This is the first instalment of a five-webpage transcript of Dr Mike Yeadon's testimony to the 86th session of Stiftung Corona Ausschuss, held on 7 January 2022.
In this transcript, covering the first twenty minutes of his testimony, Dr Yeadon establishes his credentials and rebuts critics of his motives.
Career
I'm Dr Mike Yeadon. I describe myself as an industry veteran. I worked in the biopharmaceutical industry for all of my life.
My first degree was biochemistry and toxicology. English people don't like to brag, but I’m told I should. I was top of the year by a very long way.
As an undergraduate, I worked under military clearance at Porton Down: that's the equivalent of Fort Detrick. It’s where the UK military develops its so-called chemical defences. So I was under the Official Secrets Act—they must have thought I wasn't a crazy person at the time.
I also worked for six months at the Police Forensic Service headquarters at Aldermaston, so i learned a lot of analytical techniques in that time.
Then I did a research-based PhD in respiratory pharmacology, and after that I jumped into industry. I had seven years, seven happy years, at the Wellcome Research Labs, before they closed after being acquired by Glaxo. So my my career spanned the consolidation phase of pharmaceutical companies—we call it the “dirty snowball”. Companies became absolutely huge, and that's relevant to what's happening today: they are so large, so powerful.
After that, I went to Pfizer in the UK, at their very famous Sandwich, Kent, research base. I think more blockbuster drugs were discovered and released from that lab than any other single establishment on the planet. I wish I could claim I had anything to do with it, but I didn’t. But what [that job] did do is give me the opportunity to learn, as it were, at the knee of great drug discoveries. People [at that laboratory] actually conceived and led programmes, invented molecules, developed them, went through safety testing and launched them. And they all made more than a billion a year thereafter. So it was a really good place for learning this trade.
I left Pfizer in 2011, having been head of respiratory research worldwide. So I was the chief scientific officer for that therapy area, Allergy and Respiratory. I left because they closed the site in 2011. I played an important role, I think, in helping some of those programmes, and some staff, to move to new homes: the world's second largest generics company, Mylan, acquired some space on that research park and hired many of my former colleagues. Obviously, I didn't do the deal, but I had, I think, something to do with [the success of] pitching it to the company.
Over the next ten years to today, I’ve been a consultant to startup and mid-phase biotech companies. Some are now public, others privately held. That's about thirty companies, mostly in the field of respiratory or inflammation, immunology, that kind of thing. In the middle of that ten-year period, I had the opportunity to start my own biotech company with three other colleagues, and to raise some money from private venture capital and so acquire some compounds from my former portfolio, because Pfizer was closing the site down and indeed shrinking its footprint. That was quite a common model ten years ago.
So that's me: I have the broad biological discipline and understanding necessary for doing research—that's understanding disease and mechanisms well enough to contemplate intervention points that could help slow down a disease or ameliorate symptoms. And to do so safely: that was always the number one watchword.
Refutation
Some people have said, “Why are you speaking out?” and, “You're a crazy person!”, or whatever. The three things, I would say, most commonly attributed to me which are not true, I will take them [in turn]:
- “He's a bitter ex-employee.” — Well, you know, for one, I left ten years ago. I don't hold a grudge, and certainly not for ten years. Secondly, Pfizer and I got on really well. I would say—to this day—that Pfizer was the best employer I ever worked for. It's a fantastic place to work. For the reasons I described, something's gone wrong since, obviously; but I was unhappy that I had to leave. They were very good to me.
I was one of the last employees off the site, because I was helping place people and projects. So that doesn't sound like a bitter person. They also treated me very well in terms of redundancy, because I was a vice-president.
And then, as I’ve said, a year after leaving, I came back with money and a lawyer and did a deal with them, and then two years later they put additional capital in. That doesn't sound like we're getting on badly. And in 2017, when Novartis acquired Ziarco, my biotech, they made an undisclosed sum that I would say would make them very happy. They definitely did a good deal. That was five years ago, and I’ve had no interaction with them since. So no, I’m not bitter, and I was very lucky to make some money: that's what has allowed me to be independent, by the way.
- Others have said I’m “seeking fame”. — Well, no. Despite the fact that I can appear on TV or on camera, I’m actually by nature quite a shy person. If you left me to my own devices, I’d be tinkering with motorbikes in a shed, probably. That's what I like to do.
- And others say, “Well, he's making money.” — No. There's not a single thing I’ve ever done [in media appearances] that has been monetised, and indeed I probably lost hundreds of thousands of pounds being thrown off the scientific advisory boards of former clients [since speaking up about gene therapy injections], when they said, “You've become the story and it's not acceptable,” which I understood.
So it's costing me money; it's hurting my reputation; and I had every reason just to stay at home and enjoy my early retirement. No, the reason I’m speaking out is because I noticed advisors to the UK Government lying: lying directly on television.
At first, it was just kind of fascinating, but through the spring and into the summer of 2020, I became first alarmed and then later in the year frightened—and I still remain frightened.
Co-ordination
Why? Every [developed] country had [before Covid] what was called a pandemic preparedness plan for things like this, or influenza more typically, and I’ve read them. I’ve read all of them, maybe twenty, from the G20 countries, plus the WHO [pandemic preparedness plan]. And in essence, they have only two things to recommend:
1. If you are symptomatic, please stay home and away from other people until you're better—and that's because we've known for decades that symptomatic people drive respiratory viral infections, epidemics.
2. Wash your hands more frequently than usual—because with any new pathogen, we don't understand transmission properly, so that's a good precaution.
The next nine pages of these [pre-Covid] pandemic preparedness plans involved telling us what [countries] shouldn't do. None of them involved: border closures, unless you lived on a small island; school closures; business closures; mass testing of the well; lockdown; masking; anything like that. None of them. Absolutely all of the things that we have been told are “essential” were missing and explicitly ruled out by the previous plans.
So I would say the strongest evidence I can offer for my assertion that there is a supranational plan to take over all of the liberal democracies is this that all of the countries had somewhat similar pandemic preparedness plans, that were very simple, and they all discarded them in the [same] weeks of March 2020. All of them. And they replaced them with the same narrative script.
Lies
I’ll just describe [that script]: what I call them the the Eight Covid Lies. Every single one of them is an untruth. And I think the objective was to frighten people to death, and I think it's worked.
So how could it possibly be that Germany, Italy, the United States, Iceland, Scandinavian countries, have all got the same bunch of wrong information, all at the same time? I put it to you, ladies and gentlemen of the audience, that there's only one way that can happen: and that's if they all agreed to do it beforehand, really.
I’m not going to take a lot of time on the Eight Covid Lies today, because there was a very long recording on The Highwire with Del Bigtree, about a year ago, where I go through them in painful detail. But, [in summary,] what did they say?
1. Well, they told us things like: “This is an extremely lethal virus. If you catch it, get ill, you really could die.” Remember the falling man, face down, in Wuhan? It's never happened anywhere else. It's pure theatre.
And it turns out that it's not a particularly lethal virus, if it exists at all. It's about the same as a bad seasonal influenza.
2. They used PCR testing repeatedly, off swabs up noses and throats, and led you to believe that these were highly accurate and able to distinguish a clinically infected person from someone that's not.
And even the inventor [of PCR], Kary Mullis, who's died, who won a Nobel prize for this technique, said you should never use it for this purpose. So I won't waste any more time [on this topic], but they're still using these damn tests, and they're not reliable; they don't tell you anything, really.
3. They also say you should wear masks, but masks have been extensively studied. Cloth masks, if anything, make you more likely to capture an unusual bacterial pneumonia, because you're breathing through a filthy cloth. And the blue medical masks are not masks, actually: they're splash guards.
Their purpose in hospitals is to stop blood and body fluids getting into the nose and mouth of the attending healthcare worker. They've never been for filtering your breath, and obviously they don't do so, but they told you to wear masks, and I think the purpose—certainly in me—it causes anxiety. I feel really awful wearing these things.
4. Then, they introduced lockdowns, where you were all to stay at home mostly, unless you were a poor manual worker, and then you had to go out to work—but the intelligentsia pretty much got paid to stay at home for very long periods of time: three months initially, in the case of Britain.
Lockdowns, they told us, would slow the spread of transmission of this virus, and lots of people thought it must obviously be so, because it is a disease spread from person to person. But it didn't chime with me, and I'm embarrassed to say it took me months to realise why lockdowns wouldn't work.
5. And it comes to this next lie: the idea of asymptomatic transmission, that you could be bearing the virus in your airways yet have no symptoms, but nevertheless be able to spread enough of the stuff to infect a person nearby. That's not true. That's a flat lie.
Whenever a scientific advisor, medical advisor to a government, tells you things like like asymptomatic transmission, I want you to know that they're not mistaken; they're lying, because it's been studied and it's simply not true. I can supply a link which is an accumulation of statements by Fauci, a WHO doctor, and other people—actually, including me—that goes through this argument.
So if asymptomatic transformation doesn't occur—and I am certain it's epidemiologically irrelevant: I’m not saying it never occurs, but it's irrelevant—if it's irrelevant, why would you need to wear masks if you're well? Why would you need to test somebody who's not got symptoms? Why would you need to close your business or your school, or the economy?
So, again, they've lied to you, with the objective of both frightening you—and I think also, learning [this insight] from financially experienced people, the other objective was to begin to destroy the economy and the sovereign currencies, and I think that's a continuing objective.
6. They also lied to us and told us that there were no treatments for this respiratory viral infection. I will take my hat off to Dr Peter McCullough as a leader, but he's [merely] representative of very many brave physicians who pushed back on this nihilism. They have determined half a dozen really quite good therapies, used progressively: early on, you want to treat replication; in the middle phase, inflammation; in the terminal phase, coagulation.
And if you understand this multi-phase infection, you come to the conclusion—which is mine—that this is the most treatable respiratory illness ever. It's really quite surprising, but the the use of those treatments is denied almost all around the world, to the extent that people will be fined or even struck off as physicians. That’s another lie there.
7. Then they would say things like, “Well, we're not sure, when you've had it, whether you've become immune.” I would say Immunology 101 tells you that that's simply not true. We know that the default understanding would be: once you've shrugged off this virus, you will have taken high-resolution pictures of it, as it were, using your immune system, and if you see it again—or something related to it, like a variant—you will not get clinically ill; not for months, possibly many years. So that's another lie.
8. And the final lie—and we'll come back to this—is that the vaccines are safe and effective, but that's a whole whole other story.
I’ve said that the evidence of a supranational plan is the discarding of simple well-established pandemic preparedness plans and replacing them with this bunch of lies, and all the countries did it.
If someone would like to write to me with an innocent explanation for this, I’d love to hear it. I want to be wrong, but unfortunately I don't think I am.
Control
So if the motive is fear, I think the ultimate aim is control. We will come on onto this: the control mechanism, that we can see being installed all around us, of the so-called vaccine passports: a certificate first, on paper, and eventually a QR code on your phone, that tells anyone who needs to know that you have received the requisite number of doses of these materials.
We'll come back to this, but again, that's nonsense. Economic destruction, I think, is on its way. There was a person who's very experienced in the City of London, and I heard him phoning into a radio show three weeks ago, and he said, “I don't know anything about viruses.”
He said a lot about finance and talked about the amount of money—it's not even been borrowed, it’s just printed—this actually created new money with an IOU from the government: they have given certificates to investors. He said:
It is my view that sovereign currency is already destroyed, and the exchange rates ought to be moving violently against each other, and they're not, if you go and look.
And that's because, as Catherine Austin Fitts tells us, this is a conspiracy led by the central banking clique and their clients to take over the world. I think once they've done that, destroyed the economy—again, I’m paraphrasing from Catherine—there will be a great financial reset which will have us using our vax passes—a digital ID—and central bank digital currencies, CBDCs, which you can look up. They are real and they are being talked about by all central banks. You won't like those; you really won’t. It'll be the end of cash and of any privacy of any transaction.
And I know I go further than many, but I’m really quite concerned that there's a serious intent to kill a very large proportion of the population of the world. Again, I hope I’m wrong, but all of the measures required to get to this point of control through vaccine passports—digital ID and also [the intent] to repeatedly vaccinate people: they certainly set the scene where a bad actor could introduce a gene sequence that will rob you of your health and kill you in a fairly predictable way at a fairly predictable rate per million doses. So if somebody does want to depopulate, the setup is so perfect that it isn't completely crazy [to notice this].
Before I move on to the vaccines—and this is a concern—I’ve had lots of people who have said to me:
Mike, this cannot possibly be the way you describe it. It looks compelling, I understand, but come on: you can't have a global conspiracy like this. It would leak, and it involves far too many people, you know. You must be wrong; there must be another explanation.
And I suggest to them that they look for a video—on YouTube surprisingly—by a German journalist called Paul Schreyer. It’s a one-hour documentary called Pandemic simulation games — Preparation for a new era?
And when you watch that, your last rickety defences that this isn't a well-organised, long-planned event will, I think, disappear, and your heart will be in your boots by twenty minutes in. Basically, all of the actors that you see around the table—including in, say, Event 201, that took place at the end of 2019—all of those players are currently taking the roles they had in the simulations, and all around the world, and are doing exactly the things that they did in the simulation. So those were the rehearsals, and there were more than a dozen of these damn things.
Anglocentric
And I think one of the bitterest moments for me was to realise that we were doing it to ourselves: that the US, UK, New Zealand, Australia and Canada—the Five Eyes—I think are the leading players. I’m not going to say Russia's not involved or whatever, but it looks like the Edward Bernays school of psychological management has been used by the military intelligence people: they've directed their weapons at their own people for two years, through all these lies, repetitive messaging, so that what we want to do is to wake people up—because if we don't wake up, we are finished as a set of liberal democracies.
I’m going to turn to the vaccines, but before I do that, I’ll say two things that are not original sayings but that strike me as very appropriate.
I’ve seen on many message boards: “When this all comes out, don’t ask me how I knew; ask yourself why you didn’t.” I mean, honestly, the the evidence that things are amiss, I think, is so stark that you literally have to avert your eyes not to realise that things are really bad everywhere.
And the other thing is an old saying—I’ve heard this before; it makes me chuckle a little bit:
If you’re one step ahead of everybody else, you can be seen as a genius; if you’re two steps ahead, you’re a lunatic.
And I’m afraid that’s what I’ve been: my job as a scientist was to spot faint patterns in sparse data—that’s what you do when you're trying to work out something that's new—and so I think I have been a couple of steps ahead, and probably sometimes wrong; but broadly, I think, it is, sadly, roughly what I’ve said.
Now, let’s get the slides up, because a colleague’s done an analysis that I think is quite striking when you see it.
Forthcoming instalments:
Part II: Vaccine Damage
Part III: Hot Lots
Parts IV and V: Questions Answered