michael yeadon is one of the more unjustly maligned folks in covid. 5 minutes with google will get you a barrage of ad hominem, epithets, and scurrilous nonsense masquerading as “fact checks” and the classic “if you think this vaccine is poorly designed, you must be an anti-vaxxer!” as though saying “this drug should not be approved” makes you anti-medicine.
this is because cults reserve their most vicious venom not for unbelievers, but for renouncers.
you do not get to take our secrets and dirty laundry out for an airing. cults don’t like that.
and michael came from within the castle at the highest levels but has serious questions about the castellans and has not been afraid to raise them.
and they are NOT happy about it.
he’s been asking the pointy questions and pulling tails when others sat quietly.
(i also know him to be a bad cattitude reader and commenter and so, michael, i hope you read this and would love to speak with you further on this issue. very thought provoking.)
his CV speaks for itself. for those who do not know, yeadon used to be the chief science officer for pfizer.
and has clearly kept his hand in since:
credentials do not make one right or worthy of deference, but credentials like this (especially free from conflict of interest) do speak to specific domain knowledge not only about drugs like these, but drug trials, drug design, autoimmunity, and of pfizer in particular.
so, if naught else, he’s earned a listen.
and i think it’s well worth it.
this is interesting stuff and speaks in the clear simple terms of a real domain expert (instead of the obfuscating jargon of the huckster) to what seem to my mind to be important points and that lead right to a hobbyhorse of mine.
so giddiup.
he raises 3 main points:
to create a vaccine with ongoing efficacy, you should pick the part of the virus that is most genetically stable so it is least likely to mutate away from induced immunity. this means you would never pick the spike protein. (though, as he admits, perhaps this was not known early on, but i also suspect there were strong intuitions in that regard given the reams of data from gain of function and other coronavirus manipulations/serial passaging etc)
you would also pick the part of the virus that is most different from humans. this is a key to side effect mitigation. if you train immune response to something that looks like parts of you, you get auto-immune response. your body attacks itself. this would also lead to not picking spike protein which has some similarity to many parts of humans.
in vaccine design, you select for things that are not toxic in their own right. this, again, points away from using spike protein.
and so we have 3 points that, to use michael’s words “teach away” from selecting spike protein as the target for vaccine design.
and yet, pfizer, moderna, astro zeneca, and JnJ all picked it.
why?
“no team i was ever part of would have picked bloody spike protein for this virus, this vaccine.”
and yet they all did.
and all four should not have made the same mistake.
is it collusion? malfeasance?
i have a theory:
everyone picked basically the same pathway because it all came from the same place: the wuhan institute of virology and the merry band of covid-hotwirers attached thereto.
we know that work like this was going on there and that daszak and baric and many others were up to their necks in it. they were mutating spike proteins in bat coronoviruses and had some plans for releasing gain of function viruses back in to caves of wild bats that read like the origin story for a pandemic movie.
i have written at length on this many times including here: (or google “bad cattitude daszak” and you’ll get a whole string)
in peter’s own words:
so they were working on killers so they could develop cures and the part of the virus they were working on was the spike protein.
so it makes sense that this is what they had best mapped and sequenced.
then the virus leaked.
and suddenly, the need for vaccines became acute. and what was lying around was a whole bunch of work on and characterization of the spike protein. and i think they spread this work to industry to try to clean up their mess and maybe make a buck.
moderna got theirs from NIH (who likely got it straight from some part of the ecohealth/baric ecosystem that they were funding and lying about having funded). they pay the NIH royalties for it.
pfizer got theirs from bioNtech, a previously little known german oncology company that had never brought a product to market nor ever worked in vaccines but that suddenly got a huge investment from WHO paymaster bill gates in september 2019, before the world was focused on covid, but when evidence shows it likely had already leaked and thus when insiders might know and be moving around IP.
i don’t know where AZ and JnJ got theirs.
but it all happened AWFULLY fast. like somebody had a head start. the timelines never made any sense unless there was already something close to complete already lying around.
and this is why i think this thread is one so worthy of pulling and i’ll wager it all leads right back to wuhan from every direction.
they all made the same bad choice because they all got the same crib-sheet from the same source and this is how the teacher catches you: because you all gave the same wrong answer to a simple question on the exam.
some are already trying to re-write history.
the evidence on this looks well past circumstantial to me.
in any sort of just world, this would currently be a matter of endless inquiry and subpoena.
i suspect it’s not because many in this ecosystem already know the answer and desperately do not want to to get loose.
“we funded the disease, lied about it, funded the cure, and got a mountain of unreported royalties for doing so” is not a good look for NIH and their closing of ranks and collusion in discrediting any idea of lab leak despite it being the obvious, leading thesis speaks volumes.
this is the place to dig.
with this much equine excrement, there has to be a pony in here somewhere…
stunning interview with michael yeadon