Yesterday I summarized key points made by Dr. Michael Yeadon, former Pfizer Inc. VP and Chief Science Officer, concerning Covid vaccines and and the public policy response to the Covid pandemic. Here, I consider the validity of four of those claims.
First: asymptomatic transmission is a lie.
This is the premise of Yeadon's claim that locking down asymptomatic people, as a means to stop viral spread, makes no sense.
On the face of it, the claim is plausible: Only when the virus has multiplied sufficiently to induce coughing, sneezing, and a running nose is the virus easily spread, whether by physical contact or the spread of airborne droplets of mucus and saliva.
Thus, says Yeadon, we should quarantine the sick not the healthy, "that is what we have always done."
But what we have always done does not stop viral spread as the almost yearly return of the flu confirms, despite the fact that people expressing symptoms of the flu stay home.
And the reason that people with the flu staying home does not stop the spread is for the obvious reason that until they become symptomatic, people infected by the flu virus do not stay home, which means that there is "asymptomatic transmission."
In particular, "asymptomatic transmission" most likely occurs during the few hours between a person becoming aware that they are sick and the time they are able to sequester themselves at home.
Thus, it is not necessarily a mistake to quarantine all but essential workers during an epidemic of what is considered a dangerous disease.
Moreover, even if it is true, as Yeadon claims, that "we have never done that," i.e., quarantine the healthy, that fact has no bearing on the question of the best public policy today. Furthermore, there is a clear distinction between the present circumstances, and hence the most appropriate policies, and times of epidemics past.
For example, in London, during the plague years of the early 17th Century, infected individuals were required to remain at home. Any seen in public with the marks of the plague upon them were liable to death by hanging.
But that asymptomatic individuals were free to go about their business in plague-ridden London during the early sixteen hundreds was a matter of absolute necessity for the reason that a large proportion of the population was essential to maintain the production and distribution of food and other essential services.
Today, economic conditions are totally different. In the developed world, a mere one percent of the population is sufficient to maintain full agricultural production, and another several percent suffice to move and process the food, keep the lights on, chlorinate the water, and run the sewage plant. For the rest, they might just as well be locked up if that is what it takes to "bend the curve."
Second: Immunity to infection depends, primarily, not on antibodies, but on T-cells.
Is that claim true? As a non expert, I won't presume to say. However, it seems to be the case that robust and durable immunity to a viral pathogen does depend on T-Cell immunity, whereas, antibody immunity, for example that induced by "vaccination" with Covid spike protein mRNA, even if effective in preventing the manifestation of disease in infected individuals, will likely fade within months.
Third: Covid is less of a threat that the flu, except to the elderly and those with certain predisposing conditions
This I believe is correct and it underlies Yeadon's message, which is this:
We should have allowed Covid to spread freely, while seeking to quarantine only the elderly and others at particular risk of death from Covid. Had that been the policy adopted, herd immunity would have been achieved before the end of last year, and Covid, otherwise known as SARS COV 2 would be a thing of the past, as is the case with SARS COV 1 with which it has an 80% genetic similarity.
Fourth: Booster shots now being prepared by Yeadon's old employer Pfizer Inc. and other mRNA vaccine suppliers will be designed not only to handle Covid variants that escape control by the current Covid vaccines, but to induce genetic diseases, cancer, liver failure whatever, as a population reduction measure.
This has to be nonsense. Genetic vaccines, whether of RNA or DNA cannot have secret ingredients. There must be literally thousands of people around the world capable of reading the nucleotide sequence of a nucleic acid "vaccine" and understanding its intended purpose. The inclusion, for example, of CRISPR technology to modify the genetic code of the treated person would be immediately apparent, likewise the inclusion of cancer-causing genes or other lethal components. What that means is that the monstrous crime against humanity that Yeadon proclaims to be the purpose of the ongoing Covid vaccination program would be impossible to perpetrate without exposure.
But if Yeadon's key point is nonsense, what does that mean? Possible it means simply that Dr. Yeadon is off his head. That does happen to highly intelligent people, and there is no doubt that Yeadon is highly intelligent.
Alternatively, the explanation seems to be that Yeadon is a mouthpiece for extremely nasty propaganda, which works as follows:
Yeadon's key point, that the vaccines are a depopulation weapon designed to kill you, is obvious nonsense, therefore, everything Yeadon says is nonsense, which thus falsifies the idea that:
(a) Instead of wrecking economies with lockdowns, Governments should have allowed the virus uncontrolled spread to achieve herd immunity, which would have ended the SARS COV 2 pandemic, months ago.
(b) That antibody-inducing M-RNA "vaccines" are essentially useless if not worse than useless.
So it would appear that whatever his intention, Yeadon's public statements about Covid vaccines have the perverse effect of convincing many people that Covid-related public policies pursued by Western governments, including the planned introduction of vaccine passports which Yeadon has quite correctly, in my view, inveighed against, have all been for the best in the best of all possible worlds, whereas in fact, the opposite is almost certainly case.
Related:
