Second Wave of Fake Statistics: Why COVID Tests are Invalid?


780 shares

Matt Hancock, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care of United Kingdom, ordered his department to publish the proposed changes to the Human Medicine Regulations “to cover a potential roll-out of a vaccine”. However, the former vice-president of Pfizer, Dr. Michael Yeardon, raised his concerns through open letter based on his expertise in the research and development of new medicines. According to Dr. Yeadon on his Twitter post addressing Mr. Hancock:

“I have read the consultation document. I’ve rarely been as shocked and upset. I believe recipients are being misled to a criminal extent.”

As a founder and CEO of the biotech company Ziarco, now owned by Novartis, Dr. Yeadon has more than three decades of experience and expertise in the research and development, as well as in the areas of biochemistry, toxicology, including the development of new drugs and treatment. Dr. Yeadon believes that the data regarding COVID 19 that most governments rely are “fake” and mostly impossible to be validated objectively. Sad to say, despite all these debacles about a fake pandemic, many governments in various parts of the world still continue to defend this coronavirus rhetoric no matter how absurd their justifications are.

Talking about the unfounded science of the second wave hype, Dr. Yeadon stated in an interview:

“Were it not for the test data that you get from the TV all the time, you would rightly conclude that the pandemic was over, as nothing much has happened. Of course people go to the hospital, moving into the autumn flu season…but there is no science to suggest a second wave should happen.”

Meanwhile, this conclusion by Dr, Yeadon has also been supported by the statement of Prof. Michel Chossudovsky from Center for Research on Globalization, a group based in Montreal. Addressing the crucial argument for the so-called second wave, Prof. Chossudovsky said:

“Governments in Europe and also in Canada, in Ontario, in Quebec are now putting forth new measures with the view to addressing the “second wave”. What they’re saying is that the numbers of positive cases of COVID 19 have increased dramatically. Now let me just explain the nature of this test because in effect our governments are using what I might describe as fake statistics. The test for COVID 19 is the RT-PCR test, it’s the standard test, and it’s the swab from your nose and your throat. But that test they use, which is an important test in medicine, is not meant to identify a virus and that test does not identify the virus.”

Back in his open letter to Mr. Hancock, here are the words Dr. Michael Yeadon has expressed:

Dear Mr. Hancock,

I have a degree in Biochemistry & Toxicology & a research based PhD in pharmacology. I have spent 32 years working in pharmaceutical R&D, mostly in new medicines for disorders of lung & skin. I was a VP at Pfizer & CEO of a biotech I founded (Ziarco – acquired by Novartis). I’m knowledgeable about new medicine R&D.

I have read the consultation document. I’ve rarely been as shocked & upset.

All vaccines against the SARS-COV-2 virus are by definition novel. No candidate vaccine has been in development for more than a few months.

If any such vaccine is approved for use under any circumstances that are not EXPLICITLY experimental, I believe that recipients are being misled to a criminal extent.

This is because there are precisely zero human volunteers for whom there could possibly be more than a few months past-dose safety information. My concern does not arise because I have negative views about vaccines (I don’t), Instead, it’s the very principle that politicians seem ready to waive that new medical interventions at this, incomplete state of development- should not be made available to subjects on anything other than an explicitly experimental basis. That’s my concern.

And the reason for that concern is that it is not known what the safety profile will be, six months or a year or longer after dosing.

You have literally no data on this & neither does anyone else.

It isn’t that I’m saying that unacceptable adverse effects will emerge after longer intervals after dosing. No: it is that you have no idea what will happen yet, despite this, you’ll be creating the impression that you do.

Several of the vaccine candidates utilise novel technology which have not previously been used to create vaccines. There is therefore no long term safety data which can be pointed to in support of the notion that it’s reasonable to expedite development & to waive absent safety information on this occasion.

I am suspicious of the motives of those proposing expedited use in the wider human population. We now understand who is at particularly elevated risk of morbidity & mortality from acquiring this virus.

Volunteers from these groups only should be provided detailed information about risk / benefit, including the sole point I make here. Only if informed consent is given should any EXPERIMENTAL vaccine be used.

I don’t trust you. You’ve not been straightforward & have behaved appallingly throughout this crisis.

You’re still doing it now, misleading about infection risk from young children. Why should I believe you in relation to experimental vaccines?

Dr. Michael Yeardon

References:

Featured image: https://principia-scientific.com/top-uk-industry-scientist-slams-governments-covid-test-scam/


Like it? Share with your friends!

780 shares