Dr Mike Yeadon's key testimony — Part V: Questions Answered (2)

This is the final 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. Part I is here.
In this transcript, covering 1hr45' to the end of his testimony, Dr Yeadon answers more questions on his presentation (transcribed as Part III and already discussed with questions and answers in Part IV).


Dr Wolfgang Wodarg: They also they also try to make us get lost in details. It's such a big crime, it's so obvious now. Don't discuss all those details they offer us to discuss. We have so many things. They can they send us other specialists, and they speak about details and variants and everything, tests, and just it's a nonsense. It's a big, big crime, and it's so obvious now, and what we have to do is to wake up the doctors and to wake up the pharmacists and to wake up the people that they are just victims of of criminals.

People are now running on the street in all German towns and everywhere in Europe and all over the world. They know it already. They know it, and they are aware, and we have to we have to strengthen them and give them all the arguments and to persuade the other people to follow them on the street, and to be on the street too, and not to want, to say no to, this crime, this very, very, big crime.

At the Spaziergänge, strolls around the streets in Germany, I made a short speech of fifteen minutes where I tried to explain all this. We now speak more than one hour, and I tried to explain it, because it's so important that we give that information and give them the arguments to convince them.

Reiner Füllmich: Well, here's the thing. At this point in time, I think this really must be considered the missing link. This is the smoking gun. If you look at the totality of the evidence, if you look at what we've been talking about, the fact that these vaccinations are not vaccinations—because what is a vaccine? It's something that makes you immune. Now, these shots do not make you immune; even the makers of the vaccines admit that they don't make you immune; they don't protect you in any way.

Secondly, we've been lied to. We all know we've been lied to right from the start, starting with the PCR test and "asymptomatic infections". That's what they needed in order to start this whole thing, in order to get the "public health emergency of international concern", which ultimately led us to the so-called vaccinations.

And there's lots of censoring going on, lots of censoring. Why is that? Well, if you look at this piece, even without knowing any of the details that we've been speculating about, it is enough to show us that what is happening is, within this gigantic experiment, they're experimenting with lethal dosages. For what purpose? It can only be [being] done because they want to reduce the population without us understanding this that's why they're experimenting with lethal dosages, because if they killed everyone in one [go], at the first shot, it would be very obvious.

So that is what's happening. That's enough for me; that's way more than enough for me, and it should be way more enough for any prosecutor. We're going to get them.

A: I hope so. I mean, the reason one of the reasons I also thought depopulation was likely was that early on, we had people like Bill Gates—yes, he's a rich man, he's influential, but he's not a biologist or a doctor of any kind—and he was on the TV saying, "The world won't return to normal until pretty much everyone's been vaccinated." And I thought, "That's the most stupid nonsense I've ever heard. You only need to—vaccines have never been used to extinguish a pandemic in human history." So this would be novel. And then, next, you [properly] only vaccinate people who are themselves at severe risk of adverse effects, including death, if infected. That's it.

So I knew he was lying when he said that. He's not competent to say it, so he must have another reason for saying it. And he said it repeatedly.

But then, I tell you, when I then heard Blair, another well-known biologist [irony], talking about this "necessity to have these vaccine passports to reopen society", he's just—hold on is this the same Tony Blair, former British Prime Minister, who tried unsuccessfully to introduce digital ID into the British system? Yes, the same guy! So it was obvious that's what it was, even though we didn't yet know what the performance of the vaccines were, but we didn't know that the trials didn't include transmission: they were not looking to see whether transmission was reduced. That [if it actually was being researched] would be the only possible argument, I think, for vaccine passports, or basically insisting that to protect society you should be vaccinated.

I would have a problem with it anyway, and I think I heard Jordan Peterson speaking about this, and he said that he thought that the measures that were being introduced, quote, "to make us safer" were likely to have a much more dangerous effect on the population and civil society than the effect of the virus. And he said, "They're just not comparing what the impact of these imposed measures on civil society and the rule of law and so on is, compared with the unmitigated effects of the of the virus." And he said, "You clearly you need to weigh these things up." And he said, "To my mind, the responses to the virus are much more dangerous to to the alleged stability of society than the virus."

And he's right, and it needs clever people like that just to look at it from a philosophical point of view: not just science, because then you get the the high priest syndrome, where, you know, if Chris Whitty or Patrick Valance [pronounce], that then becomes law, almost, and people like Wolfgang or myself don't get to to contribute to it.

I know Robin [Monotti] has been spending a lot of time talking about bodily integrity: you know, these are not rights that your governments can give away; they're yours. We've agreed them between us as human beings, through the agency of our governments, over the years. We're signed up to these UN bioethics agreements that say we're not going to allow human beings to be coerced into medical experiments. Not going to allow it—but that's what's happening in your country: they're saying you can't go to work or to a shop or to a social event unless you take this jab. That's the same as being forced to take part in a medical experiment. That's something we've decided is never going to happen: it's in breach of half a dozen agreements and compacts [that] physicians have with each other and their patients, between lawmakers of different countries and their citizens. They don't have the bloody right to take that away, no. So we've got to come out on the streets and just hold up a sign that says, "I'm not doing this any more." "We do not consent." Because if they do not consent, they're not going to comply.

Robin Monotti: What I want to say is that I agree that Mike's presentation, from the work on the virus, is is a very convincing smoking gun; but I think we've got at least two smoking guns. The other one is, as you were mentioning, to do with very blatant violations of human rights. The problem is that people don't seem to know about these these rights. So we have two smoking guns.

Inevitably, at the stage we are at now, where divisiveness is encouraged by the authorities, we have a very divided population, and some will refuse to see either one or the other, if not both, smoking guns. And in that case, it's very important to get this information that you presented today out.

Inevitably, some people will reject it, as they have rejected other evidence so far. For those people, we also have to try to show them the smoking gun of leaders—very obvious leaders, including, as mentioned before, Bill gates and Macron—who are actively using words which are in in complete violation of our human rights. That is, in my view, an incredible smoking gun. If we use their their words, and we compare them to what our rights are, that is a smoking gun of human rights validations, amounting arguably to crimes against humanity.


So we have at least two: one is medical-scientific—injection and toxicity and adverse events level—and the other one is is for people who maybe are less versed—even, you know, some people may find difficult to even understand what VAERS is. I mean, we should deal with it, so for those people I think it's very important to show them another level of smoking gun which is entirely to do with human rights.

And, as you said, bodily autonomy is that something that people tend to understand, and there's a huge push now to use the Together group in the UK to show aspects [of that]

So I think that some people may have a different vision of smoking guns. I just wanted to put that out there.

A: That's very important. I think there's not been that many people with tremendous reach—I mean, I'm kind of on the lower margins, but certainly people like [Robert] Malone and [Peter] McCullough and so on, and a handful of others. In a sense, I think you're alerting me, Robin, to the idea that I'm seeing this through the medical-scientific lens because that's the kind of person I am, but that cannot be the only way of trying to communicate with people, because most people don't see the world through those lenses.

In fact, in a pissing competition, they're more likely to give the government the benefit of the doubt, and that's why I've not been comparing their opinion with my opinion. I'm saying that it's a matter of fact that they're telling you something that's not true, because now I know it's a different question: although the matter is scientific, I'm asking them to judge whether my assertion that they're being lied to is correct.

And if you think I sound competent and honest—and you can go and check some of the things I say—and [if you] think, "Oh, my God, he's right that they are telling us lies," that's a completely different category of decision for the members of the public.

So I've been exhorting my medical and scientific colleagues for about a year to stop engaging in pissing competitions by showing your analysis of the cases data. No-one cares. They're always going to ascribe a little bit more trust to government scientists, because [when addressed by] all the people who are the Knights of the Realm, and Lord this and that, that's what will happen. We know this from the Milgram Experiment: they're always going to give them the benefit of the doubt. So, luckily for me, they are lying—and I can use the L-word all the time. If they want to come and sue me, you know what? I would welcome it! You guys you will lose. So, by all means, put me in my place and sue me; I look forward to seeing you in court.

Füllmich: I have no doubt that if we talk to all of the experts who we've spoken to—the psychologists, the psychiatrists, the epidemiologists, the immunologists, the lawyers, the economists—they will all come to the same conclusion: this is intentional premeditated mass murder. There's absolutely no doubt about it, because nothing else makes any sense.

And just by coincidence, you mentioned Bill Gates. There's two more smoking guns we have here: we have two very short video clips. One of them shows him explaining—I think it's about fifteen years old—about the return on investment that you get from investing in pharmaceutical, in vaccine makers, rather than into the tech industry. And the other one shows him he looks like a complete imbecile: he's being interviewed by the Department of Justice, he looks and acts like a complete imbecile. It is inevitable you must come to the conclusion that this is a psychopath.

A: I'm afraid so, yes. I think that's the video where he's about forty years old and he's being investigated for inappropriate competition, something like that, and he's just rocking like a nutcase, and basically he's asked the same question several times, and then he starts to dispute the meaning of the words in the question. I think it said, "What other browsers were you concerned with in the year 199-", whatever it was. He said, "I don't understand what you mean by the word concern." It's like, you [Gates] definitely do know what he [the DoJ questioner] was getting at, but he was going to not answer by just pretending. Or maybe he didn't; maybe he genuinely didn't understand what was meant on this occasion.

Do you know what? I don't get into the whodunnit, because I genuinely don't know. All I know is that there are a handful of people who are part of the perpetrators. Honestly, you couldn't come up with a more Bond villain person than Klaus Schwab. It's just wonderful, isn't it, honestly? And, you know, Tony Blair: come on, you know. And then Gates. But honestly, I think even these people are very wealthy puppets but they're still puppets. I think it's the the people above them—we're never going to see them, we don't probably even know their names— but I think they're the super-capitalists. These are the central banking class, as Catherine Austin Fitts calls them.

So there's no point. I know eventually we have to accuse certain people, and they definitely are guilty of the things that we're saying, but I don't know how you get at the people behind them. Reiner, you probably have at least a better idea of how hard it is, but when people say, "Who's doing this?", I guess it doesn't make any difference. Am I going to do something different if it's person X or person Y? Not really. All I can do is tell you that you're not being told the truth, and these bloody products are dangerous, and they're lying to you, and it cannot be accidental. That's bad enough.

And just stop cooperating. Masks don't work. They can make you ill; at least they'll make you frightened. You'll look around and notice if everyone's wearing masks: surely your hind brain, lizard brain, is telling you what that means—there must be a hazard. It's all about maintenance of fear, so that you never can relax back into a normal life. But stop wearing the mask. Stop submitting to testing. Don't let them vaccinate you. You know, you don't need them anyway; they're not they're not safe enough, these bloody things, and it was not likely. Really? Warp Speed? Come on, you can't invent a new class of medicine at warp speed and expect things to be all right. That's not how biology works. God and nature don't let you do that.

So yes, we just need to take back our power, as they say. You know, I think some of Robin's points are really important: you are being abused, we are all being abused by these people. The narrative, the censorship, the lying: it's ghastly, it's worse than anything that we would have said [was inflicted on] those people in oppressive states over there in the East or [Global] South, whatever. We're worse now. I think we're worse than people we've criticised in the past.

I've said to people that if you think you're going to get another chance to, as it were, vote this lot out—whistle for it. At the moment, democracy is dead, and all the institutions that would normally defend us are malfunctioning or corrupt. I've mentioned the Royal Colleges [regulating the medical professions]: just absolutely appalling. The Royal College of Obstetrics and Gynaecology isn't protecting pregnant women. You know, they're not. They're actually throwing them under the bus: they're saying, "Go and get these not-tested vaccines!" And that's literally criminal; you should be ashamed of yourself.

And i've said to people who are working in any of these big companies: if you've got any self-respect, you should do at least two things. One is [to] go through the complaint process: go and see your boss—and, if they won't talk to you, the boss' boss—till you're at board level, and if you don't get good answers and you're not [satisfied], you need to resign publicly.

Come on! Some of you are in your late fifties; you can you can afford to stop earning. Look yourself in the mirror and be able to say, "I did something to try to save my children and grandchildren." Resign! Imagine if hundreds of you senior people in your fifties resigned all at the same time. That would be unhideable. You could do that. You should do that.

Viviane Fischer: To remember what Professor Desmet said, the hypnosis can be kind of poked open by a large enough shock. What we discussed today, I find so absolutely shocking, and it absolutely grosses me out if this if this turns out to be correct, because just imagine this sort of brain, or person, or constellation that would do something like this. I mean, you can maybe pick measures that are exaggerated, or maybe you have political ideas that are maybe not not adequate, or something—but this thing, that you'd actually do this kind of experimenting with toxicity levels: this is really going to give me a very tough night. It's it's really it's nightmare-inducing.

A: Yes, it is it is very bad. One of the reasons I'm in America now, [and] legally, is not just to escape what might happen in the UK—and I'm very worried about that, and I have been very vocal as a critic of the government, and it occurs to me that at some point they might decide censorship is not enough, and they'll just come and pick me up in a dark-windowed van; I don't fancy that—but the other reason I came to the southern half of America is I realised that people [elsewhere] don't recognise the evil any more. They think that there's a continuity of good to not-very-good, maybe a bit bad, but—I think you've just made the point—this is orders of magnitude worse. This is something none of us who are not psychopaths could possibly do and still survive, still sleep. But some people are able to do this.

Now, I don't know whether they've got some sort of internal justification, like, you know, "The world, the environment, will be destroyed if we don't reduce the population, so this is a tough job but I've got to do it"—I think that's nonsense, by the way, but you can imagine someone kind of deciding to steel themselves like this. But, as I said, I think we've come to rely on—and I'm afraid I'm the most guilty of all of us—I've relied all of my life, as it were, on the scientific method that can be done publicly as a way of deciding things that can be that are objective. Obviously, everything else is a matter of opinion, but for anything that's kind of objectively measurable the scientific method will do, but it doesn't when you when it comes to matters of the heart and of the mind. Where you're not trying hard, or maybe sometimes falling short, [where] you're doing something that's evil, scientific methods are useless; you need other tools. And I don't really know what they are, but they include religious faith or whatever you think is the right conduct for a human being, and that can't be found through science.

And you are right. I don't want to give you a bad night, but if if that is the effect of what I've said for people hearing this the first time, then I'm glad, because it's hitting home. I can't tell you exactly when it was, but when it first occurred to me, "Oh my God, the bits only fit together if this is about control and potentially population," I can assure you I didn't sleep properly for weeks. You know, two hours at a time, and I would wake up and I would open my eyes and I'd see evil just out in the dark. Whatever's going on, whatever's driving this, is darker than anything that's happened this century.

But, unfortunately, there are numerous examples in the last century of people who are able to do this. I remember, famously, one of the statements of Stalin, attributed to him, was that "a single death is a tragedy and a million is a statistic". And I think there are plenty of people involved in this crime that think that way: probably, if they injured a person, or someone close to them suffered and died, they'd cry just like you and I, but they have no problem in giving an order that will result in ten-to-the-power-of-six, ten-to-the-power-of-seven people dying. I think they have no problem with it.

Füllmich: Mike, it's the same people. It's the same people who have been responsible for all of these horrific things that happened over the centuries. I remember Vera Sharav telling me—she's a Holocaust survivor—[that] she couldn't believe she's still fighting the same people, or at least the same system, that she fought eighty years ago.
So we're dealing with the same structures; we're still dealing with the same evil-minded people. But this time, we're going to do them in. This time is different. We're definitely going to do that.

A: Yes, we won't stop. And there are too many of us who have woken up—and more all the time. So yes, you'll see, hopefully, a relay. I describe it to people as a resistance relay: do what you can. Don't be me. You know, it's hard being me—and each expert brings their own expertise, their own style, things they say—but if you know that this is wrong if you've accepted this is wrong, then you don't need to "stay quiet because you're not a scientist". That's absurd.

Robin [Monotti] has pointed out that our human rights, that we have agreed post-war and that we've decided we're never going to [abuse] again, are being transgressed. You can stand up and say that: "We're not taking this any more." So the resistance relay is an idea: it doesn't you don't need to have any specialty at all, other than, I guess, a backbone. If you've got a backbone and you think this is not right, that's your minimum qualification. You don't need to have any special qualifications, just to be a human being and say we're not having this. That's all.

Füllmich: Thank you so much. This makes a huge difference. This is, in my view, as I said, the first thing that got me: when Wolfgang [Wodarg] and I were riding the subway in Berlin over a year ago, he casually mentioned, "You know, of course, that the PCR test cannot tell us anything about infection." I pulled him back into the [metro] car and asked, "What?" So that was the first smoking gun, but this is much more important, because this is going to wake up so many people.

A: I hope that's true, and it should wake up people, because it's shocking; but you are you are right, I think, Wolfgang: the inappropriate use of PCR plus the lies, including "asymptomatic transmission", I think was absolutely required to establish the mass formation to get people frightened.

The irony is that the leaders are even telling us now that the masks don't work. There's questions being asked, or statements being made, even by senior leaders, saying, "Well, these cloth masks don't work; [there's] new data." And I think, Wolfgang, they've withdrawn the approval for certain PCR tests.

And I would like to attach the two interviews I've got: one with Del Bigtree on The Highwire, but also this accumulation of sixteen minutes of film which has "Fauci and co." telling you that asymptomatic transformation has never been the driver of respiratory viral epidemics. That's the exact quote. That's all I'm saying.

So I don't know why you think I'm a conspiracy theorist; I'm saying what he has said. It's just [that] he's changed his tune: every few weeks, he says something different, and then suddenly he is "the science". It's just nonsense; he's a liar, and anyone who follows him, given the evidence of his repeated lies, I'm afraid is a bit foolish, and I ask them to look at this in the round. It's not normal what's going on, is it?

And I've been told no-one's coming to save us. I know there are some people—I know some people—who know it's not right, but they're kind of sitting tight. They don't know what to do. And they said, "If I speak out, I'll lose my job." I say, if you don't speak out you will lose your liberty permanently, and possibly your life. Certainly, you will lose your liberty permanently. So I don't understand that the people choose it. You can get another bloody job even if you do get fired. Take a holiday! Say to yourself, "I'm going to speak out, it's the right thing to do, and if I get fired I'll be jobless for a year."

The people who are professionals that are earning big salaries can easily cope with a year of not having any income. It's different if you're thirtysomething and you're the sole breadwinner: I understand you're looking after three or four people. I'm not asking you to sacrifice your job; that's crazy.

But honestly, you senior consultants, people in your fifties and sixties, get off your butt. Make public statements. Make them fire you. Take them to court. You're strong enough to do that; you've got the resources to do that. If you don't do that, you've allowed your children and grandchildren just to be grounded underneath the tracks of this monster; that's what you're doing.

So stop it. We can do it, all right? We will do it.

Füllmich: These are crimes against humanity, there's absolutely no doubt about it, but we do have a few friends of humanity amongst us as well.