Former Pfizer VP: 'I've never been as ashamed of the industry I used to work in'

Dr. Yeadon's comments begin at the 30:52 mark

Doctors for COVID Ethics presented the COVID-19 Interdisciplinary Symposium on July 29th and 30th, hosted by UK Column. In a talk entitled First Do No Harm, guests discussed the complicit role of the media and the drive for control through deployment of vaccination passports.In the segment entitled Vaccines: Emergency Authorization Abused, America's Frontline Doctors (AFLDS) Chief Science Officer former Pfizer VP Dr. Michael Yeadon told the forum that although he would have been happy to share his findings with mainstream news outlets, he has faced "complete suppression", and went on to say: "The reason I've been speaking out from the beginning, is that it was just blindingly obvious from as early as April 2020 that we've been lied to. It's literally absurd. And so those of who might think I'm a 'conspiracy theorist', I might say: There is an international plan, there's nothing theoretical about it."For example, each country - scores of them have had their own pandemic preparedness plans, of course they did. They're all slightly different, and they threw them all away at about the same time, and then they all adopted what I call the Eight COVID Lies."Now, if you've even seen any of my feeds, you'll know what they are; and even if you've got an A-level in biology - or, as my humanities graduate daughter says, you don't even need that, you just need common sense not to be completely stupid - but your government's been lying to you for 15-18 months, I'm sorry, they are."Now why would I bother to speak out? I was an early-retired guy who had made quite a few millions of pounds because I was quite good at what I did, I had a nice, happy, relaxed life. I've made no friends and have lost many over the last year, so the only reason I'm speaking out is to tell you what I've just said, that you're being lied to and there's a very bad reason for that."Unfortunately, the vaccines are part of this very bad plan. I'm generally, of course, pro-vaccine, and the people who say I'm an 'anti-vaxxer' are idiots. I've spent 32 years in the pharmaceutical industry working to create new, innovative medicines. So anyone who does that has my thumbs-up, provided the medicines are safe, and provided they're used appropriately. And these gene-based vaccines are neither."Just to contrast and compare what you normally think of as a vaccine and with what you've got. A conventional vaccine does have all the character you think of as them as having, which is they're generally extremely safe. There are occasionally rare side effects, but, I've had all of my shots and so have my children and my grandchildren."So they generally provide immunity to whatever it is you've been vaccinated against and what that does is, the whole premise of vaccines is you arrive fit and well at the doctor's office, they give you a shot or an injection, you might have a little soreness for a day or so in your arm, and then you're protected for a long time, often for life, against that particular serious illness. And the way that's accomplished is to give you a dose of usually a killed version of whatever that disease-causing agent is, bacterium or usually a virus, along with something else just to wake your immune system up; that's the basis of a traditional vaccine."These are not that, at all. These are unique, they've never been used before on any scale for any kind of treatment in humans, and these all contain a piece of genetic code, either DNA, where the viruses carry them into your body, or messenger RNA, which is the intermediate step between your genes and protein, which is the product, and those are used just to be basically a slippery coating of lipid nanoparticles to help them slide into your cells."So all very well, all very Star Trek so far, but there are at least two major problems: Major problem, number one, with these is they've used what's called the 'spike proteins', and we've all seen this cartoon ball of the virus with all these knobs, all these little bumps sticking out the surface, that's called a spike protein, and they came up with this bright idea that if we can code those in these gene-based vaccines, then your body will manufacture some of that, how's that? You've taken over your body to temporary become a manufacturer of virus proteins. You never thought you were doing that before, did you? But that's what you've been doing, and unfortunately the spike protein is highly active, biologically. It does lots of things. And when I point out, for example, is that it will cause your blood to clot wherever it is expressed sufficiently in your blood, you probably should be worried because that's exactly what it's doing."That's one problem, that the antigen, the thing that has been encoded to ask your body to manufacture it in a unique process that's never been done before. Unfortunately they've picked something that's not benign, it's toxic, it's a biological toxin."But the other problem is, unlike conventional vaccines, when you get a fixed dose, let's call it 5 million smidgens of a dead virus, what you're getting now is 5 million smidgens of genetic code, but that means that Mike Yeadon might take that vaccine up very well, and I might make lots of copies of it, so I could end up with 250 million smidgens somewhere. You might take it up less well, and you might make less copies of it and get 5 million smidgens. Well that's a huge range of outcomes, and that's the problem. It's absolutely inevitable. Because these vaccines have multiple steps which are not controllable and are not even measured, but there will be differences between people. I think some people will make huge quantities of spike proteins for a long time in bad places, and they get ill and they maybe die, and other people make smaller quantities in more benign places and they say, 'hey, no side effects; what are you complaining about?' Well, I've just explained to you; it's built into the mechanism that there'll be huge variability. I think that's a major problem."That's the contrast between conventional vaccines which are very safe, and they work really well, and what they do is just present your body with a dead version of that which you would normally conquer but now you don't have to, you have the disease, your immune system, as it were, takes thousands of pictures of that dead thing and keeps a memory of it."It generally takes years, though, to do that properly. Somewhere between five and ten years would be conventional. And that's because you don't even know what dose to use when you start; we do things called 'dose-range finding studies', we didn't do that as far as I can tell, or if we did it was all done with tremendous speed and not with very many people."So they blazed away with Operation Warp Speed. If you know, warps don't work; it's a Star Trek term. It doesn't really mean that you can go fast. It's just literally absurd, 'Operation Warp Speed'. What happens is, they miss steps and then they lie to you and said, 'We haven't missed the steps.' I'm sorry, after 32 years of drug development, as we say in Britain, 'you can't get a quart into a pint pot.' You just can't. If you go very quickly, there are some things you have not done."I think there's been a complete failure of the regulatory process. With vaccines that are similar to the ones I've just described, in the traditional ones, you know generally the kinds of things that you want to control for, you know what goes wrong, and therefore there's a whole set of rules and requirements that will help make sure that the vaccine does clear those hurdles, so when you finally get to use it you can have confidence, which you should do."We have no idea what those steps should be for a gene-based vaccine. No idea. There are no medicines of this type in humans in a mass population, no-one knows what the right things are to do. I would tell you, as I've just described earlier, we don't know how they distribute in the body, we don't know for how long they make how much protein, and in which bit of the body. That's called pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, and they simply have not been done. And as a biologist I'm simply horrified. I'd be terrified if someone said 'you have to have this,' because I would know they have no idea where it's going to go."They haven't done any of the studies to characterize its safety, and another thing is that because they're not like normal vaccines, you can't make any assumptions that it will be, say, safe in pregnancy, safe just prior to becoming pregnant. No idea at all. And I think, and this is something you'll know is true when I tell you: With anything else like a complex, novel, experimental medicine, and these definitely are all of these things, we never, ever give it to pregnant women, Never. Not since thalidomide sixty years ago. And the reason we've never done it since thalidomide sixty years ago is because back in those days there was just an inadvertent failure of regulation, they had no idea the babies were not safe inside their mother's wombs, but were highly exposed to any kind of biological interference with their normal, exquisite, rapidly-changing development, and we learned that to our cost, ten-thousand children born disabled, not formed, without limbs. And worse, we learned that if the mother was unfortunate enough to take the first dose at day 20 after the egg was fertilized, the baby would be born with severe brain damage. If they took their first dose at day 22 after fertilization, they would have cardiovascular malformation. If it was day 24, limb buds or limbs missing."So don't anyone tell me that without actually studying it, you know what this vaccine's going to do to the developing embryo. You don't. You've no idea, you reckless idiots. All of you physicians who are giving it to pregnant women, you are absolute reckless idiots. You should be strung up by your thumbs and struck off. And any females who are thinking of having this vaccine, or might get pregnant around the same time or are already pregnant, please don't take it. It might be fine, but you don't really want Mike Yeadon telling you 'it might be fine' as the assurance. I'm very worried."So the Emergency Use Authorization: Basically, these vaccines have not been through the normal approval process, because of course they haven't been through the normal development process, they can't be assessed, even if we knew what the right things to do were - and we don't, we're guessing - we've only been through a partial clinical development, they've done about one-third of the phase-3 trial at the time."People often lie and say they've been approved. They haven't been. They've been looked at through what's called an 'interim analysis' that looked at the results about a-third of the way through. So they've got almost no safety data about two-and-a-half months after administration. So we know pretty well what happens in a very narrow range of people, about two-and-a-half months after taking it."So if something really bad happens six months after taking it, or in a slightly different group that's not been tested in the trial, we've got no idea, though it could happen, couldn't it? Well let's just hope it's alright, because that's what they're doing, they're giving it to hundreds of millions, if not billions of people on the hope it'll be alright, and I've never been as ashamed of the industry I used to work in. If I had been in any of the companies making these, I would have protested and resigned, anyway. I know that because I resigned once from a company that was doing bad things and they wouldn't stop, so I just left."So you know, any of you research scientists in there, you're not stupid; why haven't you resigned? You'll have to look yourself in the eyes for the rest of this year, and when we get to next year, you could have changed the course of history, maybe you still can. If enough of you resign en masse, as you should, I think it would be a news story, don't you? Quit."The Emergency Use Authorization: There are a number of requirements, there must actually be an emergency. And there probably was something approaching an emergency in the spring of 2020, certainly in Europe, where I was living. There certainly wasn't by the end of the year, nothing approaching an emergency. They were lying to us all the time about the number of people in hospital, but there was nothing much going on. There wasn't really a public health emergency, but hey, let's just pass on that one."There must be no other ways to tackle this public health emergency (that didn't really exist). For example, no treatments. Now that's a complete lie. If you look up the work of Dr. Peter McCullough, you'll be able to find that there are five or six or sever therapies that work, hydroxychloroquine, zinc, azithromycin, ivermectin, fluvoxamine, dexameth, and the list goes on. It's the most treatable respiratory viral illness ever. So this idea that there are no treatments is an utter lie."So they approved an emergency, half-1/3-developed vaccine of a novel type, which toxicologists would probably have nightmares over, and they let you have it because there was an alleged public health emergency - of course there really wasn't - and they said you have to have it because there are no treatments, which is a complete lie."Also, whatever you're doing, you have to bring forth a product with an acceptable risk/benefit profile, and we'll come onto that, but it definitely didn't meet that test, either."They must commit, through the regulator and the manufacturer to monitor and feed back on learnings, and they've definitely not done that, either..."And the last one is: Complete informed consent, with all the information that's available, with no coercion, freedom to decline without there being penalties. You're not fulfilling fully-informed consent, are you? Because you're not being given informed consent, you're not being told much about these things, and you're definitely being given an option to refuse most of the time."And it's going to get worse. If you don't inject, eventually they're going to come around and inject you, because this is not a public health emergency, this vaccine is being used to drive through something that we don't really understand, but it's definitely not what they say, and it's not benign."I don't think these even should have been rolled out, because I don't think there was an emergency. There were plenty of other treatments, the efficacy studies were dubious, they relied pretty much on this polymerase chain reaction, PCR reaction, and even the CDC earlier this week said it's pulling the test that it's approved itself for an emergency approval for the past 15-18 months, they're just pulling that test, and that's because they acknowledge it can't really do what they thought it was doing. You do know that those are the same kind of test, qualitative test to work out whether the vaccines were working or not, so you'll draw your own conclusions, won't you? I'm not sure we know whether they work or not..."But they're definitely not safe, and I'm going to come onto the data that tells us that, and finally, that they're not really needed, as the emergency isn't a strong one, and there are good medical treatments - why would you even bother with something like this?"Those things have troubled me all the way along; I knew there was something very badly wrong, because I knew the virus was not as lethal as they were telling you about, representing mainly a greatly elevated threat to the elderly and the ill, with people lower than 70 a lower risk than influenza."Have you felt that in the last 18 months? Have you felt the world's media reflecting to you this is a virus that represents a lesser threat to you if you're of the working-age population, a lesser threat to you than influenza? I don't think so. Something very strange has been going on, hasn't it?"