar so šole ostale odprte in javno zdravstveni sistem je obravnaval vse in večina prebivalstva ni bila prizadeta. Država bi bila redko odprta, če bi jo ob vsaki epidemiji zaprli. Pojasnil sem, kako je bil brezupno neuspešen diagnostični PCR test uporabljen in se še vedno uporablja, ne za diagnozo bolezni, ampak, kot kaže, zgolj za ustvarjanje strahu. Ta zloraba moči mora prenehati. Vsi zgornji stroški so tudi na tehtnici, ko presojamo tveganja za družbo zaradi COVID-19 in sprejemanje ustreznih ukrepov, če sploh katerih. Karkoli se že zgodi, je treba PCR test, uporabljen v 2. stebru, takoj umakniti, saj ne vsebuje nobenih koristnih informacij. V odsotnosti močno napihnjenih števil primerov, ki bi izhajali iz tega testa, bi bila pandemija bolj realno vidna in zdi se skoraj kmalu končana. Dr. Mike Yeadon je nekdanji vodja organizacij civilne družbe, podpredsednik ter direktor za raziskave alergij in dihal pri Pfizer Global R&D in soustanovitelj Ziarco Pharma Ltd.

* * *

https://lbry.tv/@Blackpillrevolution:7/Former-Pfizer-VP-Michael-Yeadon-says-pandemic-is-over.-:a

Ime mi je dr. Mihael Yeadon.

Najprej sem diplomiral iz biokemije in toksikologije, nato pa naredil znanstveni doktorat iz respiratorne farmakologije. Po doktoratu sem vse življenje delal kot raziskovalni znanstvenik v farmacevtski industriji – pri Big Pharma in Biotech. Predvsem sem se usmeril v vnetja, imunologijo in alergije v povezavi z respiratornimi boleznimi, se pravi s pljuči in tudi s kožo. Lahko bi rekli, da sem velik specialist in znanstvenik-raziskovalec za vnetja, imunologijo in pulmologijo.

Glede našega odziva na pandemijo me je začelo skrbeti že v sredini ali koncu aprila. Dnevne številke umrlih glede na datum so že jasno kazale, da se je pandemija – v naše veselje – obrnila. Val je bil v bistvu že končan in opazovali smo nekaj mesecev, kako so številke padale. A postal sem zelo vznemirjen zaradi povečevanja omejitev delovanja in gibanja ljudi v moji deželi. Nisem videl razlogov za to in jih še danes ne.

Odziv vlade na izredno stanje je pod vodstvom skupine znanstvenikov, ki delujejo v sklopu Strateške svetovalne skupine za izredna stanja (SAGE), ki naj bi nudila znanstveno svetovanje vladi glede najprimernejših ukrepov. SAGE se je zmotil v nekaterih bistvenih zadevah, kar je pripeljalo do neprimernih nasvetov, ki so imeli ne samo grozotne ekonomske posledice, temveč tudi trajajoče zdravstvene. Ljudi se več ne zdravi primerno. Stališče SAGE-a je, da je SARS-CoV-2 novi virus in med ljudmi naj ne bi bilo imunosti. Mislim, da je to prva stvar, ki sem jo slišal in me je zmotila Vedel sem, ker sem bral znanstvene razprave, da je SARS-CoV- 2 v 80% podoben drugemu virusu, za katerega ste morda slišali, SARS, ki je krožil po svetu leta 2003. Še več, nekateri njegovi deli so zelo podobni navadnim korona virusom, ki povzročajo prehlad. Ko sem slišal za korono virus, ki je potoval po svetu, nisem bil tako v skrbeh, kot so bili drugi ljudje. Namreč,če že obstajajo štirje korona virusi, ki povzročajo navaden prehlad, so bili mnogi ljudje verjetno že izpostavljeni kateremu od njih in so tako v precejšnji meri imuni. Naj razložim, zakaj sem bil tako prepričan. Vsak pozna zgodbo o Edwardu Jennerju in cepljenju ter zgodbo o govejih in črnih kozah. Stara zgodba govori o mlekaricah, ki so imele lepo polt in niso nikoli imele črnih koz, ki so sicer puščale trajne brazgotine, če si jih preživel. Razlog, zakaj so bile zaščitene, je bil v tem, ker so bile izpostavljene manj škodljivemu, vendar podobnemu virusu - govejim kozam. Glede na to, da so goveje koze rešile mlekarice, je sklepal: če bi osebo izpostavil govejim kozam, bi jo tako lahko zavaroval pred črnimi kozami. Naredil je preskus, ki se ga danes ne sme delati in ga tudi ne bi smel narediti. Izmišljeno ali resnično, ne vemo. Edward Jenner je dobil nekaj tekočine od osebe okužene z govejimi kozami, ki povzročajo kratkotrajne blage gnojne mehurje. Vtrl jo je v kožo majhnega dečka. Čez nekaj tednov je dobil nekaj tekočine od uboge osebe, ki je umirala za črnimi kozami in inficiral dečka. Deček ni zbolel. To je botrovalo t. i. cepljenju - vakcinaciji, ki izhaja iz latinske besede vacos - govedo. Res smo dobro seznanjeni s principom navzkrižne imunosti.

Veliko sem razmišljal o ranljivi skupini ljudi v domovih za ostarele. Dobro so ozaveščeni in ljudje, ki skrbijo zanje, uporabljajo osebno zaščitno opremo itd. To pa lahko samo do določene mere pomaga v toplih prostorih, kjer so ljudje resnično blizu drug drugega. Že vse leto se sprašujem - ko sta eden ali dva zbolela v domu za ostarele, zakaj se niso skoraj vsi okužili? Dejansko se niso. Ena od razlag je, da je večina oseb iz domov za ostarele, že bila predhodno imuna.

V tem letnem času ima ena od 30 oseb prehlad, ki ga povzroči eden od korona virusov. Prav tako, kot zaščito pred črnimi kozami zagotovi predhodna izpostavljenost goveji kugi, tako ljudje, ki so imeli prehlad, ki ga povzroča tudi en od korona virusov, postanejo imuni na SARS-CoV-2. Tako je bilo pred korono zaščiteno 30% populacije, preden se je vse začelo. SAGE je rekel, da je bilo 0%. Ne razumem, kako so to lahko opravičili. Prišlo je tudi do druge usodne in neodgovorne napake, ki so jo storili pri svojem modelu. SAGE je trdil, da se je doslej z virusom okužilo le 7% ljudi. Vem, da v to verjamejo. To trditev lahko vidite v dokumentih, ki so bili izdani v septembru z imenom Nefarmacevski posegi, v katerem je zabeleženo, da je žal še vedno 90% populacije ranljive. To je neverjetno narobe. Razložil vam bom, zakaj. Številke temeljijo na odstotkih prebivalstva, ki imajo protitelesa. Samo tisti, ki so resno zboleli, so pravzaprav morali razviti protitelesa. Seveda je res, da so bili ljudje z veliko protitelesi okuženi. Ampak veliko število ljudi je imelo blage simptome, še več pa jih sploh ni imelo. Najboljša ocena bi bila, da ti ljudje niso razvili protiteles ali pa tako malo, da počasi izginejo.
Zelo zanimiva je nedavna publikacija o odstotku oskrbovancev v domovih za starejše, ki imajo protitelesa. Tokrat so uporabili zelo občutljive teste za ugotavljanje protiteles in previdno izbrali oskrbovance, ki še niso bili pozitivni na PCR test, torej tisti, ki še niso bili okuženi. Ugotovili so, da je imelo 65% oseb protitelesa in niso bili nikoli okuženi. Menim, da je bila stopnja imunosti zelo razširjena v tej populaciji še pred prihodom koronavirusa.

Nedavno so mediji na veliko poročali o tem, da se je zmanjševal odstotek ljudi s protitelesi. To so predstavili kot zaskrbljujoč dokaz, da odpornost na SARS-CoV-2 ne traja prav dolgo. Vsakdo z nekaj znanja o delovanju imunskega sistema, bi to takoj ovrgel. Tako ne deluje odpornost na viruse. Deluje na podlagi T-celic. Torej, če sčasoma upade število protiteles, kar se tudi dogaja že od pomladi dalje, to lahko pomeni samo, da se zmanjšuje razširjenost virusa v populaciji in posledično se postopno znižuje proizvodnja protiteles v ljudeh.

Manj kot 40% populacije je dovzetnih. Celo teoretični epidemiologi bi pritrdili, da je to premalo ljudi za strnjen, naraščajoč izbruh, ker obstaja že neka skupinska ali čredna imunost. A naši državni svetovalci (SAGE) pravijo, da še nismo niti blizu temu. Jaz vam pa pravim, da bodo najboljša znanstvena dela, ki jih objavljajo najboljši znanstveniki na svetu v najboljših znanstvenih publikacijah na svetu, potrdila, da se SAGE moti. Že več kot 60% ljudi je zdaj odpornih, zato preprosto ne more več biti velike naraščajoče pandemije.

Prav lepo je slišati dobro, resnično dobro novico, da imamo zdaj že na voljo podatke iz poskusov s cepivi. Razvili so cepiva, ki ne le, da dvigujejo raven protiteles, temveč tudi vzpodbujajo T-celični odziv. Čudovito je, da se vračamo nazaj k pravi znanosti., k pravi imunologiji . Tako lahko vzpostavimo odpornost na virus. Zato sem bil presenečen, da ko ti svetovalci govorijo o 70 odstotkih ljudi, ki so še dovzetni na virus, govorijo le o protitelesih in to me prav moti! Zakaj ne govorijo o tistih 50%, ki imajo T-celično odpornost? Glede na to, kar vam govori ta dr. Mike Yeadon, boste morda pomislili, kako to, da pandemije še ni konec? Morda boste presenečeni, vendar menim, da je pandemija končana.

To deželo je virus že prepotoval in zdaj smo pri koncu. London je bil pomladi prav hudo prizadet in nekje v začetku aprila so beležili več sto smrti na dan, ko so umirali ljudi s podobnimi simptomi odpovedi respiratornega sistema in vnetji. Trenutno pa je število smrti od SARS-CoV-2 v državni prestolnici manj kot 10. Število smrti se je zmanjšalo za približno 98%. Razlog je, da je sedaj tam premalo ljudi dovzetnih za virus, da bi se lahko namnožil in bi se situacija stopnjevala do epidemije. V nasprotnem primeru bi bil London zdaj že spet na udaru, tako kot je bil spomladi. Kar vidimo zdaj na severovzhodu in severozahodu je le še ugašajoče tlenje tega virusa.

In žal drži, da nekaj ljudi še vedno dobi za virus, zboli in umre. Zakaj nam torej mediji ne povedo, da je pandemija končana. Ni končana, zato, ker SAGE pravi, da ni. Ta skupina je sestavljena iz veliko znanstvenikov iz različnih disciplin, matematiki, kliniki, veliko je odborov … Bil pa sem presenečen oz. kar zgrožen, da celo pomlad in poletje SAGE v odboru ni imel vodilnega, kliničnega imunologa. Moram reči, da je spomladi in poleti v skupini SAGE primanjkovalo strokovnega znanja. Morali bi se oborožiti in zbrati okrog mize ljudi, ki bi razumeli, kaj se je dogajalo. Tega niso naredili.

Ljudje me sprašujejo: Mike, če je pandemija res končana, zakaj imamo še vedno več sto covid umrlih na dan? Veliko sem o tem razmišljal. Gre za test, ki se uporablja. Ljudem vzamejo iz nosa in mandljev bris, ki ga uporabijo v testu z imenom PCR. S tem testom ne iščejo virusa, kot si morda mislite. Iščejo majhen kos genetske sekvence, ki se imenuje RNA. Žal, se ta košček RNA najde v mandljih in nosovih ljudi; ne zato, ker so se ravno nalezli virusa in bodo zdaj zboleli ali so že bolni. To bodo našli tudi, če gre za okužbe stare nekaj tednov ali celo nekaj mesecev. Naj razložim, zakaj do tega pride. Če ste bili okuženi in ste premagali virus, kar je pri večini ljudi, imate v sebi mrtve, zlomljene koščke virusa. To so drobceni delci, manjši od vaših celic, ki so morda razširjeni po vaših dihalnih poteh, ugnezdeni v vaši sluznici, morda v celici vaših dihalnih poti. Tako imate čez nekaj tednov ali mesecev celico, ki vsebuje zlomljene, mrtve koščke virusa, ki ste ga že premagali in pokončali. Vendar pa PCR test ni sposoben zaznati, ali virusna RNA prihaja od živega ali mrtvega virusa, kot sem pravkar opisal. Zato mislim, da je velik delež od t.i. pozitivnih pravzaprav »hladno pozitivni«, kot jih imenujemo. Pravilno je sicer prepoznan virusni RNA v vzorcu, a je od mrtvega virusa in ni škodljiv. Ti ljudje ne bodo zboleli in ga tudi ne morejo prenesti na druge ljudi, torej niso kužni. Torej, tako je v velikem številu t.i. pozitivnih primerov. To so ljudje, ki so premagali virus. Zakaj uporabljamo ta test, ki ne more razlikovati med aktivno okužbo in virusom, ki je bil že premagan? Ta test se nikoli ni uporabljal na ta način. Jaz sem delal na tem področju in to ni primerna tehnika. Gre za tehniko, ki se uporablja za forenzične namene, da bi z DNA testom npr. ugotovili, ali je bila oseba na kraju zločina ali ne. Tega testa se ne izvaja na vetrovnem parkirišču supermarketa, v plastičnih pagodah, na mizah za piknik. Za to sploh ni primeren in vsekakor se ne bi smel uporabljati, tako kot se. Možne so mehanske napake, napake pri rokovanju. Če bi se test na ta način uporabljal za sodne oz. forenzične namene, kot je DNA identifikacijski test, bi sodnik ta dokaz zavrnil kot nedopusten. Prikazuje pozitivne rezultate, četudi virus sploh ni prisoten. Temu pravimo lažno pozitiven. Ko smo zvišali število testiranj na dan, je bilo potrebno vpoklicati manj usposobljeno laboratorijsko osebje in zdaj to delajo ljudje, ki nikoli niso poklicno delali na tem področju. To pa zvišuje pogostost napak in zato se stopnja lažno pozitivnih vse bolj dviga.

Če imamo 1% stopnjo lažno pozitivnih, kar je nekje toliko, kot je Matt Hancock (Brit. minister za zdravje) povedal za poletje. Če testiramo 1000 ljudi, ki nimajo virusa, bo 10 med njimi nepričakovano pozitivnih. Če bi bila razširjenost virusa le 1 na 1000, je to 0,1 %, kar nam je urad za nacionalno statistiko poročal, da je bilo med poletjem. In če bi uporabili PCR test, bi bil le eden od njih resnično pozitiven. Če pa je pri tem stopnja lažno pozitivnih le 1%, bomo dobili 10 pozitivnih, ki so lažno pozitivni. Ljudje mi pravijo, večji odstotek ljudi se bo prišel testirati, t.i. testiranje 2. stebra, saj jim je bilo prej naročeno, naj pridejo le, če imajo simptome. Jaz pravim, to je nesmisel. Mislim, da to ni res. Poznam veliko prijateljev in sorodnikov, ki jim je delodajalec rekel: Sedel si poleg nekoga, ki je bil pozitiven, zato nočem, da prideš na delo, dokler nimaš negativnega izvida. Videl sem informacije iz mnogih krajev na severu, npr. iz Birminghama, Manchestra, Boltona, kjer so občine – mislim, da so želeli le pomagati – razširjale med prebivalce letake s sporočilom, da bodo prihajali odvzemati brise vsem, saj želijo slediti virusu. Ko začnemo enkrat ljudi testirati naključno, namesto le tistih s simptomi, pridemo do enakih številk razširjenosti virusa, kot je to poročal urad za nacionalno statistiko. Takrat je bilo to 1 na 1000. Povedal sem, Matt Hancock je poleti potrdil, da je bila stopnja lažno pozitivnih prib. 1%. To pomeni od 1000 ljudi, ki bi se testirali, bi jih bilo 10 lažno pozitivnih in le eden bi bil resnično pozitiven. Ta test je grozljivo neustrezen za odkrivanje, kdo ima živ virus v svojih dihalnih poteh. To je predmet mnogih izkrivljenih prikazovanj, kar pa se še slabša, ko gremo v zimo. Ko se zvišuje število dnevnih testiranj, se zvišuje tudi število napak, ki jih naredi prezaposleno in ne dovolj izkušeno laboratorijsko osebje.

Mislim, da ni pretirano, če rečemo, da je trenutno stopnja t.i. operativno lažne pozitivnosti cca 5%. In 5% od 300.000 je 15.000 pozitivnih. Mislim, da so nekateri od teh resnično pozitivni, a jih ni veliko. Težava s to lažno pozitivnostjo se ne ustavi pri številu »primerov«. Problem je širši. Ljudje, ki se ne počutijo dobro in so bili testirani pozitivno, gredo v bolnišnico. Pri tem pa gre morda za lažno pozitivnost – trenutno je večina takih – in so ob sprejemu evidentirani kot Covid primeri. Čeprav je zdaj res več ljudi v bolnišnicah kot pred mesecem dni, je to normalno za jesen, žal. Ljudje dobijo respiratorne viruse, zbolijo in nekateri umrejo. Mislim, da to ni več Covid-19. Na intenzivni negi je več zasedenih postelj kot pred mesecem dni in to je povsem normalno. Ko gremo iz pozne jeseni v zgodnjo zimo, so te postelje zasedene, a nič več kot je to normalno za ta letni čas. Tudi kapacitet ne bo zmanjkalo, vsaj ne na nacionalnem nivoju. Želim, da veste, kako poteka. Če bi zdaj umrli, bi jih šteli kot Covid smrtni primer. To pa ni pravilno. To so lahko ljudje, ki so šli v bolnišnico zaradi zloma noge. 3% so še vedno pozitivni ob testiranju, pa nimajo virusa, ampak so lažno pozitivni. In če umrejo, bodo šteti kot Covid umrli, pa niso, saj so umrli zaradi nečesa drugega. Problematična stvar, ki sem jo letos slišal, je bil predlog g. Borisa Johnsona t.i. Moonshot – program pogostega testiranja, morda vsak dan. To naj bi bil način, kako iziti iz teh težav. Jaz pa pravim, da je to način, kako nas zadržati v teh težavah. Tako število testov pomeni višji red magnitude, kot zdaj testiramo. Pri tem bi bila stopnja lažno pozitivnih še veliko višja, kar ni sprejemljivo. To bi privedlo do ogromnega števila lažno pozitivnih.

Kar bi morali narediti, je ustaviti množično testiranje. Ne le, da je to izziv za vašo svobodo, temveč tudi ne bo pomagalo, bo neznansko drago in bo samo po sebi patologija, saj se bomo otepali tepcev, predvsem iz vlade, ministrov - žal, da moram to reči – nekateri pač ne razumejo statistik.

Če testiramo milijon ljudi na dan s testom, ki prikaže 1% lažno pozitivnih, bo 10.000 ljudi dnevno dobilo napačno informacijo, da imajo virus. Če bi bila razširjenost virusa 0,1%, kot je urad za nacionalno statistiko poročal poleti, bi bila le desetina tega pravilno določena, to je 1000. Med 11.000 ljudmi pa ni možno razlikovati, kdo ima res virus in kdo je le lažno pozitiven. Program Moonshot bi imel veliko slabšo stopnjo lažno pozitivnih. Tega se ne da odpraviti. Tako testiranje ni potrebno. Pandemija je prešla populacijo, ne le v UK, temveč v vsej Evropi in verjetno kmalu po vsem svetu, in se ne bo več vrnila. Zakaj? Zato ker imamo imunost zaradi T-celic. To vemo, saj so to proučevali najboljši strokovnjaki za celično imunologijo na svetu.

. A nekateri pravijo, da je videti, da imunost pojenja. Ko sem videl prvo tako naslovnico, sem bil precej zmeden, ker imunologija ne deluje tako. Pomislimo za hip. Če bi bilo tako, bi bil vsak boj proti bolezni potencialno smrtonosen. Tudi če bi se telo uspešno uprlo, to ne bi pustilo v telesu čisto nobene sledi. A vendar so sledi. Telesni boj proti virusu vključuje določene receptorje za prepoznavanje vzorcev in po bitki v nas ostanejo neke vrste spominske celice, ki si zapomnijo sestavo tega, kar smo premagali. Že v nekaj minutah ali urah se lahko T-celice ponovno aktivirajo ob srečanju z vsiljivcem in nas tako zaščitijo. Najbolj verjetna možnost je, da bo naša imunost dolgotrajna.

Ko sem bolj proučil to t. i. pojenjanje imunosti, sem ugotovil, da govorijo o protitelesih. A vendar je povsem napačno misliti, da so protitelesa in čas njihove navzočnosti, merilo naše imunske zaščite proti virusom. Vsekakor ni tako. Že nekaj klasičnih eksperimentov je bilo izpeljanih z ljudmi s prirojenimi napakami na imunskem sistemu. Nekateri od njih niso bili sposobni proizvajati protiteles. In veste kaj? Vseeno so bili sposobni obvladati respiratorne viruse, kot vsi ostali. Zato mislim, da ni škodljivo, če je protiteles malo, čeprav ljudi skrbi potencialna možnost povečane infekcije. Osebno sem mnenja, da se verjetno obnašajo nevtralno in da vsekakor ne drži, da človek izgubi imunost z upadom protiteles. Ponavljam, človeški imunski sistem ne deluje na tak način. Po vsej verjetnosti traja imunost na respiratorni virus, kot je SARS-CoV-2, več let. To pravim zato, ker že imamo podatke o SARS virusu, ko se je pred 17 leti širil po delu našega planeta. Ta virus je 80-odstotno podoben virusu SARS-CoV-2, kar je najboljša možna primerjava. Dokazi so jasni. Strokovnjaki s področja celične imunologije so proučili vse ljudi, ki so pred 17 leti preživeli SARS. Testirali so vzorce krvi, da bi ugotovili odzivnost na originalni SARS virus in jo tudi našli pri prav vseh vzorcih. Vsi so imeli povsem normalen, močan T-celični spomin in vsi ti ljudje so bili tudi zaščiteni proti SARS-CoV-2, ki je tako podoben, da obstaja navzkrižna odpornost. Na podlagi najbolj verodostojnih podatkov, kar jih je, sklepam, da bi močna imunost trajala najmanj 17 let in lahko tudi doživljenjsko. T-celice teh ljudi so se odzvale enako, kot če bi bili cepljeni in nato 10 let kasneje ugotavljali, če ta imunost še obstaja. Torej, obstajajo močni dokazi, da bo imunost na SARS-CoV-2 večletna in morda celo doživljenjska. Videti je, da obstaja samo peščica ljudi, ki so bili dvakrat okuženi in so zelo zanimivi primerki. Moramo ugotoviti, kdo so in jih dobro proučiti. Verjetno imajo redke sindrome pomanjkljive imunosti. Ne bom dejal, da je ponovna okužba nemogoča, a dejstvo je, da je teh ljudi morda 5 do 15. Pred tedni je WHO ocenil, da je bilo doslej že 750 milijonov ljudi okuženih s SARS-CoV-2.

To pomeni, da se večina ljudi ne okuži dvakrat in to je povsem normalno. To se dogaja pri virusih, zlasti respiratornih. V medijih se slišijo klici po “nični ravni covida”, kot da je to nek politični slogan. Nekateri to skoraj dnevno ponavljajo, a so popolnoma nepristojni, da bi vam karkoli razlagali. SARS-CoV-2 je brez dvoma zelo neprijeten virus, a ni to, kar so nam pomladi povedali. Prvotno so nam govorili, da bo ubil okoli tri odstotke vseh okuženih, kar je grozljivo in 30 krat huje od gripe. Ko smo sredi pojava nove kužne bolezni, vedno precenimo njeno smrtonosnost. Osebno sem prepričan, da je stopnja smrtnosti pri COVID-19, torej kot resnična grožnja življenju, enaka običajni sezonski gripi. Ni razloga, zakaj bi spravili covid na nično raven. To je nesmisel. Biologija ne deluje tako. Tudi vsi predlogi, kako to doseči, so veliko bolj škodljivi in patološki od samega virusa. Preprosto ni mogoče izničiti sleherne kopije virusa COVID-19. Vsi načini za dosego tega cilja, bi uničili človeško družbo. Ne samo, da bi bila ekonomska cena ogromna; takšna prizadevanja bi nam uničila svobodo. Ne bi smeli iti ven, dokler nismo testirani in dobimo rezultate . Že prej sem opisal, kako bi statistike lažnih pozitivnih rezultatov uničile družbo, zato mislim, da to preprosto ni izvedljivo. To ni niti znanstveno, niti zdravstveno realen cilj. Česa takega nikoli nismo počeli.

Ko se je virus pozno pozimi in zgodaj pomladi bližal Združenem kraljestvu, sem bil tudi jaz zaskrbljen, ker so nam takrat govorili, da bodo morda 3 odstotki okuženih umrli. Ko je predsednik vlade zahteval zaprtje družbe, nisem bil ravno navdušen, a sem razumel, da je vredno poskusa. Pomembno je razumeti, da takrat, ko smo opazovali profil pandemije pri prehajanju skozi prebivalstvo, je število dnevnih okužb že upadalo. Vrhunec je minil že nekaj časa pred začetkom lockdowna, tako, da smo utrpeli vso to bolečino večtedenske zapore čisto zaman.. Če bi zapore res znatno zmanjšale končno število umrlih ali stopnjo umrljivosti , potem bi bilo mogoče ločiti države, ki so imele zapore od tistih, ki niso, pa tega ne moremo. Grafi vseh držav, ki so imele veliko okuženih, so isti – če so imele zapore ali ne. Lockdowni ne delujejo. Ne vem, zakaj se dovoljuje, da vas tako potiskajo v kot. Mislim, da niti ne vemo natančno, zakaj so bile nekatere države huje prizadete od drugih, ampak kot znanstvenik bi stavil na to, da gre za splet različnih dejavnikov. Eden je navzkrižna odpornost. Čeprav je bilo na Kitajskem hudo, v Wuhanu v province Hubei, se bolezen ni razširila drugod po državi. Sumim, da zato, ker je veliko ljudi imelo navzkrižno odpornost. Na splošno imajo države, ki mejijo ena na drugo veliko navzkrižne odpornosti. Torej, to je ena možnost.

Druga se nanaša na resnost bolezni: kako hudo je virus prizadel določeno populacijo? Imel je porazne učinke npr. v Združenem kraljestvu, Belgiji, Franciji in morda celo na Švedskem, a veliko manj smrti je bilo npr. v Grčiji in v Nemčiji. Lahko bi se vprašali, ali je to pripisati temu, kako so ukrepali ? Ko bi le bilo. Potem bi se lahko učili iz tega, to ponovili in bi spet delovalo v prihodnosti. Nikakršnih dokazov ni, da je tako zaradi človeških ukrepov. Prehod virusa skozi populacijo je povsem naraven proces, ki je čisto ignoriral vse naše nemočne poskuse, da bi ga nadzorovali. Obstaja teorija, katere ime mi ni prav všeč: teorija “suhega dračja”. Če ima država zelo blago zimsko sezono respiratornih virusov, ki so navadno usodni za ranljivi del populacije – lani in predlani smo v Združenem kraljestvu in na Švedskem imeli zelo blago sezono gripe – potem se zgodi, da je v naslednji sezoni zelo veliko število zelo ranljivih ljudi, ki so še starejši kot običajno. Menim, da smo zato beležili zelo veliko število smrti. Še vedno je bilo le 0,06% prebivalstva, kar je primerljivo s številom smrti v okvirno štirih tednih.

Tiste države, ki pa so pred kratkim imele hudo zimsko sezono gripe, kot npr. Grčija in Nemčija v zadnjih dveh letih, so imele letos manjše število zelo ranljivih ljudi in to je glavni razlog, zakaj jih je manj umrlo. To ni povezano z zaporami družbe, niti ne s testiranjem ali sledenjem ljudi. Osebno sem mnenja, da niti eden od teh ukrepov čisto nič ne pomaga. Belgija, Združeno kraljestvo in Švedska so bile posebej ranljive države, medtem ko so njihove sosednje nordijske države – in tu sem že sit tega, da so jih rešile zapore – te nordijske države so žal imele normalne epidemije gripe v zadnjih dveh ali treh letih. Medtem ko Združeno kraljestvo in Švedska sta imela takrat zelo blage epidemije. Sami lahko pogledate števila smrti, ki so bila pod povprečjem v Združenem kraljestvu in na Švedskem. Zdaj smo pač beležili nekoliko nadpovprečno število smrti zaradi covida. Lahko, da obstajajo še drugi razlogi. Ne pravim, da jih ni. Mislim pa, da sta glavna ta dva dejavnika: število ljudi s predhodno imunostjo in t. i. učinek »suhega dračja« - delež ranljive populacije po predhodni intenzivni ali blagi sezoni gripe. Mislim, da je to razlog. Preprosto domišljavo in neumno je od naših vlad in svetovalcev, da vam govorijo, da bodo ukrepi, ki nikoli v preteklosti niso delovali, kot npr. zapore družbe, kakorkoli vplivali na prenos respiratornih virusov. Niti za trenutek temu ne verjamem, ker ni niti trohice znanstvenih dokazov, ki bi to podpirali in obstajajo veliko bolj utemeljene znanstvene hipoteze, ki nudijo dejansko razlago.

Morda si mislite, da je covid povzročil toliko presežnih smrti, da bo to leto zaradi tega grozno, a vendar ni tako. Videti je, da bo leto 2020 na osmem mestu v seznamu od leta 1993 dalje. Približno 620.000 ljudi umre vsako leto v Združenem kraljestvu. Pravijo, da gresta življenje in smrt z roko v roki in to drži. Hudo je bilo za tiste, ki so izgubili bližnje, a število ljudi, ki je umrlo to leto, ni izstopajoče. V zadnjih letih opažam, da se cela družba premika v post-znanstveno stanje. Kot da dejstva sploh niso več pomembna. Ni pomemben nekdo, ki ima kvalifikacije in je 35 let delal kot znanstvenik. Ta trend se mi zdi globoko zaskrbljujoč. V bistvu me ne bi smeli poslušati, če bi vam govoril npr. o načrtovanju avtocest ali kako vzgajati drevesa, ker o tem nič ne vem. Vem pa veliko o imunologiji, okužbah, vnetjih in kako se kužni organizmi širijo v populacijah. Nimam drugega razloga, zakaj sem privolil v ta intervju kot, da mi je resnično mar, kaj se dogaja v moji deželi. Moramo se izvleči iz tega. Prepričan sem, da naj bi pot naprej vključevala dve stvari, ki sploh niso težke. Kot prvo- takoj naj se preneha z množičnim testiranjem večinoma zdravih ljudi. To daje samo zavajajoče in neznanstvene, nepodprte podatke, , a vendar so ti podatki skoraj izključno gonilo naše epidemiološke politike. To je vsekakor narobe in tega odločno ne bi smeli početi.

Uporabljajte teste v bolnicah. Ne rečem, da naj ne bi testirali ljudi, samo prenehajte že s tem množičnim testiranjem in za božjo voljo, ne povečujte količino testiranja! To je že svojstven bolezenski pojav, ki bi ga morali razumski ljudje nemudoma zatreti. Bojim se, da je delo vladnih svetovalcev v SAGE, ki so izdelali prognozo in model priporočenih ukrepov, tako slab in očitno zmoten – celo usodno nekompetenten, da bi se morali nemudoma distancirati od njih in jim takoj dati odpoved. Ceno njihovega svetovanja plačujejo nešteti nedolžni ljudje s svojim življenjem – in to ne zaradi covida. Treba bi jih bilo odsloviti in sestaviti nove ekipe iz primerno izobraženih in usposobljenih posameznikov brez slehernega navzkrižja interesov. Smo čisto na robu prepada in močno upam, da se bomo lahko še pravočasno ustavili.

Anna: Hello, everyone. It is Dr. Mike Yeadon I'm going to be speaking to. It's the 29th of October 2020. Now, Mike is semi-retired, he's 60 years old and he's currently in France. He has a first-class degree in biochemistry, toxicology and pharmacology; he also has a PhD in pharmacology. He was at Pfizer for 17 years, left in 2011 as the chief scientific officer and vice president for allergy and respiratory research.

Really good to speak to you, we've been chatting a little bit over the last few weeks. I know you're in France at the moment. It's a difficult time. What I want to say to you first to make this current we're going to be talking about the media. We're going to be talking about um where you've been able to share your concerns so far, your view is of the media what your view is of the government what your view is of um somebody called sir Patrick Vallance who you used to work with

and also what you think about in terms of the British public and where we're going in terms of democracy and your concerns for the future and where we're at at the moment with regards to lockdown.

Because you're obviously in France while it's just been announced there's this lockdown situation. So first of all I just want to ask you and challenge you here. I’ve just looked at the daily death count. So over the last few days um 151, 102, 367, 310 it is going up and it does look like it's doubling right at the end of the curve. So is it right that these measures are taking place right now with all these lockdowns and potentially a national lockdown?

Mike: It is my opinion that the pandemic the coronavirus pandemic in the UK finished at the end of summer. I believe that because nearly a third of the people had prior immunity, because they've been exposed to related viruses that's how the immune system works, about another third have been exposed during the pandemic and I’m now immune and if I’m right there are too few people left in the country to support the kind of outbreak that the government tells us is occurring. So a couple of problems there. How can that be? Well I believe that the industrialized molecular biological technique called PCR has never been used on the scale that's being used. I think it is currently throwing up an enormous number of false positives. That is when the test is positive even though there wasn't virus in the sample. And what that does is of course frighten everybody because we've tested now, I think, about 30

million people in the UK. We're pushing towards half the population and a large number of those tests have been recently and as you know the definition of a coronavirus death is someone who dies for any reason within 28 days of a positive test. So what I’m telling you, Anna, is that people are dying they always do I’m afraid about seventeen hundred a day in the UK or six thousand six hundred and twenty thousand a year they are dying. I don't believe that they're dying of coronavirus anymore. I think they're dying of other respiratory viruses or other non-respiratory causes. So I guess I’m calling out the statistics and even the claim that there is an ongoing pandemic as false. And you might say that's crazy everybody knows that's wrong I would point anyone listening to this, who wants to check to go to any database that talks about total mortality that is a body count over time. And when you do that you will see that the number of deaths on average every day in the uk is absolutely bang on normal for the time of year. Not at all higher in fact anything slightly lower and the respiratory death numbers are lower than over the last five years at late October. So the important point to note is there are no excess deaths no excess respiratory deaths. And so if you accept that and if anyone listening checks it they must know that the rest of what I’m telling you is true because you can't have a lethal pandemic stalking the land and not have excess to it.

Anna: Well absolutely but I have to say you know my audience I like to keep things really simple and communicate in simple terms. You know where none of us are experts on these matters on viruses and on PCR tests and epidemiology. We just don't really understand. We just want to know what to do um for the safety of our family and we want to feel confident that the future is going to be a positive one, where we can get on with our lives and experience joy again and and not think the government has stolen the year of my life. And you know there's real concerns with censorship for me as a journalist censorship and surveillance and massive concerns when you know the great Barrington declaration when those professors in epidemiology came out from Stanford and Oxford and Harvard. And how they made how the Guardian tried to smear them and we're not even getting access to truthful information at the moment and I’m trying to interview people like yourself and I’m calling them courageous and compassionate professionals trying to get a message out there. I am afraid, um angry shocked and disappointed by former colleagues that I worked with at Sky News, ITV, BBC. There's so many of them. And some of them are communicating with me some of them are trying to reform from within there's not enough whistleblowers coming out as far as I’m concerned. So you have these brave scientists and doctors. You know I’ve spoken to some of them on the channel, but I’m not seeing that in the in the media world so much. These BBC is coming and saying yes I have been told specifically I’m not I’ve got a Guardian reporter example I have to smear the Great Barrington declaration. I’m not seeing media whistleblowers so people like you are so so important and you even have a campaign on twitter called I am Yeadon. They believe if just you Mike okay they think if you went did a live press conference with some politicians that would win the public over.

Mike: Well let me just say I’m not …. What I’m doing today is I’m doing it because I think it's very important. The information I have gained just by looking at public data there's nothing special about what I’m doing given my background it's easy for me to see that there aren't excess deaths. It's easy for me to know with a level of certainty that I hold very strongly that when you've been infected and survived after a respiratory virus you are immune. I’m sick of people saying well your antibodies are falling away. First antibodies are simply not that important in immune defence against viruses. It’s T-cells I was taught this as an undergraduate, 35 years ago, so was Patrick Vallance. So when people say they're worried about antibodies and immunity fading they're either mistaken if they're perhaps journalists that's the brief they've been given. If they are expert scientists I’m afraid they're looking you in the eye and lying to you because what I’ve just said is true. We're confident once you survive you are immune unless the virus is one that destroys..,

Anna: The BBC doesn't say that. The BBC didn't say that, two nights ago. I was watching it they said you could get it again did you could get it again but then …Well it's like SARS, the first SARS CoV in 2003. that never came back I believe. There's immunity from that which is 17 years. So why is the BBC saying that we might get it again?

Mike: Someone must be giving them a script. So, Anna, before I go any further just to check if people came in at this clip. Say yes or no to this question: do you believe that media in uk are being censored related to SARS CoV-2? Are the media in our country being censored that is are they restricted ..

Anna: More and more people are coming around to thinking that way more and more. People are coming around to think that way, absolutely. From you know, from anyone like myself independent journalists now, the views and the following. You know I really like Freddie Sayers from Unheard and he's interviewed about herd immunity. The difference with Freddie Sayers…He's not as emotional as me and it's very difficult, because congruence. I am very concerned about my children, i'm very concerned about suicide, about elderly in care who are not seeing their relatives and dying alone and I keep hearing these stories. And it just and I know you feel the same Mike. These interviews are emotionally draining, which is why I don't want to get you to keep repeating the same thing. I have a very different angle with these interviews that I put on my channel. So you've done a very long interview with professor James Delingpole. Please guys go and listen to that. You've also done an interview talk radio. And I know you are probably in a similar position say the professor Martin Caldwell from Harvard where he wanted to speak out. So I saw him ready Northern Ireland, then he ended up being on a YouTube channel and then he was smeared for talking to a particular YouTube channel. This is so wrong! Journalists don't allow this to happen so you've had conversations with the BBC, I know. We need to get you on the BBC, don't we Mike? Would that help?

Mike: that that could help, although I have to say it's not my job to do this. I have provided in writing, on podcast long form and in video now, all the evidence anyone would need to determine that the government and SAGE (Scientific Advisory Group on Emergencies) for whatever reasons are, I’m afraid, I’ll be direct.. they are lying to you. The pandemic is not raging. If it was raging, there would be excess deaths. There are not excess deaths. Let me tell you something else, I learned just before this call because I knew you're going to ask me about the recent upturn in deaths. So there is slight excess in deaths. So I called a good friend of mine. She’s a pathologist. That person told me that there is a slight increase in deaths, but let me just characterize what she said. That they're not mostly very old people which are generally the people who died with Covid. They are male and female equally whereas Covid kills slightly more men than women. So, much younger than, male and female ratio is wrong for Covid. But then here's the thing that really hurts: they are not respiratory deaths, mostly dying of ischemic heart disease and stroke and untreated cancers. In other words, these kind of things that might happen to your neighbours and yourself and your family if your government deprived you of access to the health care system for the most part of six months. So that's my answer to the excess deaths that aren't coronavirus excess deaths. There are not. I think the pandemic is essentially finished and it might be complete. There is not generally an increase in deaths and the ones that have been recorded in recent days are definitely not characteristic of the deaths of Covid. They may have that diagnosis I think that's a false positive test. Just listen to the actual description of these poor people who recently died. They're between 45 and 65, men and women equally, not respiratory deaths. Strokes, cancers, heart attacks.

Anna: So these figures that I just quoted then. that's gone …they've gone up from sort of the 50 to 100 to 300 in the last few days. You're saying that they've been falsely… They have died with not of.

Mike: Let's be clear. I was talking just then about overall mortality. Roughly 1700 people die a day. If we had a lethal pandemic sweeping through the land you would expect several hundred a day extra. We're not seeing any of that. There is no increase at all. So but the recently reported corona virus deaths, as you say, going from 20, 50, 100, 300… I’m saying those people have genuinely died. No one is faking death certificates. All I am saying is that they have we've done so many tests on so many people, including on all hospital admissions get tested regularly. There's a false positive rate if you're tested repeatedly. The odds become greater and greater that you will get a positive test. The longer you stay in hospital the more likely you are to die. Obviously you would be released if you were well and improving. So people who stay a long time, say long-stay patients are both more likely to die statistically and much more likely to be tested so often that they'll have a false positive test. That is what I think is happening. And it's a convenience whoever it's playing some macabre game, because I don't think it's an error anymore. But this industrial scale PCR test - 300 000 or so tests a day …They don't release even the basic information about it - like the false positive rate. It’s unbelievable the public health people who do know better. I’ve spoken to some people in it and they're embarrassed. They're not even being allowed to characterize and publish the information you would need to know to work out what how useful the test is. That's not being done. It’s full steam ahead and that's so that's what I think is happening there. They are real deaths but they're not covid.

Anna: absolutely and I did an interview with the former BBC presenter, Sue Cook, who was on Crimewatch and Children in need. Very well respected and she's at this stage … I’ve got to do a documentary. She wants to do a documentary on the testing and she's she thinks, if we get that out there people will start to see real …you know what you're describing. I’m kind of further on from that now and I’m aware you just said it's not an error anymore. I’m starting something very sinister going on and I picked …you know I’ve mentioned this before.

I wanted to just mention to you, you worked with sir Patrick Vallance now. BBC did a freedom of information requests and saw some emails right from back at the beginning of all of this in March. On March the 13th Covid-19 began to sweep across the UK so Patrick Vallance told BBC, Radio 4 and Sky News that the country would need to build up some degree of herd immunity. Then 500 academics published a joint letter saying you can't do this. You can’t allow all these unnecessary deaths. This is the wrong approach; you've got to go lockdown. So you know you work with Sir Patrick Vallance, you can be very critical of them, but were they put under so much pressure? You're killers, basically, you have to lockdown. That they change direction?

Mike: I didn't until recently, none of us knew about this email exchange between professor Whitty and Patrick Vallance. I’ve read it now. It’s been leaked or released as you say freedom of information. It looked to me like two earnest people you know a medic and you know and a doctor with a PhD, an earnest exchange about what would be best given there is this infection that's going to arrive, it was already here. How should we best handle this? So I thought that was an honourable exchange at the time. I would tell you that at the same time in Sweden, that Anders Tegnell, who is the state epidemiologist, was speaking to his mentor professor Johan Giesecke, who was previously the Sweden’s national epidemiologist, and is now a senior figure in the WHO. They had similar email exchanges, phone calls about how are we best going to do this. And their conclusion was that you can't hide from respiratory viruses. Some people say they're slippery customers. They will spread around the country whatever you do. This idea of hiding from is some … it's an invention this year. I feel quite sorry that people think that quotes lockdown will allow us to escape. It's not like the weather when you come out again it's gone, like escaping a hurricane. That that would be I think that's what people feel the analogy is and in which case I understand why they would go for it. It’s not like the weather. It’s when you come out again it's exactly where you were before.

And furthermore, the kind of things we shut down when we lockdown, the ability right now of family members to speak, to meet each other at all, inside their home or outside their home. These things are not the most important places for transmission. High-speed transmission occurred early in the year in hospitals, as it always does. It's not their fault. The reason hospitals become a major exchange centre for diseases is, because it's full of ill people so they have infection control specialists, but it's really, really hard people coming in and out. And we have over a million people in the UK work for the health service in one way or another.

So that and all people's homes I believe, maybe also supermarkets and all the supply chain. I believe that that was sufficient to allow the virus to sweep through the country for ignoring completely all the sacrifices and quotes measures that we made. And the evidence for that is that countries that didn't lock down like Sweden. Just little precautions had exactly the same profile of deaths this sort of Gompertz curve shape that you can … others can look at in my podcast. There is there's no difference in the shape and timing and intensity of the number of deaths in Sweden and UK. I think that strongly suggests what I just said is true that lockdown has been for naught. But so someone must have put pressure on Chris Whittey and Patrick Vallance, because what they were speaking about originally in those emails was an entirely correct thing to do, as Gupta and Bhattacharya and Kulldorff have later said. Which is you should do your best to spare the most vulnerable, but other than that you don't really have a choice just a question of how you act as the virus sweeps through. And let me just say again in case people think I’m brutal. The total death toll in England, in UK is 0.06 not 6 % or 0.6 %, 0.06 %. Normally in a year roughly one percent a little under roughly one percent of our population I’m afraid don't meet the next birthday, mostly from old age sometimes from other diseases like cancer. So we have we have crashed the country for .06 about three weeks worth of normal deaths. Now Sweden also had .06 percent of their population died and now they're living normally. Now I just … biology doesn't work like that. It's not possible … it's not… Biology is not political, science on scale is not political. It's a natural phenomenon, in fact what has happened to us is a natural phenomenon, our response is unnatural. But the point is I’m making their density as a country is slightly more urban people think that maybe the Swedes live in little huts in the woods which is fairly racist but actually they are as urbanized as we are slightly more. And mostly the people who died tended to be 80, 82 and older and they lost 0.06 % just like us and now it's stopped. So you could ask yourself is that consistent with what's happening, claimed to be happening in my country? When this Yeadon guy points out that there have not been any excess deaths since the end of June and there are not excess respiratory deaths now. So it's up to you. I mean I don't even need to be a scientist at this point. Any lawyer any skilled professional hearing these words would think something smells a rat. Well it does, yes. Why it's happening, I’ve no idea, not my job, but it's definitely happening and it's false.

Anna: I am like … I said it must be draining for you to keep doing these interviews. Do you think you're getting anywhere and getting this message done?

Mike: No, I am concerned. I’m not a media person. When I publish stuff I went through the normal peer review process. I have 60 peer-reviewed original research journal articles under my under my belt.

Not that one was never particularly what I wanted to do. I was in new drug discovery I like understanding disease and why it happens, how you can fix it, what has gone wrong at a molecular level and to try and relieve symptoms or the ongoing disease. Really all I've done is applied that same skill set the sort of. A scientist knows for inconsistencies things. The basic things I know that clearly are not being they're saying things that are happening that I just know are impossible. They should change all the rules of immunology. So I looked around me I could see no one in the media saying these things you know medical correspondents science experts and so on. I had no idea my family used to say well we believe you dad, but why is no one else saying this? Then someone pings me the Ofcom coronavirus broadcasting guidelines issued on the day of lockdown in March. Essentially it says that you know because you know idle speculation might be dangerous people might not then do what the government says, we're going to ask you to comply with what the government says and their advisors more or less that's what it said. It doesn't seem that unreasonable initially it's just that the way I've heard it because I've spoken to people in the media who won't interview me that um it's much stronger than that. That they're simply not permitted to put on air people with views like mine even though I'm amply qualified to say this is an alternative view and I think you should look at it. They will not interview me.

Anna: We've seen like… you know.. professors lining up, doctors lining up. We've seen press conferences, the scientific community, and the medical community I have seen because obviously I've been following this story so closely. I mean you must have seen the doctors in Germany ACU 2020.

Mike: Yes, of course and Belgium.

Anna: Belgium absolutely and I like. I share it. and there they go you can't share this on Facebook in Google, this is frightening!

Mike: Yes, it is. Yes exactly, same with Twitter. I have put facts or things on Twitter that are not only within the law; they're what you would expect people to do in a free liberal democracy, which is to say I don't agree with what the government's doing. It's all they're saying. Here are some reasons why you might want to consider something else, these tweets get deleted. That's not appropriate and so you ask me am I breaking through I don't think so. The government knows about me. That is rather flattering but I'm not a threat to them. Even though I do think I understand what is happening I don't know why. I do think I understand what is happening and how it's been done, but I'm not a threat to them because I'm not a perfect, I'm not a publicly known figure. Even if I was I don't have a platform. So what they will do, I think, is benign neglect. They'll just ignore me and say… they don't need to answer any charges I make.

Anna: you've not been … they can't smear you, you see. This is what's really interesting. So I’ve had a senior dialysis facing disciplinary action okay from talking on my channel, but then I’ve had dr. Renne Hoenderkamp has been on it. She's the resident London gp sorry for BBC radio London she's the resident GP. I’ve had GP Rick O'Shea on my channel no problems. But this senior dialysis and she's not allowed to speak, she's been threatened. They try and smear you, but if you have a reputation that can't be smeared. I don't. I had no problems whatsoever when I was at the BBC and ITV. I had a very successful company doing corporate training for big corporates all over the country. You have got a fantastic reputation no issues in the past, so they can't smear you. What are they going to do? Just keep ignoring us?

Mike: Exactly. That's what they're doing. So for example I was copied in to an exchange between concerned constituent and Mr. Jeremy Hunt who was the former health secretary. And it was a three paragraph reply where this this woman had said why you should be paying attention to Dr. Yeadon’s assessment of what's going on. And he said we're well aware of Dr. Yeadon. It's not a question of suppression, he says, it's simply that the scientific consensus does not agree with him. Really? So and then he went on to say that it's not even clear that having been infected with Covid-19 leaves you immune, this is very uncertain and given that blah blah blah … I said you're kidding! When you let me just tell you straight. When you are infected by a respiratory virus might give you symptoms might make you will and if you're very vulnerable and old he could kill you like flu, but uh when you survive and 99.94 percent of the country survived the pandemic sweeping through. I assure you you are immune. It's like it's like immunology first lesson you know first term first lesson. And we even know how that happens and you can go back into people and determine that it's true. Also if it wasn't true how did the virus leave your body? I mean did it just give up halfway? This is the point. Unless you win the battle, it's trying to multiply in your tissues. That's what it does and you are trying to stop it and if there's a severe battle you can get ill, sometimes you lose and die, but most of the time that battle is won by your immune system. It's not the force of will it doesn't give up so you have to have beaten it. And the way you did it was with your immune system.

Anna: we don't agree with you. You're wrong the politicians and the media said you're wrong, you're wrong, you're wrong.

Mike: I know, I understand, but what I would say is open any immunology textbook about it or virus virus infection, but specifically respiratory virus infection and you'll find a table and it'll say the it'll be the steps leading through respiratory virus infection to immunity. That's the title of the table. It doesn't say the steps that might leave you immune if a politician says you are. That's what happens. The only way it doesn't, because people will think that's funny he's saying things I know that not true. You don't get immune to HIV. Well, one, HIV is not respiratory virus, but the most important thing in relation to this conversation about it is it it disarms your immune system, which is why you don't become immune. It's a toxin in that sense. SARS CoV-2 and these viruses they don't do that. They're fairly ordinary. The other way you cannot, you might end up as it were still susceptible to something that sounds similar is like flu, where what they call … basically it changes its clothes every year, so you don't recognize it as something you've seen before and it genuinely makes you weak you're not immune to it but things that are stable like lots of viruses like the coronaviruses we've they're at least seven in common well at least four in common circulation, three others known. they're stable genetically they don't mutate quickly and so once you've had it your body marks its card and if it tries to approach you again you might briefly get infected you won't get symptoms you are functionally immune. There's just no question. That’s the first chapter..

Anna: let's remind the audience: you were the chief scientific officer and vice president for Pfizer global R&D and you said that's the equivalent of the chief scientific officer for the government and that company is you know … What is Pfizer?

Mike: It's a huge multinational research based pharmaceutical company that sells everything from over-the-counter medicines to the most important breakthrough anti-cancer medicine. So

I haven't worked there for nine years so I’m not speaking for them. I’m an independent now, but yeah they're a well-known venerable R&D based drug company and so when I worked there I was the most senior research person for respiratory inside the whole company. So I was the equivalent yes I was equivalent to Pfizer’s respiratory for what Patrick Vallance is for the country. I would provide advice and guidance in respiratory.

Anna: following this interview people could continue to close their eyes shut their ears and not listen to what you're saying, okay? Or they can maybe they can go to protests and they can join community groups they can write to journalists they can write to politicians. They are they could do something couldn't they? What do you recommend people do if they listen to you and they agree with you? They want to do something about it.

Mike: so I would say it's a great question. There will be lots of people I hope who will hear this, who belong to professional bodies that will have a you know … they will have a as it

were a board behind them like the royal society, something like that the BMA, British pharmacological society which I’m a member, was a member. There will be there are lots of learned societies; professional groups probably dozens of them. And you don't need to be an epidemiologist or an immunologist, but you need to have … you need to take a view that since there's not excess mortality, since the PCR testing in the summer was proven to have false positives that probably accounted for most of the cases. Do you remember that exchange between Julia Hartley-Brewer and Matthew Hancock? Well I was kind of behind that because I could smell a rat then. So once you accept that the PCR test has a false positive rate, I think people should demand to know what that number is.

You're not being told. If it's a few percent that accounts for all the positives you're seeing now. End of pandemic. Remember that I’ve told you that there are no excess deaths. It's the thing that's pathology stalking land right now is the government's PCR testing system. Testing the well population - people aren't ill. It's just a madcap thing because almost all of them don't have the virus, but if you run it, hard run this machine hard enough you will end up with an enormous number of false…

Anna: we've gone back to facts again we've gone back to facts

Mike: yeah sorry. Okay so what should they do what should they do? Yes I think so if you're a member of a professional society, learning society have a look at the facts and if you don't believe that taking further measures right now while the mortality is absolutely normal for the time of the year, I think you should write an open letter to the government saying I believe SAGE is incorrect in its advice and you should you should immediately disband it and begin to speak to independent people. That's the thing i think they should do. In practical terms I do believe that if the PCR mass testing were to stop within three weeks, the country would be normal. There is no disease and if you stop testing. Everything will be normal. Now the virus get out of control, you keep using it for hospital admissions but just stop testing the mass well people. That's what you should do.

Anna: There's something really important I do need to speak to you about as well. And that's

and you may not feel that you can give any response whatsoever but you know this talk of vaccination and people in the health system and education. You know we don't know at the moment when the vaccine's going to be available, but there's a lot of fear that it might become mandatory. What's your view on vaccination? First to help people and I’ve said that I want to make sure we provide some informed debate on this quite serious issue.

Mike: yes certainly. So because I’m an ex-big Pharma as they say and then I worked in biotechnology companies so you know I’m not exactly some fluffy person who's going to tell you never to take a vaccine, they're all bad. I’ve had all the vaccines available in the 1960s and 70s all my both my children my wife and i decided they should get full lot. I’m pro-well-characterized vaccines, absolutely prevents tremendous amount of illness and death, but in the case of something like SARS CoV-2, that kills one in 500 people or so average age 83, i think it'd be great if we had a vaccine for people like that. It might give them a few more months of life. Not much more. The reason you die having caught it is not because you've got SARS CoV-2 because you've got a respiratory virus almost any of them will kill you at that age. Even the serous cold will kill you. So it would be good I think to have a vaccine to use for for very vulnerable people, but is a really important part nobody else needs this thing. Your body and my body I’m not vulnerable I’m not going to be made seriously ill and die. It would be an astonishing thing, one in a million. You don't vaccinate population because one in a million people might have a bad outcome. What you do is you look at the people who are vulnerable and you offer them the vaccine, with the word offer. Informed consent is important. So it's not necessary and it's an appalling - misuse of a public platform for people to suggest that the only way we all get our lives back is if we mass vaccinate population. Something very smelly is going on. It's simply not appropriate. It's never been required to do that. I don't even think it would work. Then let me also just mention because I’m in…I was in the pharmaceutical industry I am capable of reading development plans. So I’ve been on a site called clinicaltrials.com and you can go and look up what's going on with the vaccines. I will say to you that so far normal for the stage of development. They're looking at antibodies they're looking at whether the vaccine raises antibodies that's all they know. They don't know whether it reduces how ill you get or whether you transmit the virus nor does it measure whether you will have reduced deaths. you don't know this. now this is three years too early. So three years too early. So all began to know when we start vaccinating people is it raises antibodies and I’m telling you that whilst antibodies are good things I have and I would like to have them if that's if I was very ill. They are not the most important part of your immune system. It will almost certainly be T-cells so I think there's a vaccine development plan that's going to lead to a very only a small amount of information about it. And then as I said earlier you don't need it you know. If you're a young, middle-aged, even slightly in my age, I’m 60 and well really not very vulnerable. So I’d say if you would not have considered a flu vaccine in the normal course of events coming up to this winter, I don't think you should even consider taking this vaccine. But the main problem I have with it as you mentioned, is this notion of mandate being mandated or even coerced. So you don't have to but you can't travel if you don't …that's the sort of thing. I want your viewers to know that that's illegal under international law. After the Second World War atrocities of Dr Mengele and other doctors in

Japan where they performed experiments on humans led to their deaths. We and others in the post-war consensus led to an international law that says that no medical procedure may be performed on a human being without their informed consent and they must benefit from it and about 10 other things. But that's basically at the heart of it. Your government doesn't have the right to override that law. So if people are saying you've got to otherwise you can't you can't go shopping you can't go to work or travel take them to court. It's absolutely illegal and no one should stand for it. But to say again I’m pro-well-characterized vaccines if you're elderly frightened and vulnerable and it's available. I would say work with your doctor consider it maybe you should but everybody else you don't need it. And something very odd is going on. I don't know what.

Anna: it is going on and anxiety doesn't help the immune system, does it? So you know my son's in year seven and one person got tested positive and the whole school sent home for two weeks and then he goes back to school and he may come back and. That's not where I want my my child to be living going on in it. This is what worries me so if they're doing that what's the end game and people keep saying what's the end game? Which is why I’m worried that mandatory vaccination might come in. But we don't know, do we?

Mike: i have no idea. So people often ask me in fact it almost seems to be a condition for accepting anything I have to say. Well why would they do that and I honestly answer I don't know you know. I’m not a detective or a politician but that shouldn't take away from whether I’m right or not so back to the facts: there are not excess deaths right now! But that's not what the BBC tells you every night. I am never going to trust them again, by the way. I listened to the BBC 41 years. Never coming back in my ears, because they're just lied in my face all year. So there are not excess deaths or there are not excess respiratory deaths right now. The slight upturn of a few hundred non-respiratory deaths that have been reported recently I think are the consequence of restricted access to the NHS. So I don't want anyone flinging that at me saying are you wrong about access deaths. Those deaths are just what you'd expect if you restrict access to the health system to a population for six months. What do you expect what's going to happen?

Anna: I can clearly sense you know and I know I give this vibe off as well because I care about people and I know how the media works. I know that you need communication strategies and lots and lots of money to control and that money controls the narrative. So if you're you know a suicide charity or if you're a care home you don't get that message out on the old media. I call it like you say you've completely lost trust to the BBC. I would just like to finish the interview by saying thank you for sharing. You’re so bravely you know you've got nothing to gain from this whatsoever and neither have I. I’m just it I want to go back to what I was doing before I was in a good money, it was easy. This is stressful, it's upsetting.

Mike: I want spend time with my wife I want to help my children. I’ve got we've got one grandchild Freddie and we love him and we want to be able to pick him up and we're not supposed to, so we're kind of not going to I don't agree with the laws are completely mad but I’m a guy I comply with laws I then argue against them but at the moment I’m even told if I do that I’m somehow dangerous. But anyway yeah I want to go back to normal and I’m very worried about what's coming and that's why I’ve got involved I’ve nothing to gain. I’m you know nothing at all I’m not political never been a member of any campaigning group until now, but I feel the need to say something, because what's happening is… there's a fraud going on, fraud going on.

Anna: there is a fraud going on and it's very difficult for anyone to speculate and i have mentioned you know there is talk of things like there's something going on behind the scenes and these global organizations are getting together and they're pumping money into the countries and making us more dependent upon the maybe a global and an undemocratic force is forming in terms of a great reset but I don't really know i'm trying to get interviews with these people, so we can understand what's going on. We need trust, we need debates to build trust to build trust in the government we must have debate in the media. We must allow these fears and concerns and facts to be talked about in a calm and rational way. But you don't want to speculate either I should imagine?

Mike: No, I don't. When people do ask me this i say i think everything was normal up to … well possibly that Whittey-Vallance exchange that you talked about and certainly I would say that the pandemic itself passing through the country was absolutely real. You know people got sick, lots of people rushed to hospital. They did die you know, 45 000 or so. And something happened in the summer. It was when they started mass testing the population. That's when I became deeply suspicious. That’s when I started looking at the assay itself. I’ve used tests like this so it's not difficult to look at it. And I thought that's funny, they're not telling us what the false positive rate is and I went through government documents and I found an internal document that more or less said don't use this test because we don't know the characteristics. So something happened around you maybe earlier something happened then.

Anna: and now you're in lockdown you're in France. You're like we never thought we'd be locked down again. How did that happen?

Mike: Well of course this is this is but this is the bit that's very very important. You know I don't know it could be that the lockdown this spring was done maybe there was political pressure the media certainly pressured the government into doing something. You know personally I knew at the time that it's not gonna make any difference because people don't pass the virus to each other as they pass in the streets or chatting to your neighbour. So the locking down bit i could tell what would what it would do is stop the economy and inhibit civil society but I knew it would do nothing to transmission because mostly transmission happens where ill people meet other vulnerable people, hospitals care homes. Sorry that's true and that's why the profile isn't the same in countries that didn't didn't lock down. But i almost wonder did they make a lockdown because it can has conditioned us. See now we're ready we're ready to go and lockdown again. I just told you there are no excess deaths that haven't been for four months. What are you doing? You're walking into voluntary house arrest when there is not an excess deaths signal. Why doing that? Seriously, question. Ak yourself why are you going to be willing to be locked down quotes to get away from a virus which, I’m telling you, is not present. Because if it was, you'd have lots of excess deaths. That's why I’m very fearful because it doesn't make any sense. And I think there are no benign outcomes. I’m not going to speculate, but there are no benign outcomes from this.

Anna: it doesn't make any sense. I’m aware of three groups one of them is called Us for them, which is campaigning for children's rights, another one called Keep Britain free, another one called Save our rights UK. These are campaign groups that I’m aware of that are growing up getting very much more organized.

Mike: There's lots. I think it's called Recovery UK. reported in the paper today so I’ve said I’ll join that as a scientist. I’m not a politician but I will if they want someone to speak on science i will do that.

Anna: I'm not a campaigner or a protester either and people can't contact me. These organizations are growing they're getting more organized you know. There's lots of them as well in little groups in stride for example in Dundee all around the country on facebook and it's about them getting together i think in working out how they want to approach the situation if they feel it doesn't make any sense, which is what you've kind of a lot of people feeling at the moment. so is there anything else you'd like to add before we finish the interview and then thank you again for for doing this.

Mike: no only just to repeat again for those who come in right at the end you can say what my qualifications were. So there are presents no excess deaths in the uk. I believe the pandemic ended at the end of summer and i think the government has simply pretended that it's not happened by completely continuing to use on ever increasing scale a test that is error-prone. And i think all of the things that you're seeing occurring to your great country are secondary to that decision. And consequently if you can persuade the government just to pause that test for three weeks just to see if i'm right you'll recover your country and if you don't do that i don't know what's going to happen, but it's not an accident and it's not benign. That's it.

Anna: thank you so much well i tell you something Dr. Mike Yeadon, you have performed a responsibility and your duty to your fellow men by sharing this information. I have by being a journalist and giving you a platform.

Mike: thank you Anna

Anna: let's leave it to the public to decide what they want to do from this point onwards i think. yes we i think we've done what we can and we're doing we can

Mike: yeah go go look at the data and see whether what I’ve said is true because if it's true then you must assume that the things you're being told by your government and your media that you've trusted for decades are not true. So it's up to you.

Anna: it's up to you guys watching this. Thank you so much. you take care and keep in touch back on the channel anytime as obviously things are changing you take care and speak to you soon bye.

Vir: https://vimeo.com/476941470 Film ima slovenske podnapise

*

Dr Yeadon https://altcensored.com/watch?v=OUniJcH-UAs

*

Dr Yeadon https://www.aier.org/article/an-education-in-viruses-and-public-health-from-michael-yeadon-former-vp-of-pfizer/

*