Dear Head Teacher – why my child must NOT wear a mask | The Conservative Woman
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/dear-head-teacher-why-my-child-must-not-wear-a-mask/
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/dear-head-teacher-why-my-child-must-not-wear-a-mask/
The Conservative Woman
Dear Head Teacher – why my child must NOT wear a mask - The Conservative Woman
46 residents in Spanish nursing home die after receiving COVID-19 vaccine | News | LifeSite
https://www.lifesitenews.com/mobile/news/46-residents-in-spanish-nursing-home-die-after-receiving-covid-19-vaccine?__twitter_impression=true
https://www.lifesitenews.com/mobile/news/46-residents-in-spanish-nursing-home-die-after-receiving-covid-19-vaccine?__twitter_impression=true
LifeSite
46 residents in Spanish nursing home die after receiving COVID-19 vaccine - LifeSite
Health authorities have reportedly halted the administering of the second shot of Pfizer’s vaccine
Forwarded from Mike Yeadon
Hello everyone! Alive & kicking. I don’t have my own channel but o am still doing what I can to keep science honest.
Here’s my take on vaccination. I don’t think there’s a more important time to think, be still, anticipate where your near term decisions will lead us.
Here’s my take on vaccination:
1. Healthy people under 60 are at a very low risk from the virus. If you didn’t seek a flu vaccine then you definitely don’t need this vaccine because flu risk is greater than covid risk for the under-70s.
2. I do not believe for one minute that vaccination will result in our freedoms being returned. The whole coercive act around forcing people who won’t benefit to get vaccinated is to get digital ID on everyone. The way to oppose evil is to exert your rights & say “No, thanks”. Not to go along with it. That way lies permanent purgatory because what’s next? A top up against variants? You’ll be made to take every vaccine the authorities dictate.
3. Some tourist dependent countries want tourists so badly they will admit them without vaccination. Help them by going there. This pressure succeeds or it fails. It won’t take years. We have to win or it’ll be forced into our children.
4. Consider younger people. They’re not at a measurable risk. Taking a vaccine helps them not at all, but it adds risk for adverse effects in the mid to long term. No one can tell us what that risk is because the technology is new & the data simply doesn’t exist. Because they’re different from anything we’ve done before, it’s irresponsible to be rolling out vaccines except to those at clearly elevated risk if infected.
5. Why are medical professionals silent? Why are all institutions supine? I don’t know, but it’s frightening.
Here’s my take on vaccination. I don’t think there’s a more important time to think, be still, anticipate where your near term decisions will lead us.
Here’s my take on vaccination:
1. Healthy people under 60 are at a very low risk from the virus. If you didn’t seek a flu vaccine then you definitely don’t need this vaccine because flu risk is greater than covid risk for the under-70s.
2. I do not believe for one minute that vaccination will result in our freedoms being returned. The whole coercive act around forcing people who won’t benefit to get vaccinated is to get digital ID on everyone. The way to oppose evil is to exert your rights & say “No, thanks”. Not to go along with it. That way lies permanent purgatory because what’s next? A top up against variants? You’ll be made to take every vaccine the authorities dictate.
3. Some tourist dependent countries want tourists so badly they will admit them without vaccination. Help them by going there. This pressure succeeds or it fails. It won’t take years. We have to win or it’ll be forced into our children.
4. Consider younger people. They’re not at a measurable risk. Taking a vaccine helps them not at all, but it adds risk for adverse effects in the mid to long term. No one can tell us what that risk is because the technology is new & the data simply doesn’t exist. Because they’re different from anything we’ve done before, it’s irresponsible to be rolling out vaccines except to those at clearly elevated risk if infected.
5. Why are medical professionals silent? Why are all institutions supine? I don’t know, but it’s frightening.
Forwarded from Mike Yeadon
Please do not give up your freedom to decide whether or not to consent to an experimental medical intervention in exchange for SOME of your freedoms back.
It’s unethical to pressure you to accept vaccination for NON MEDICAL reasons.
Accept restrictions that they threaten you with. If enough of us cross our arms, look then in the eye & say “No, thanks”, they lose.
Vaccine passports are a blind tunnel from which nether we nor our children will ever emerge. It’s a one way trap.
They need to impose them en masse or it won’t work. Don’t do their work for them. Don’t be bribed , frightened or lied into accepting what your gut advises you not to.
The Council of Europe, of which we remain a member, is explicit: member states are reminded that it is illegal to mandate or coerce populations into accepting medical interventions & they must not discriminate against those choosing to decline.
It’s unethical to pressure you to accept vaccination for NON MEDICAL reasons.
Accept restrictions that they threaten you with. If enough of us cross our arms, look then in the eye & say “No, thanks”, they lose.
Vaccine passports are a blind tunnel from which nether we nor our children will ever emerge. It’s a one way trap.
They need to impose them en masse or it won’t work. Don’t do their work for them. Don’t be bribed , frightened or lied into accepting what your gut advises you not to.
The Council of Europe, of which we remain a member, is explicit: member states are reminded that it is illegal to mandate or coerce populations into accepting medical interventions & they must not discriminate against those choosing to decline.
Forwarded from Mike Yeadon
In U.K. our all causes mortality has sunk back to normal. Now, I don’t believe for a moment that lockdowns have been the cause. It’s massed population immunity. I know I called it prematurely last autumn but I’m not ready to completely concede that we were not near herd immunity. And I think we’re there now. My estimate of % of population who’ve been infected is now mainstream with CDC in the US stating around 25%. Evidence continues to emerge that 20-50% of us had some prior immunity. The youngest are effectively resistant to infection & transmission. Simple arithmetic doesn’t leave enough susceptible people to again have an epidemic at scale in already heavily hit regions.
We also know masks are just lies.
So the event is over.
We’ve been deliberately whipped into a MASS PANIC & relentlessly administered fear for a year.
Well, I’m not frightened & I’m not going away.
We also know masks are just lies.
So the event is over.
We’ve been deliberately whipped into a MASS PANIC & relentlessly administered fear for a year.
Well, I’m not frightened & I’m not going away.
Forwarded from Mike Yeadon
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.03.03.21251066v1.full.pdf
But here’s the kicker: older people, unfortunately the very age group we know have very much greater risk of severe outcomes including death if infected by SARS-CoV-2, do not respond anything like as well to vaccination (this is the Pfizer one) as those in whom vaccination isn’t really needed.
The process of diminishing immune responses with age, especially in those >80y, has long been recognised. It is thought to be one of if not the most important reason why we see such profound age-related risks. Immunosenescence is a fact of life. Everything-senescence is associated with ageing & while we should do what we can to extend heathy lifespan, I personally don’t want to live longer than my health. Aging can be cruel. But it is also an entirely natural process & it seems as a society, we refuse to recognise what our ancestors accepted as an inevitable part of ‘the circle of life’.
The bottom line is that there are limits, really severe ones too, in terms of what vaccination can do to protect the very old from the consequences of viral infection.
Ask yourself this: if the most vulnerable are often far less likely to gain effective protection from vaccination, and those who do benefit are usually able to resist infection without vaccination, what the hell are we doing, vaccinating the world?
It’s almost - not quite - pointless. I’m sure there’s a sizeable cohort between 60 & 80 who are greatly helped by vaccination. But the median age of death with covid19 is over 80. And very few people younger than 60 & without prior serious illnesses, succumb to this virus.
Mike
But here’s the kicker: older people, unfortunately the very age group we know have very much greater risk of severe outcomes including death if infected by SARS-CoV-2, do not respond anything like as well to vaccination (this is the Pfizer one) as those in whom vaccination isn’t really needed.
The process of diminishing immune responses with age, especially in those >80y, has long been recognised. It is thought to be one of if not the most important reason why we see such profound age-related risks. Immunosenescence is a fact of life. Everything-senescence is associated with ageing & while we should do what we can to extend heathy lifespan, I personally don’t want to live longer than my health. Aging can be cruel. But it is also an entirely natural process & it seems as a society, we refuse to recognise what our ancestors accepted as an inevitable part of ‘the circle of life’.
The bottom line is that there are limits, really severe ones too, in terms of what vaccination can do to protect the very old from the consequences of viral infection.
Ask yourself this: if the most vulnerable are often far less likely to gain effective protection from vaccination, and those who do benefit are usually able to resist infection without vaccination, what the hell are we doing, vaccinating the world?
It’s almost - not quite - pointless. I’m sure there’s a sizeable cohort between 60 & 80 who are greatly helped by vaccination. But the median age of death with covid19 is over 80. And very few people younger than 60 & without prior serious illnesses, succumb to this virus.
Mike
MIKE YEADON ON VANDEN BOSSCHE'S PREDICTIONS:
"Respectfully, I disagree that there’s a risk as outlined.
I am unconvinced that antibodies play am important role in protection, certainly against severe disease. That task belongs to other components of the immune system, notably T-cells, cytotoxic T lymphocytes, which are trained to detect & destroy virus infected cells.
Antibodies cannot do that for they are very large molecules, generally considered to remain outside cells. Yet the virus resides & replicates inside cells. It’s when they leave fragments of themselves displayed on the surface of those calls & are recognised by T-cells, that’s when they are marked for controlled destruction & with it, the virus within.
That capability, to detect the virus, uses a complex “molecular identity parade”: the virus is cut up into hundreds of unique short pieces. Each of us possesses huge diversity in our T-cells ability to recognise these unique pieces of foreign invader & then multiply through what’s called clonal expansion until we have hundreds of millions of each T-cell type against several dozen different pieces of virus.
If a variant infects us, the vast majority of the virus sequence is unchanged, and do almost every trained type of T-cell still finds & kills cells bearing the same pieces they’re trained to recognise, and to kill variant infected cells.
This has been shown to work in recent experiments by talented immunologists at the La Jolla Institute in California. They must be working flat out & they work is world class.
Very many authors but look for papers in Cell (2021) by lead author Tarke, A et al.
They’ve made a comprehensive study of every protein ‘snippet’ into which this virus is cut, finding something like 600 unique pieces.
Each person uses a few dozen snippets to train their T-cells, and that collection is called our ‘repertoire’. Our repertoire is unique: mine is different from yours, the permutations & combinations of snippets we each use to protect us is different.
Not only does this mean the virus has to do the equivalent of rolling 40 sixes in a row to escape immunity, but even in that unlikely event, it has no significance to the POPULATION. Because each of us has a different repertoire.
Trust me: this overblown virus is pretty ordinary from an immunological perspective. The most likely end game is it dies out or becomes low level endemic within the next year."
"Respectfully, I disagree that there’s a risk as outlined.
I am unconvinced that antibodies play am important role in protection, certainly against severe disease. That task belongs to other components of the immune system, notably T-cells, cytotoxic T lymphocytes, which are trained to detect & destroy virus infected cells.
Antibodies cannot do that for they are very large molecules, generally considered to remain outside cells. Yet the virus resides & replicates inside cells. It’s when they leave fragments of themselves displayed on the surface of those calls & are recognised by T-cells, that’s when they are marked for controlled destruction & with it, the virus within.
That capability, to detect the virus, uses a complex “molecular identity parade”: the virus is cut up into hundreds of unique short pieces. Each of us possesses huge diversity in our T-cells ability to recognise these unique pieces of foreign invader & then multiply through what’s called clonal expansion until we have hundreds of millions of each T-cell type against several dozen different pieces of virus.
If a variant infects us, the vast majority of the virus sequence is unchanged, and do almost every trained type of T-cell still finds & kills cells bearing the same pieces they’re trained to recognise, and to kill variant infected cells.
This has been shown to work in recent experiments by talented immunologists at the La Jolla Institute in California. They must be working flat out & they work is world class.
Very many authors but look for papers in Cell (2021) by lead author Tarke, A et al.
They’ve made a comprehensive study of every protein ‘snippet’ into which this virus is cut, finding something like 600 unique pieces.
Each person uses a few dozen snippets to train their T-cells, and that collection is called our ‘repertoire’. Our repertoire is unique: mine is different from yours, the permutations & combinations of snippets we each use to protect us is different.
Not only does this mean the virus has to do the equivalent of rolling 40 sixes in a row to escape immunity, but even in that unlikely event, it has no significance to the POPULATION. Because each of us has a different repertoire.
Trust me: this overblown virus is pretty ordinary from an immunological perspective. The most likely end game is it dies out or becomes low level endemic within the next year."
Forwarded from Mike Yeadon
Please watch this. Carl Jung said that frightened people are much more dangerous than angry people. We are in a mass hysteria. It’s not accidental. But it won’t continue indefinitely. What will have changed when it ends?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEDn8694d4E
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEDn8694d4E
YouTube
How we end this hysteria
A look at mass hysteria from the past, what characterises them and how they end.
Forwarded from Mike Yeadon
Pro lockdown folk appear to have a semi religious belief that lockdowns MUST work, because this is a human contact transmitted infection & lockdown reduces average number of contacts.
I’ve been astonished by the number of people who uncritically accept this.
Of course, what matters is not the number of contacts, but the number of contacts which lead to INFECTION.
Now, this pivots on density of infectious individuals. I don’t accept that transmission of infective levels of virus occurs from people without symptoms, not at any frequency with which we need to be concerned.
Transmission is also far lower outside with massive air dilution than inside in still rebreathed air.
Consider the phenotype of a person infected with virus, but who has no symptoms. Because symptoms are a consequence of either substantial virus pathology in lungs & elsewhere, or of the body’s response to invasion, its logical to expect INFECTIOUS people have much virus in their airways also have SYMPTOMS. Not saying 100% match, but in the vast majority of infectious individuals, they will feel unwell. They’re much less likely to be walking around & able to bump into susceptible people.
In contrast, consider institutions. Hospitals & care homes are in contrast, with large numbers of people & patients especially & from time to time, residents, are there because they’re not only symptomatic, but ill, often seriously ill.
In short, I believe the virus was never anywhere near as prevalent in the community as in institutions. And that’s why lockdown did little except to damage society & the economy. lockdown did little to reduce INFECTIOUS contacts. Reduction in contacts which were most unlikely to lead to infection was an illogical step to have taken.
In parallel to this logical argument we have the empirical evidence that the bulk of infections were acquired in institutions & not random contacts in the community.
This isn’t a new concept, either: both SARS & MERS are considered largely as infectious diseases of INSTITUTIONS. Not the community.
I hope I’ve acknowledged the logical approach outlined by those favouring lockdown & believing it MUST work, while providing a coherent & internally consistent explanation why it is in fact not true. My explanation tallies with the great bulk of international literature in this point, that indiscriminate lockdowns are not associated with lower mortality, either of deaths attributed to Covid19 or all causes mortality.
We must not make this mistake again.
Best wishes,
Mike
I’ve been astonished by the number of people who uncritically accept this.
Of course, what matters is not the number of contacts, but the number of contacts which lead to INFECTION.
Now, this pivots on density of infectious individuals. I don’t accept that transmission of infective levels of virus occurs from people without symptoms, not at any frequency with which we need to be concerned.
Transmission is also far lower outside with massive air dilution than inside in still rebreathed air.
Consider the phenotype of a person infected with virus, but who has no symptoms. Because symptoms are a consequence of either substantial virus pathology in lungs & elsewhere, or of the body’s response to invasion, its logical to expect INFECTIOUS people have much virus in their airways also have SYMPTOMS. Not saying 100% match, but in the vast majority of infectious individuals, they will feel unwell. They’re much less likely to be walking around & able to bump into susceptible people.
In contrast, consider institutions. Hospitals & care homes are in contrast, with large numbers of people & patients especially & from time to time, residents, are there because they’re not only symptomatic, but ill, often seriously ill.
In short, I believe the virus was never anywhere near as prevalent in the community as in institutions. And that’s why lockdown did little except to damage society & the economy. lockdown did little to reduce INFECTIOUS contacts. Reduction in contacts which were most unlikely to lead to infection was an illogical step to have taken.
In parallel to this logical argument we have the empirical evidence that the bulk of infections were acquired in institutions & not random contacts in the community.
This isn’t a new concept, either: both SARS & MERS are considered largely as infectious diseases of INSTITUTIONS. Not the community.
I hope I’ve acknowledged the logical approach outlined by those favouring lockdown & believing it MUST work, while providing a coherent & internally consistent explanation why it is in fact not true. My explanation tallies with the great bulk of international literature in this point, that indiscriminate lockdowns are not associated with lower mortality, either of deaths attributed to Covid19 or all causes mortality.
We must not make this mistake again.
Best wishes,
Mike
Please Retweet.
Let's get Mike Yeadon's words across
https://twitter.com/robinmonottibot/status/1372513498031390722?s=19
Let's get Mike Yeadon's words across
https://twitter.com/robinmonottibot/status/1372513498031390722?s=19
Twitter
Robin Monotti MA FRSA 🤖⭐
Dr Mike Yeadon's latest posts (TRUTH BOMBS) are TODAY at the top of my Telegram channel LOOK HERE ➡️ https://t.co/mba4wpxZvA https://t.co/SQ96sN2PW2
This media is not supported in your browser
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
This video and many of Dr Mike Yeadon's latest posts are featuring today at the top (or bottom in terms of scrolling) of this channel. Please scroll up, read all of them and share. Include a link to this channel if you can. t.me/robinmg
The UK govt have awarded a £2 million contract for a 'Covid Public Information Campaign' that starts in April 2021 and lasts for two years. This is not going to end until people say STOP. Worldwide protest rallies starting this Saturday are essential.
https://www.find-tender.service.gov.uk/Notice/005534-2021?origin=SearchResults&p=1
https://www.find-tender.service.gov.uk/Notice/005534-2021?origin=SearchResults&p=1
Forwarded from Mike Yeadon
Ok, The UK Government has opened a consultation for input on vaccine passports.
PLEASE share & make your views felt.
From: mike yeadon
Date: 18 March 2021 at 15:30:29 GMT
To: certification.cfe@cabinetoffice.gov.uk
Subject: COVID-Status Certification Review - Call for evidence
Dear sir/madam,
This review concerns a matter which, depending on the decisions taken, represents the most fundamental alteration of the relationship between state & citizen in a generation, and it’s also one from which retreat would be all but impossible.
I am completely against the idea that we need to prove to others that we’ve received a particular medical intervention. Here are some reasons why:
1. IT IS CONTRARY TO INTERNATIONAL LAW : U.K. is a signatory to the Council of Europe’s recent Declaration on vaccination. Essentially, they reminded us all that (please see 7.3.1 & 7.3.2 below):
2. IT IS NOT NECESSARY IN ORDER TO PROTECT OTHERS: The risks to public health posed by SARS-CoV-2 are orders of magnitude lower than from, for example, Yellow Fever, often invoked in debates on this topic. Yellow Fever is a very poor analogy from which to draw any conclusions.
The reason it’s vital not to bring Yellow Fever into U.K. is that it is currently absent & the community has zero immunity to it. Introduction could cost an enormous loss of life.
Contrast this with the case of covid19, everyone who wishes to be protected through vaccination will have been so protected. It is therefore immaterial what the status of others is. The argument that recipients might not be fully protected, so others who aren’t at risk must also be vaccinated is a logical fallacy. If vaccination really doesn’t protect the recipient, it’s illogical to coerce & effectively to mandate the entire population to receive it. The argument is being tortured in order, notionally, to reduce an already small residual risk after vaccination to a somewhat lower risk yet. It’s unimpressive logic even in its own lights. No, once those who give free & informed consent to vaccination are protected, it’s simply not true that they remain at elevated risk if others around them are not vaccinated. Though in my view, it is a reasonable expectation that vaccination will not only protect the recipient, but it will also reduce transmission, to some extent. This is because both illness & the ability to be an infection risk to others turns on how much viral replication occurs in the infected person, and immunity, whether naturally acquired or through vaccination, reduces viral replication.
3. RISKS HAVE BEEN EXAGGERATED: there’s no doubt that in some individuals, SARS-CoV-2 is a serious health threat. However, it is not a serious threat to the bulk of the population under 70 who are in sound health. The entire set of policy responses have been inappropriate & without doubt, damaging to everyone, while the evidence indicates they’ve saved no one. There is no justification whatsoever for the introduction of “Vaccination Passports”, regardless of what other countries do. This is just another overreaction.
4. IT IS UNETHICAL & DANGEROUS TO COERCE MILLIONS OF THOSE NOT AT RISK FROM THE VIRUS TO GET VACCINATED: For those vulnerable to covid19, vaccination almost certainly comes with a positive risk / benefit, though do note, we know absolutely nothing about long term unwanted effects. BUT those who are healthy & younger are NOT at risk. Vaccination or indeed any medical intervention comes with risks. It doesn’t matter where the jury finally comes out on various potential risks. Forcing tens of millions of people to accept vaccination achieves absolutely nothing except enriching certain individuals & corporations and will unfortunately be associated with an unknown number of totally avoidable deaths. If I voted for vaccine passports, I couldn’t live with the guilt. And there will be cause to regret it, so JUST SAY NO.
PLEASE share & make your views felt.
From: mike yeadon
Date: 18 March 2021 at 15:30:29 GMT
To: certification.cfe@cabinetoffice.gov.uk
Subject: COVID-Status Certification Review - Call for evidence
Dear sir/madam,
This review concerns a matter which, depending on the decisions taken, represents the most fundamental alteration of the relationship between state & citizen in a generation, and it’s also one from which retreat would be all but impossible.
I am completely against the idea that we need to prove to others that we’ve received a particular medical intervention. Here are some reasons why:
1. IT IS CONTRARY TO INTERNATIONAL LAW : U.K. is a signatory to the Council of Europe’s recent Declaration on vaccination. Essentially, they reminded us all that (please see 7.3.1 & 7.3.2 below):
2. IT IS NOT NECESSARY IN ORDER TO PROTECT OTHERS: The risks to public health posed by SARS-CoV-2 are orders of magnitude lower than from, for example, Yellow Fever, often invoked in debates on this topic. Yellow Fever is a very poor analogy from which to draw any conclusions.
The reason it’s vital not to bring Yellow Fever into U.K. is that it is currently absent & the community has zero immunity to it. Introduction could cost an enormous loss of life.
Contrast this with the case of covid19, everyone who wishes to be protected through vaccination will have been so protected. It is therefore immaterial what the status of others is. The argument that recipients might not be fully protected, so others who aren’t at risk must also be vaccinated is a logical fallacy. If vaccination really doesn’t protect the recipient, it’s illogical to coerce & effectively to mandate the entire population to receive it. The argument is being tortured in order, notionally, to reduce an already small residual risk after vaccination to a somewhat lower risk yet. It’s unimpressive logic even in its own lights. No, once those who give free & informed consent to vaccination are protected, it’s simply not true that they remain at elevated risk if others around them are not vaccinated. Though in my view, it is a reasonable expectation that vaccination will not only protect the recipient, but it will also reduce transmission, to some extent. This is because both illness & the ability to be an infection risk to others turns on how much viral replication occurs in the infected person, and immunity, whether naturally acquired or through vaccination, reduces viral replication.
3. RISKS HAVE BEEN EXAGGERATED: there’s no doubt that in some individuals, SARS-CoV-2 is a serious health threat. However, it is not a serious threat to the bulk of the population under 70 who are in sound health. The entire set of policy responses have been inappropriate & without doubt, damaging to everyone, while the evidence indicates they’ve saved no one. There is no justification whatsoever for the introduction of “Vaccination Passports”, regardless of what other countries do. This is just another overreaction.
4. IT IS UNETHICAL & DANGEROUS TO COERCE MILLIONS OF THOSE NOT AT RISK FROM THE VIRUS TO GET VACCINATED: For those vulnerable to covid19, vaccination almost certainly comes with a positive risk / benefit, though do note, we know absolutely nothing about long term unwanted effects. BUT those who are healthy & younger are NOT at risk. Vaccination or indeed any medical intervention comes with risks. It doesn’t matter where the jury finally comes out on various potential risks. Forcing tens of millions of people to accept vaccination achieves absolutely nothing except enriching certain individuals & corporations and will unfortunately be associated with an unknown number of totally avoidable deaths. If I voted for vaccine passports, I couldn’t live with the guilt. And there will be cause to regret it, so JUST SAY NO.
Forwarded from Mike Yeadon
I am not, in principle, against requiring testing for current infectiousness, if sufficient numbers of the general public are otherwise dissuaded from rejoining civil society (if & when government ever permits this). So there is a solution at hand to the incorrect concern some may have about the infectiousness risk a fellow citizen might have.
I’m highly qualified in biosciences, having spent over 30y in leadership positions, to CEO level, and unlike some advice provided to government, I have no conflicts of interest.
Yours sincerely,
Mike
Dr Mike Yeadon, PhD.
Address redacted, but do include yours in your submission.
https://bigbrotherwatch.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Emergency-Powers-and-Civil-Liberties-Report-FEB-2021.pdf
https://pace.coe.int/en/files/29004/html
I’m highly qualified in biosciences, having spent over 30y in leadership positions, to CEO level, and unlike some advice provided to government, I have no conflicts of interest.
Yours sincerely,
Mike
Dr Mike Yeadon, PhD.
Address redacted, but do include yours in your submission.
https://bigbrotherwatch.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Emergency-Powers-and-Civil-Liberties-Report-FEB-2021.pdf
https://pace.coe.int/en/files/29004/html
Forwarded from Mike Yeadon
This is a link to Florida Governor’s review & round table discussion today with a stellar cast of experts on policy responses to SARS-CoV-2.
The conclusions are not surprising to anyone who’s been paying attention.
https://youtu.be/-V7ZqnoKdUQ
The conclusions are not surprising to anyone who’s been paying attention.
https://youtu.be/-V7ZqnoKdUQ
Forwarded from Mike Yeadon
https://www.hartgroup.org/covid-19-evidence/ HART is a non-profit group of people doing their best to counter what can only be described as government MISINFORMATION.
Forwarded from Mike Yeadon
https://secureservercdn.net/72.167.242.48/k7i.767.myftpupload.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/LAUSD-Complaint-Conformed.pdf
A legal action has begun against a school in the USA, which has mandated its employees to get vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2.
A legal action has begun against a school in the USA, which has mandated its employees to get vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2.
Mike Yeadon on Asymptomatic Transmission (AT): "I didn’t do the work, but I know two physicians who did look at every case report in which AT was claimed. At the time, there were just six case reports involving only seven individuals. Each one was such a weak piece of evidence that it’s astonishing we accepted it at all. AT is not only counterintuitive but runs counter to our lived experiences.
I’m sure it happens, but rarely. It simply isn’t a major contribution to epidemic spreading. But we’re required to believe that it is, or else we’d realise that mass testing of the healthy, masking of those with no symptoms & lockdown itself are all unnecessary.
Unfortunately, the evidence is clear that it’s all deception."
I’m sure it happens, but rarely. It simply isn’t a major contribution to epidemic spreading. But we’re required to believe that it is, or else we’d realise that mass testing of the healthy, masking of those with no symptoms & lockdown itself are all unnecessary.
Unfortunately, the evidence is clear that it’s all deception."