Reiner Fuellmich: Can you hear us Mike?

Dr Mike Yeadon: I can hear you yes. Good morning.

Reiner Fuellmich: Excellent. What we’re doing here is this is a simulation of a new government having come to power after the old government, for whatever reasons, has resigned. What we’re doing on this first day is we’re trying to get a grip of the status quo. What is really going on? Because most of us understand that the information we’ve been getting from our governments and from the mainstream media is not really correct. The three most important aspects that we are dealing with today is since we can’t see any evidence for a pandemic—there was never a danger, at least not in this country, of the healthcare system being overwhelmed, there were never any excess mortalities. We were talking about this with Professor Kämmerer.

The thing that seems to be at the center of this is the PCR test. The PCR test is the one thing that does seem to be simulating a pandemic, which in essence may very well be—we haven’t come to a final conclusion yet—but which may very well be not a pandemic, but rather a plandemic. And it doesn’t have anything to do with Corona, but rather the PCR test. Then of course the big question of immunity. And finally what about the vaccinations?

This is what we are trying to understand. Is it correct that the PCR test cannot tell you anything about infections? And the way it was set set up by Professor Drosten—which seems to be the blueprint for the rest of the world, because it was recommended by the WHO—the way he set his test up and way over 35 cycles of amplification, it was bound to produce mostly false positives. Is that correct?

Dr Mike Yeadon: Yes. I thank you for the the synopsis as well. Yes, I do think the PCR test has been central to the deception. That is, it’s been used to create in the minds of the citizens all around the world, the idea that there is this severe acute respiratory syndrome virus moving around and making many people ill and killing large numbers of people. Then of course there is what I call the Covid lies. But you could regard them as almost childlike beliefs on the part of people that if we would cover our faces or run and hide, stay in our homes, that somehow this would prevent this virus from moving around.

I think the PCR test—PCR is a wonderful piece of science. As its inventor, Nobel prize winner Dr. Kary Mullis pointed out, it was not designed on scale to be any kind of quantitative test. I know there are these pseudo q-PCR, [...] PCR tests. But when you’re doing ten thousand, or hundred thousand tests a day as in UK, using amateurs—people who’ve never worked in a lab before, people who are so inexperienced at working in laboratories that they would have two people to a flow hoop. They had to be trained in how to use a micro pipette, a Gilson Pipette. I’d never seen a job called pipette trainer.

A friend of mine who was a very experienced laboratory PCR technician for decades, worked in one of the largest UK private labs, the so-called super labs or lighthouse labs. And he couldn’t believe it. That on his first day he was introduced to someone whose job was pipette trainer. And he asked her, ‘Show me what training you provide.’ Obviously he knew how to use the pipette. And it was obvious in the first few seconds she had no idea how to use a Gilson Micro Pipette. At coffee he asked here what previous job she had had before coming to this very important role. And the answer was a supermarket shelf stacker at night. So that’s the content with which the prime pipette companies that are operating on scale, the most important diagnostic test ever in the history of the UK, that’s the content with which management is choosing its star.

Even if PCR, if done well, might distinguish a clinically infected person from a not clinically infected person, in practice, forget about it. They’ve got graduates who usually got a science degree, but no practical commercial lab experience. They’re being supervised by this one example, a person whose last job was stacking shelves in a supermarket and ostensibly training.

Just for a moment, contamination is a major problem in PCR. It’s an amplification technique and high numbers of cycles, Reiner, as you said, theoretically, you might amplify what was in the sample by 1 trillion fold. It doesn’t take much imagination to believe that a few particles floating in the air could contaminate an entire rack of open tubes, not withstanding a flow hoop. And if you have poor pipetting technique, you easily generate aerosols every single time you empty the pipette tip by depressing the thumb.

The person I spoke to who’s done this for decades, I asked him what he thought, the operational false positive rate arising purely from contamination, cross contamination. I asked him to estimate a percentage. He said it could be point-two, it could be two percent, could be twenty percent, it could be any number at all. And I asked him, Well presumably they run negative, no negative controls through the entire chain of custody. He said, No they don’t do that. They don’t do any negative controls. They just have a plate control right at the end before it goes into the PCR machine.

So it’s pure and simple fraud—in my country at least. Absolute fraud. I don’t believe a single set of statistics that arise from UK mass scale PCR testing. That’s what I think.

Reiner Fuellmich: Shall I translate? .... So this test is an absolute fraud, the way it was used by the UK, but probably the way it was used the world over.

Dr Mike Yeadon: Yeah, I think so. I’m in an undisclosed Central American country at the moment. I’ve spoken to a few people here and there seems to be pretty much no one with any science or medical knowledge running the county, coronavirus response as I can tell. And from what little I’ve gathered by repute, the person that is in charge of the health response is widely considered to be a crook. So a little country has got no chance and I’m afraid the big countries are the ones that have aggressively rolled out this pseudo-science.

You’ve probably heard me speak before many times on what I call the COVID lies. I just want to point out to people something that I thought was compelling evidence of an international plan, the first time I heard it. Which was sometime in March 2020, several scores of countries—the ones that I’ve managed to check—all discarded their perfectly good pandemic, preparedness plans. They all have one—all the reasonably advanced T-20 countries all have one—and they all were pretty similar to what WHO had on their website as of 2019. And it never involves things like lockdowns, mask wearing, mass testing of the healthy, restrictions on travel within or between countries at all. And these were pandemic preparedness plans for something at least 10 times more lethal than what has actually happened. In other words, those plans were pretty good. And yet scores of countries simultaneously, as far as I can tell, discarded them and then they all adopted a new plan. Now, maybe that’s fine. Maybe they saw a falling man in Wuhan and thought, ‘Well this is worse. We’ll have to do it. Let’s not use our plan. Let’s use a new one.’

Okay. I can just about buy that. But the thing is they then adopted precautions, almost all of which were already proven not to be useful. And they all did it, right? Now that’s—if it was just one country then yeah, maybe you’ve got an influential fool, arrogant person and they’re driven the policy. But they all adopted lies and they all adopted the same lies. I’ve asked people again and again, Can you come up with an explanation that is other than an international plan? Not a single person has managed to do it.

But every one of the driving narrative points about this virus are wrong, from the degree of lethality, from the supposed efficacy of masks, and the utility of PCR testing the absurd idea that people without symptoms of a respiratory illness can nevertheless infect other people. And so it goes on. Every one of them was laughably stupid. And unfortunately it’s not funny because unfortunately it looks like nine times out of ten people have believed these lies. But that’s my point. It simply doesn’t stack up the first time I heard it. And the more the year wore on the more I realized it wasn’t just a PCR fraud, but everything was lies and I’m afraid nothing has changed. So let me allow you to translate that but I’ve got a couple of things I’ve discovered recently, which are horrifying and they go a long way towards explaining the peaks of deaths in the UK at least.

Reiner Fuellmich: Okay. .... The thing is Mike, I believe that it’s the fact that so many people have fallen for these lies—maybe nine out of ten, I’m not sure, but maybe less. I think it has a lot to do with what you told us about: this is also, and to a very large extent, a psychological operation.

Dr Mike Yeadon: Yes, absolutely. Yes. I know don’t understand that. I mean, my wife is not a scientist, has repeatedly observed that she also doesn’t understand how it is that people believe “the narrative” as we would call it. Because I don’t think it needs to be very clever to work out that it doesn’t hold together. But I’ve seen very good documents and videos and so on explaining this, the idea of a mass hypnosis, or whatever, mass psychosis I think is the phrase. So I don’t think I’ve got anything useful to comment other than I was clearly immune to it. I’ve never been frightened or thought that what was going on was as described. But I become increasingly frightened about what lies behind it and the efficacy of it.

But just something to mention in Britain, that’s just come to light. It’s been in the background for a little while. It turns out that Midazolam, I think a sedative, I think has played an important role in the Spring 2020 excess deaths. I’m not sure whether to put too fine a point on it, but certainly it’s alleged that medical procedures were distorted substantially and essentially this drug was used to kill people, very large numbers of people in UK. The evidence for that is that for the whole of the year 2018-19 normal quantities of this material were ordered, but not dispensed. So a whole year’s worth of stock was acquired. And then early in 2020, the generic supplies office, Midazolam ordered two years supply, which was delivered. Which meant as we went into the beginning of the lockdown there were three year’s supply of this sort of end-of-life drug washing around, and it’s all been dispensed.

So draw your own conclusions. There’s been a group of medics and lawyers who have written an open letter accusing British government and many players in the House system of crimes, which is exactly what it sounds like. I’m only repeating allegations I’ve heard, having read their letter. So I’m not bringing any evidence myself. But they do have inventory graphs from inside the National Health Service, they have orders, receipts from the suppliers and the story does hang together. So it’s quite possible. [ref][ref]

I previously thought that the peak of deaths in Spring was due to the disruption of the housing conditions and hospital conditions, the frail elderly people that were pushed out of the health system in order to clear the decks as it were to make sure there were plenty of beds. That was my simple-minded idea. But it sounds like it was much darker than that.

Then in January of this year, when mass vaccination of the COVID-19 vaccine started, I think it’s pretty well-established now amongst those that are looking objectively, it was that policy, mass vaccination, that was responsible for a substantial portion of the very large spike, certainly in UK in Spring. And so those two together account for most of the events. So there’s really not much left to even concern yourself with.

So whilst there’s a dreadful darkness as a background, if I was to speak to a member of the public and I do, I would start by saying, don’t be frightened of the virus. It’s nothing like as dangerous as you’ve been led to believe and that unless your close to the end of your life, I don’t think there’s any chance of it representing a serious risk to your health. There are very good treatments now. Plenty of treatments that have been suppressed. So you shouldn’t be frightened of the virus but you should be very terrified of what your government or bodies above your governments are doing, because that really is bad. So I’ll pause there Reiner.

Reiner Fuellmich: Okay. .... This is also what others like Dr Bryan Ardis from Texas told us that there’s a lot of, he calls it malpractice, but it’s probably worse than that from what we’re hearing from you. A lot of medical malpractice is responsible for the spikes. For example in Bergamo in Italy, the doctors whom we interviewed from Italy told us that eventually it turns out that 96% of the people who supposedly died of Covid died of completely other causes. Same figures from New York, same figures from Sweden and other countries. So there’s a lot to support the evidence that you’re getting which shows us that there’s something very sinister going on.

Dr Mike Yeadon: Yes, certainly. If I, I think if I look objectively just around, certainly in the United Kingdom, I can’t really find—knowing what I do about PCR—I can’t find any evidence that there’s actually any kind of public health crisis, except one, perhaps, that’s secondary to all the restrictions and the measures. So if I was in charge for a day or able to advise someone for a day, I would recommend we stop all testing, all masking, just stop doing everything that would be considered appropriative SARS-CoV-2 really was, as it was originally described, because we’ve now learned that it’s really, it’s relatively unimportant as a cause of illness and death, excess deaths. So we just stop everything and I suspect everything would go back to normal. That’s what we should do. I don’t think we need anything clever at all.

Reiner Fuellmich: I read one of the articles that you wrote and in that article, you explained that regardless of the real nature of the virus we have, in the meantime, we have herd immunity consisting of cross immunity and T-cell immunity, of course which means that there’s really no need for any vaccinations.

Dr Mike Yeadon: No. Absolutely. Certainly, yes, I don’t think there’s a need for vaccinations or certainly not the kind that we’ve got. I mean, because I was in the pharmaceutical industry for 32 years—although not in vaccines—but I’ve been in new drug developments and these are very atypical. I call them gene-based vaccines. So I try to give the idea that if they worked as described then you might classify them as vaccines. But they definitely are new, they are gene based. And I did look up the—the European regulations are fascinating and their imbecility. So he used exactly this technology, RNA encoding a gene, which it’s intended to express in the body. If that gene was a cancer target so as to hopefully turn off an immune response against the cancer, this technology is counted as gene therapy by EMA and there’s a whole bunch of things or requirements that the innovator must do. But if instead, the target is an infectious disease, as allegedly in this case, then exactly the same material is classed as a vaccine and is developed in a completely different way with completely different, and I think, lower requirements.

I just need to point out how absurd this is. Basically the gene therapy for treating cancers generally try and treat people who are at risk of dying; a high percentage of them won’t make, say five years. And so you could accept I think even the patient would accept, much higher risks for a chance for a cure, perhaps. But with public health prophylactic vaccines, you want to give them potentially, to hundreds of millions of people and not hurt anyone. So surely that would require the manufacturers have a much higher safety requirements demonstrated before you start.

Well, that’s the complete opposite, complete opposite of what has happened. And I’ve heard the phrase regulatory capture. I can only assume that’s what’s happened because there’s not a sensible thing to do. It’s on its head. The people who are most at risk because they’re perfectly well—and most of them wouldn’t die if they caught the disease—they’re more likely to be harmed because the products have been developed by a path that’s easier to navigate. Whereas the anti-cancer mRNA vaccines go through a different pathway. So that could explain a combination of regulatory capture, that is the regulators allowed themselves to define a policy that I’ve summarized, which I think is inappropriate. And as a consequence, then I think there’s a misclassification of these products which have then been developed in a way that simply does not establish safety.

The bottom line is you’ve ended up with products that they’re not safe. I’m sure you’ve had testimony from others, but they’re just appalling in terms of the frequency and severity of side effects, including deaths, shortly after vaccination, including in perfectly healthy people not at any risk from the virus. So that tells you straight away that since a cursory glance at the public adverse event recording systems will tell you what I’ve said is true. That these vaccines should not be used because they’re not safe. They should not be used because they’re not very effective. We’re seeing breakthrough cases, certainly in the UK and Israel. They don’t work very well, not persistently good if at all. And then finally there are safe and effective treatments of various kinds. So I’m afraid I would put the whole lot in a dumpster fire right now. That’s my professional opinion.

Viviane Fischer: Can I ask you a quick question? These breakthrough cases that you see. Are these really breakthrough cases in the sense of that the vaccination doesn’t work? Or is this that the PCR tests reacts to anything that the vaccinated produce, because it’s the immune system of the vaccinated reduced to some extent in its functionality? Because it’s kind of strange.

Dr Mike Yeadon: I honestly don’t know those are all really good suggestions. I’m simply not close enough to it to know. But here’s the interesting thing and I see Wolfgang has his hand up, so I’ll just make a comment and stop. The interesting thing is, if I’m wrong, I’ll stand corrected. The last time I checked the total age mortality profile in the UK has not changed. So whatever it is that people are alleging certain people have got either in hospital or at home and are dying with, the median age at death hasn’t moved. And that was true, we knew that in summer, last year. You can’t have a pandemic that’s producing excess mortality and not move the age [...] mortality curve. That’s pretty solid evidence that there’s not much going on. So I’ll pause.

Reiner Fuellmich: One more thing. Wolfgang, who is going to probably ask a question or add some comment, he explained to us and I found this very easy to understand. Whatever the virus is, it’s a respiratory problem. Whatever attacks us as a respiratory virus is usually being fought off by our immune system, because if it enters through the nose or through the throat, that’s where it gets caught. However, if you inject the most poisonous part of the virus—and that’s the spike protein—directly into a person’s arm, that circumvents our immune protection and makes the whole thing extremely dangerous.

Dr Mike Yeadon: Absolutely.

Reiner Fuellmich: And it sounds to me as though the breakthrough infections that we’re seeing now are really not breakthrough infections, but rather results of the injections.

Dr Mike Yeadon: It certainly could be the case. This is a case where anecdote isn’t particularly good evidence, but certainly asking around my own family network and through connections out from that, asking friends of friends. We know a grand total of two people who allegedly died with COVID. One was in their eighties and the other was I think, in the sixties with a recent terminal cancer diagnosis. So that’s the grand total we know through a few hundred people in a circle. But as of last month, we know of four people who’ve died shortly after vaccination. None of them were particularly old and none of them were older than 70. And we know another half a dozen people who are really seriously unwell months after vaccination.

And I agree—I’m a toxicologist as well as a pharmacologist. So I just couldn’t believe, the design of these vaccines is stupid for one of the reasons you just described. But separately from that, it was known for years, maybe decades, that the spike proteins of coronaviruses are so-called cheetagenic [sp?]; they prompt cells to come together. There’s a feline peritonitis vaccine which has a spike protein and it’s a coronavirus. We know that the spike protein itself is biologically active. So it’s just a stupid idea that you would present that into people without, for example, mutating it so that it would lose its biological activity, but retain a lot of immunogenic structure.

So that, that was a stupid idea. I’ve also recently discovered in the last month, that for the mRNA vaccines that use a lipid nanoparticle formulation in order to protect the payload, unfortunately those lipid nanoparticles themselves have had a more than a decades-long technical problem, well-known to specialists in the industry, which is that they concentrate in ovaries. There’s a paper which is on the website, Truth For Health Foundation, for whom I am Chief Scientific Advisor, the paper in 2012, that actually talks exactly about that. These lipid nano carriers and ovarian toxicity and under-appreciated human toxicity risks. And yet in 2020 Moderna and Pfizer, both chose lipid nanoparticles. And then of course, we’ve got the Japanese study with the Pfizer product that was released under a freedom of information request, lo and behold, it does concentrate in terms of product per gram of wet weight of tissue. It concentrates in the ovaries. It’s doing exactly what that paper I’ve discovered says. And so I reached the horrible—my skin was crawling by the time I was finished reading this because it confirmed to me that these people are not stupid. They knew perfectly well what would happen. So they didn’t choose this in an emergency because there were no alternatives, This was carefully chosen and it has the effect of concentrating in ovaries in multiple species to not being excluded as doing that in females. So as a toxicologist, if I was interacting with the regulators, that’s what they would tell me is the reasonable assumption and that it is mine too. So yes, I don’t like these vaccines at all. I think that baldy designed and I think it’s more than carelessness.

Reiner Fuellmich: So to sum this all up, Mike, there is no factual basis for the assumption that we have a pandemic that is threatening to overwhelm our healthcare systems because the tool that was used to measure this pandemic, the PCR test, is totally unreliable as far as that is concerned. The measures that were taken make no sense. Rather they are dangerous, in particular, the vaccinations. According to what you have seen and according to what you have discussed with your colleagues, these so-called vaccinations are not vaccinations. They’re gene therapies. They may make sense if you use them for the treatment of cancer patients. But they don’t make any sense for mass immunization of healthy people. They’re much too dangerous.

Dr Mike Yeadon: Yes. I think that’s right. I think I would just mention one other thing that I think is very, very important because I think it underscores the sort of direction of trouble. Actually made the two things. One is this idea that you can infect people even though you have no symptoms, this asymptomatic transmission. I think it’s been central to maintaining people in a state of fear because they look at each other and they believe— because they’re told it—that any of these people in the shop or on the sidewalk could represent potentially a lethal threat to them. I can see people in a state of terror. And yet asymptomatic transmission, in the case of respiratory viruses, just really doesn’t feature much in the literature. A little bit of research on so-called pre-symptomatic transmission.

But the bottom line, I’ve said this before, that in order to be a good source of respiratory virus, to be able to infect others well, you need to be used to plenty of the virus in your airway. But if you do, it’s inevitable that you will have symptoms. You don’t get a choice. There’s not a delay. If you’ve got a lot of virus in your airways, it’s busy killing the lining cells of your airway, which produces symptoms. And your immune system is busy, fighting back, and that produces symptoms.

So it’s impossible for you to be a very good source of infection and to be symptom free. That’s just simple, basic logic. It’s also been tested empirically and it’s true. And so the people who are actually being lied to, it’s not like there’s some disputed science, it’s just not true. But until we can convince people that they’re not—if perfectly fit and well—they’re not a risk to other people. But you can see because they’ve accepted this, then they accept these stupid masks. And I do think the masks are part of the psychological operation. When I have to wear a mask in certain situations in shops where I am here, I can feel it raises my stress level and I look around and everyone is stressed. So it keeps people frightened. I do think that’s very important.

But I think the consequence of all this, if you take a step back, not that many people have died. I mean really about 0.8, 0.9 percent of the population don’t make their next birthday every year, mostly old people. And that number has been slightly increased, really ever so slightly. So it’s not like it’s reducing the population. And yet, we’ve smashed the whole of the worlds—as far as I can tell—most of the world’s business, civil society, family relationships, and so on coming up towards—it’s getting on towards two years now—the disruption. And it’s all for no good reason. And so it seems to me that even if there was a dangerous virus moving around, it’s very important that we restart normal life. Because unless we have got an economy and civil society, life is literally not worth living and very large numbers of people probably feel like that. I know I do.

Reiner Fuellmich: So do I.

Dr Mike Yeadon: Yeah.

Reiner Fuellmich: Mike, I’m very, very, very grateful for you taking the time and the effort to talk to us and to everyone who is watching us. I know this is extremely important because it’s information coming directly from the source. Not from the media but from someone whose, whose entire life has been devoted to basically, science and to the very things we’re talking about right now.

Dr Mike Yeadon: Yeah. Thank you very much for providing the platform Reiner. Good luck. Blessings everybody.

Reiner Fuellmich: Thank you. Same to you.