Dr. Mike Yeadon - Former VP and CSO (Allergy & Respiratory Research) of Pfizer Speaks Out on Covid19

Updated: Oct 4, 2021

Dr. Michael Yeadon is an Allergy & Respiratory Therapeutic Area expert with 23 years in the pharmaceutical industry and has published over 40 original research articles.



Arnold (AJ) Jameson February 6, 2021


Dr. Yeadon is the former VP and CSO (Chief Scientific Officer) of the big pharma giant Pfizer.


You can read his full bio here https://cv19news.wixsite.com/main/guests/dr.-mike-yeadon.


This post will be updated continually with new information and videos from and about Dr. Yeadon and his expert testimony on COVID 19, so make sure to check back from time to time for new information.


Be sure to visit our dedicated page for Dr. Yeadon to see all videos we have hosted for him at www.dryeadon.cv19news.ca.


Biography


Dr. Mike Yeadon is an Allergy & Respiratory Therapeutic Area expert, developed out of deep knowledge of biology & therapeutics and is an innovative drug discoverer with 23 years in the pharmaceutical industry. He trained as a biochemist and pharmacologist, obtaining his PhD from the University of Surrey (UK) in 1988 on the CNS and peripheral pharmacology of opioids on respiration. Dr Yeadon then worked at the Welcome Research Labs with Salvador Moncada with a research focus on airway hyper-responsiveness and effects of pollutants including ozone and working in drug discovery of 5-LO, COX, PAF, NO and lung inflammation. With colleagues, he was the first to detect exhaled NO in animals and later to induce NOS in lung via allergic triggers.

Joining Pfizer in 1995, he was responsible for the growth and portfolio delivery of the Allergy & Respiratory pipeline within the company. During his tenure at Pfizer, Dr Yeadon was responsible for target selection and the progress into humans of new molecules, leading teams of up to 200 staff across all disciplines and won an Achievement Award for productivity in 2008. Under his leadership the research unit invented oral and inhaled NCEs which delivered multiple positive clinical proofs of concept in asthma, allergic rhinitis and COPD. He led productive collaborations such as with Rigel Pharmaceuticals (SYK inhibitors) and was involved in the licensing of Spiriva® and acquisition of the Meridica (inhaler device) company.

Dr. Yeadon has published over 40 original research articles and now consults and partners with a number of biotechnology companies. Before working with Apellis, Dr. Yeadon was VP and Chief Scientific Officer (Allergy & Respiratory Research) with Pfizer. He left Pfizer in 2011 as Vice President & Chief Scientist for Allergy & Respiratory and eventually founded his own biotech company, Ziarco. In 2017 Dr. Yeadon sold Ziarco to Novartis, one of the world's largest pharmaceutical companies.

 

The original source article was here: https://twitter.com/MichaelYeadon3/status/1357255898348089345


I came across this lengthy 19 part post that Dr. Yeadon posted on Twitter on February 4, 2021. Fortunately I was smart enough to capture it all in a word document because, just 2 days later, this eminent scientist's Twitter account was de-platformed for the crime of exposing the truth about Covid19. I only wish I had grabbed much more of his brilliant content which is now lost to the digital dustbin courtesy of the criminal censors in silicon valley. No doubt he will reappear elsewhere on a censorship-free platform but, until then, enjoy this one article in its entirety.


I’ve been in touch with five U.K. university professors in departments which means they’re knowledgeable about immunology. All of us agree that the variants will not meaningfully alter immune recognition by our bodies of the virus. If you’ve been infected by the Wuhan sequence, you’re immune, not only to this original sequence but to all variants.


The reason is that the number of point changes (17 is the most in one variant) is irrelevantly small compared with the size of the entire virus, which is 10,000 amino acids long. The most mutated virus is 99.7% identical to the Wuhan sequence.


It is possible that much smaller changes in spike protein could alter infectiousness. But that’s not what I’m talking about here, which is immune recognition. That’s not going to change overall, because we don’t only recognise the part which has changed, but dozens, perhaps scores of parts of the virus. The vast majority of these parts are unchanged.


As a practical example, the original SARS virus from 2003 is around 80% identical to SARS-COV-2. Research has looked at immune recognition of various parts of SARS & found vigorous responses to multiple parts of SARS 17 years later. What’s also amazing is that these same people showed strong & unequivocal responses to SARS-COV-2, even though they’d never seen this new virus.


In other words, a virus which is as different as 20% from SARS was easily recognised as already known by an immune system which had memorised common sequences in an earlier virus to which it had been exposed. The 0.2% difference between the Wuhan sequence & any of the recent variants isn’t any kind of issue for our immune systems.

No question, if you choose to focus upon just one (of very many different) antibodies which are raised to the virus, then if the sequence that one type of antibody binds to has changed, that antibody may no longer bind well.


But that’s not what protects you from illness: it’s the multi-locus nature of the immune response that does that. And most of those loci have not changed. Recognising & defending a person against those variants will not be problematic. And this sole focus on the profile of antibodies also completely ignores the panoply of T-cell responses, which are also created against dozens or scores of parts of the virus.


It’s worth noting that variants arise normally by error-prone replication by viruses. It’s how they evolve. Apparently, around 40,000 different variants have already been identified, each a tiny amount different from the original sequence. Why we’ve decided to get over excited about a small subset of variants is inexplicable.


As argued above, it’s not necessary to “keep foreign mutants out of the county”. In any case, a negative PCR test eliminates people bringing in a copy of the virus (whatever it’s sequence). It’s a head scratcher why the idea has arisen that it’s necessary to keep out foreign mutants and why what amounts to a brief period of imprisonment is an appropriate method for doing it.


More important still, as mentioned already, variants are arising right now, within the U.K. Even with reduced daily cases, there’s a lot of replication going on in the U.K. and requiring inbound travellers to have a negative test would almost completely eliminate any possibility of importing an irrelevantly tiny number of imports compared with those forming spontaneously in the country anyway. Variants are not only inevitable (& have occurred in great profusion already) but are “way points” as the virus comes into equilibrium with its human host.


As respiratory viruses move through a population, there is selection pressure favouring variants which are more easily transmitted from the person to person (they out compete less transmissible variants). They’re especially favoured if they’ve less harmful to the infected host (because an ill person or a dead person is far worse at spreading the virus).


Over time, it’s therefore entirely normal & predictable that variants get selected for which are easier to transmit but less dangerous. That’s how this virus is highly likely to finish up being added to the existing four endemic coronaviruses which are causative agents in around a quarter of common colds. Indeed, it’s probably how those four got to their current status. There are probably other coronaviruses we’ve yet to characterise.


SARS-COV-2 mutates very slowly compared with influenza and so it’s highly unlikely that we’d need a new vaccine annually, as we do with ‘flu.

These university professors with deep knowledge of immunology are fearful these days even of talking about basic viral immunology. Apparently, they’re concerned they might end up in the bad books of the Welcome Trust, which is one of the top sources of research funding in U.K.


So I’m telling you instead. If you want, you can contort the science such that what you’re being told fits the narrative. But you’ll notice lots of things that are being said simply don’t fit & that’s because the tale they’re telling isn’t true. There’s a pattern. Lots of things that don’t make any sense. Why, I’ve no idea.

 

Rumble November 23, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – While Pfizer pharmaceutical made headlines announcing the imminent release of their COVID-19 vaccine, to much fanfare, a former Vice President and Chief Scientist for the company has flatly rejected the need for any vaccines to bring the COVID-19 pandemic to an end.


In a recent article, Dr. Michael Yeadon, who “spent over 30 years leading new [allergy and respiratory] medicines research in some of the world’s largest pharmaceutical companies,” and retired from Pfizer with “the most senior research position in this field,” wrote:

There is absolutely no need for vaccines to extinguish the pandemic. I’ve never heard such nonsense talked about vaccines. You do not vaccinate people who aren’t at risk from a disease. You also don’t set about planning to vaccinate millions of fit and healthy people with a vaccine that hasn’t been extensively tested on human subjects.

The British national’s comments come at the end of a comprehensive criticism of the Scientific Advisor Group for Emergencies (SAGE), a government agency of the U.K. tasked with advising the central government in emergencies. SAGE has played a predominant role in determining public lockdown policies in the U.K., including those recently implemented, as a response to the COVID-19 virus.


https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/former-pfizer-vp-no-need-for-vaccines-the-pandemic-is-effectively-over?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com&utm_campaign=5629b42302-Freedom_11_24_2020&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_12387f0e3e-5629b42302-407202566


One last thing: Susan Mitchie, who is a psychologist in behavioral change and is a SAGE government advisor. She is also a member of the COMMUNIST PARTY of Great Britain! Think about that. Leon Trotsky said “Whoever controls the media, controls the mind”

 

Former Pfizer VP: ‘No need for vaccines,’ ‘the pandemic is effectively over’


Dr. Mike Yeadon, Pfizer's former Vice President and Chief Scientist for Allergy & Respiratory, states that the drive for a universal vaccine has 'the whiff of evil' which he 'will oppose … vigorously.'


November 23, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – While Pfizer pharmaceutical made headlines announcing the imminent release of their COVID-19 vaccine, to much fanfare, a former Vice President and Chief Scientist for the company has flatly rejected the need for any vaccines to bring the COVID-19 pandemic to an end.


In a recent article, Dr. Michael Yeadon, who “spent over 30 years leading new [allergy and respiratory] medicines research in some of the world’s largest pharmaceutical companies,” and retired from Pfizer with “the most senior research position in this field,” wrote:

There is absolutely no need for vaccines to extinguish the pandemic. I’ve never heard such nonsense talked about vaccines. You do not vaccinate people who aren’t at risk from a disease. You also don’t set about planning to vaccinate millions of fit and healthy people with a vaccine that hasn’t been extensively tested on human subjects.

The British national’s comments come at the end of a comprehensive criticism of the Scientific Advisor Group for Emergencies (SAGE), a government agency of the U.K. tasked with advising the central government in emergencies. SAGE has played a predominant role in determining public lockdown policies in the U.K., including those recently implemented, as a response to the COVID-19 virus.


After pointing out that SAGE lacked essential expertise in the field they are addressing, with “no clinical immunologists” as members, Yeadon highlights two fundamental errors they have made in their presuppositions which cause their overall conclusions to go radically awry leading to the “torturing [of] the population for the last seven months or so.”


First Fundamental Error: “Ridiculous” presumption of 100% susceptibility

The first erroneous assumption SAGE makes is that “100% of the population was susceptible to the virus and that no pre-existing immunity existed.”


Yeadon states this notion is “ridiculous because while SARS-CoV-2 is indeed novel, coronaviruses are not. There’s no such thing as an ‘ancestor-less virus’.” Indeed, he points out, there are at least “four, endemic, common-cold inducing coronaviruses … [which] circulate freely in UK and elsewhere.” Those who have been infected by “one or more of these endemic, common-cold producing coronaviruses in the past, have a long-lived and robust [T-cell] immunity, not only to those viruses, but to closely related viruses. SARS-CoV-2 is one such closely-related virus.”


Striking once again at the competence of SAGE, Dr. Yeadon states, “To not expect such cross-over is … to demonstrate the lack of the requisite understanding to build a model reliable enough to use.”


Further, he states, that the common PCR test which is used for detecting COVID-19 “cases,” may come out positive when someone is infected with one of these common cold coronaviruses rendering this test that much less reliable. Of course, based on the final results of these tests, many thousands of individuals have been ordered to disrupt their lives and “self-quarantine” for up to 14 days.


Finally, drawing from the scientific data, Dr. Yeadon concludes that due to previous exposure to common-cold coronaviruses, “a significant proportion (30%) of the population went into 2020 armed with T-cells capable of defending them against SARS-CoV-2, even though they had never seen the virus… SAGE was naively wrong to assume ‘everyone was susceptible’.”


Second Fundamental Error: An “amateur underestimate” of the infection rate


SAGE’s second erroneous assumption is “The belief that the percentage of the population that has been infected can be determined by surveying what fraction of the population has antib