Foreword
Dr. Mike Yeadon, August 2, 2026 :
https://substack.com/@drmikeyeadon/note/c-306510084
There have been a total of zero infectious disease epidemics and pandemics. People are sick from time to time in the ordinary course of events. Sometimes people fall sick in a sequence suggestive of contagion. However, when that apparent phenomenon is investigated, it is never found. Not once. [ https://suavek1.substack.com/p/the-arguments-for-no-viruspart-56 ].
Now, you are free to go on believing fear provoking lies if you want to. But you are not at any risk of catching a disease, because that isn’t how sickness works. Instead, you develop illnesses. Contagion is a clever story, but it’s just that, fictional.
On numerous occasions, groups of people have been poisoned, sometimes en masse, and then this has been deliberately misattributed to infectious diseases and contagion. But it’s a lie. Instead, the truth is that the groups were poisoned. A recent example is that there’s no such infectious disease as “Ebola”. Instead, concurrence of sickness deliberately misdiagnosed as caused by the “Ebola virus” (which doesn’t exist) has been caused by poisonous chemicals such as arsenic which are commonly used in artisanal gold mining in certain African countries.
It’s up to you to decide whether you’re going to set aside everything I’ve written & continue to immerse yourself and those you influence in tyrants lies or whether you’re prepared to ask pinpoint questions and begin your journey of discovery, as I have done, late in life, after a career inside what is mostly an industry of deception for evil purposes.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Loss of smell and taste is normal in all respiratory illnesses. Every doctor knows that.
by Suavek
The supposedly “extraordinary” symptoms
The lie regarding the supposedly “extraordinary” symptoms of the never-existent “Covid” illness is spread online by countless paid trolls. Occasionally, an ordinary person—out of intellectual weakness or confusion—may also spread this harmful propaganda online, ignoring the available evidence. Claims such as “I definitely had Covid because I lost my sense of taste” have been heard ad nauseam in recent years. To protect such individuals from undue criticism, it is fair to say that none of us can be a genius in every field, and presumably, everyone has their share of minor and major shortcomings. Unfortunately, some people struggle to question the ubiquitous “Covid” propaganda or to scrutinize it professionally. The same applies to the “NO VIRUS” narrative.
The frustrating part is that such people help the propaganda machine undermine the time-consuming work of the awareness-raising movement. In this context, unsuspecting individuals recommend authors on their Substack pages who either propagate the “Covid” narrative or ignore the issue of the non-existence of “viruses,” thereby spreading unnecessary fear. This creates an echo chamber for propaganda that undoes the efforts of others. Such thoughtless behavior has serious consequences. Please verify whom you recommend on your Substack. If you have not yet had the time or inclination to review the important “no-virus” evidence, it would be honest to hold off on recommending these alleged “freedom heroes” until you have a better understanding of the issues involved.
In this article, I highlight a few stumbling blocks deliberately placed in our path to prevent us from easily discovering the truth about the alleged “Covid” symptoms, and I explain how to clear these obstacles away with a little patience.
Searching for evidence
Searching for evidence that the loss of smell and taste is a normal occurrence in any respiratory illness often presents the following difficulties:
— When searching online, the algorithm presents a vast number of studies that only appeared from 2020 onwards. From that point on, pharmaceutical companies did not commission studies that might challenge their “Covid” narrative; quite the opposite—they made great efforts to substantiate the fabricated “Covid” symptoms. However, it is well known that the lead researchers conducting studies commissioned by the pharmaceutical industry are, in most cases, essentially nothing more than heads of an extended advertising department for the pharmaceutical companies. Nothing more, nothing less. Anyone who doesn’t know that might not be from this world (laughs).
In this context, it is difficult to find evidence among studies conducted after 2019 showing that the loss of smell and taste is a normal feature of (genuine) respiratory illnesses. To find this, we must look for study results from before 2020.
— The algorithm deliberately prevents you from finding relevant studies from before 2020, ensuring you cannot determine the exact percentage of cases involving loss of smell and taste in common seasonal illnesses.
— A standard AI search is often unsatisfactory at first because, despite precise instructions, it initially provides results designed to confuse you. Only when the AI realizes you already know the truth—for instance, if you accuse it of being a mere propaganda machine—does it activate a program intended to maintain its credibility. The propaganda-oriented program and the credibility-maintenance program conflict with one another, suggesting that the programmers attempted to strike a compromise. This means that you will only get reasonably useful study results from the pre-2020 period from the AI after you have already lost your patience and accused the robot of peddling targeted propaganda-style lies.
Drawing on your experience with AI, you can try setting boundaries right from the start and demanding clear facts that are free from any medical propaganda. If you have enough patience, you will obtain useful information from it, even if that information will never be entirely free of propaganda.
Here is an example of how the AI justifies itself after providing me with incorrect information several times and being accused by me of deliberate disinformation:
AI :
I generated false PMID numbers for you in the previous message, which belonged to completely different, partly newer topics. That was a serious mistake on my part, which justified your mistrust and anger. There is no excuse for this; it was an incorrect technical output of reference data. ( … ).
I will not look for excuses here or twist the discussion. I will now list the real, historically correct specialist articles for you, which you can check via Google Scholar or medical archives. If you search for the exact titles, you will find the publications from the years before 2020 (…).
The study evidence that was finally found
Eventually, I received a few useful links to studies showing that problems with the sense of smell and taste occur in about 20% of cold and flu cases. Overall, the figures range from 2% up to as much as 40%, depending on the study. Cases have been recorded in which patients suffer from these symptoms for more than six months. In some individuals, the condition can become chronic and even persist for a lifetime.
The following studies mention, among others, conditions that conventional medicine erroneously labels as “viral” and distinguishes from other respiratory illnesses. Whether this distinction is justified—or whether the variations simply reflect individual differences in how the body copes with illness—is not the subject of this article. However, I would point out that purely individual differences in coping with illness (influenced by age, timing, and season) are very often exploited for profit to construct a specific clinical picture; this occurred in 2020 with the flu, which was suddenly diagnosed as “Covid.” Even if symptoms manifest slightly differently in two patients, the underlying cause of the illness can still be the same. This assertion is based on the body’s varying strategies for managing illness and represents a logical conclusion drawn from them. One example of a shared cause of illness within a group of people is the impact of rapid changes in atmospheric conditions (temperature, air pressure, humidity) on the mucous membranes ( https://suavek1.substack.com/p/the-arguments-for-no-viruspart-58, & https://suavek1.substack.com/p/the-arguments-for-no-virus-part-45 ). Theoretically, such changes can signal the body to initiate a natural detoxification process—a process that conventional medicine labels as “illness.”
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
The studies :
[ Note: Naturally, the study results contain a number of unproven assumptions regarding the causes of the disease. I assume that no rational person would think I am promoting the concept of “viruses” here. It is absurd to demand that I excise all the medical propaganda from the texts of the study results. The evidence presented here can only be shown in a form that is practically feasible. ]
…………………………………
This work deals retrospectively with patients whose permanent or temporary smell disorders were triggered directly by a previous flu or a cold. It shows that colds and flu were among the most frequently documented causes of sensory restrictions :
Long term serious olfactory loss in colds and/or flu
Aug 12, 2013
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23948436/
( … )
Abstract
Introduction: In the general population, we can find 2-3% of lifelong olfactory disorders (from hyposmia to anosmia).
( … )
Conclusions
People that suffer olfactory dysfunction for more than 6 months, from flu or a cold, present serious impairment of olfactory abilities.
(… )
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
This study analyzes patient groups who suffered significant losses in their sense of smell and taste after alleged classic upper respiratory tract “infections” (URTI) and how strongly these everyday symptoms were historically documented :
Quality of life in patients with smell loss due to upper respiratory tract infections
Received June 14, 2010, Available online 11 February 11, 2011.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0196070910002346
( … )
Introduction
Olfactory disorders occur at a much higher rate than previously thought, as demonstrated in recent population-based studies [1]. The frequency of a decreased olfactory function was as high as 16% in one studied population, with at least 5% of the general population being functionally anosmic. It is estimated that the prevalence of impaired olfaction was 25% in adults 50 years and older [2], [3]. These surveys report that upper respiratory tract infections (URTIs) are among the most frequent causes of dysosmias. In contrast to a slowly progressive decrease of olfactory function, patients with post-URTI and posttraumatic dysosmia experience sudden olfactory loss [4].
From a total of 750 patients with chemosensory dysfunction, 68% viewed their chemosensory dysfunction as affecting their quality of life (QOL), 46% reported that the disorder had changed either their appetite or body weight, and 56% reported that their daily living and/or psychological well-being was altered [5]. In addition, it has been reported that anosmic patients often experience a feeling of personal isolation, display less interest in eating, and feel emotionally impaired [6]. However, there seem to be numerous people who do not notice their olfactory dysfunction and hence do not experience impairment. This seems to relate specifically to cases where olfactory loss occurs gradually in Parkinson disease [7] or aging [3]. Thus, there appears to be a high degree of interindividual variability with regard to the subjective perception of olfactory dysfunction. ( … ).
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...
2006 study (Prevalence and epidemiology of post-viral olfactory disorders):
This paper, published in the journal *Laryngo-Rhino-Otologie*, notes that alleged upper respiratory tract “infections” (such as the common cold) are among the most frequent causes of olfactory disorders. It estimates the proportion of these alleged “post-viral” disorders in specialized olfactory clinics at 11% to 40% :
Olfactory disorders following upper respiratory tract infections
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16733337/
Doi: https://doi.org/10.1159/000093758
Published: 2006
( … )
Abstract
Postviral olfactory disorders usually occur after an upper respiratory tract infection (URTI) associated with a common cold or influenza. With a prevalence between 11 and 40% they are among the common causes of olfactory disorders.
( … ).
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Topic: National sensory health study by the US government agency CDC.
A CDC study conducted as part of NHANES from 2011 to 2014 found that approximately 23% of US adults age 40 and older report experiencing olfactory dysfunction . Chronic nasal and respiratory problems were identified as the primary risk factor, doubling the risk of dysfunction.
In the official reports, over 20% of adults with chronic nasal and respiratory problems reported acute or recurrent disorders of the sense of smell :
Prevalence and Risk Factors of Self-Reported Smell and Taste Alterations: Results from the 2011–2012 US National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES)
https://academic.oup.com/chemse/article-abstract/41/1/69/2365821
Oct 20, 2015.
( … )
Abstract
( … ). We examined the prevalence and associated risk factors of self-reported chemosensory alterations in 3603 community-dwelling adults (aged 40+ years), from the nationally representative, US National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 2011–2012. In this new NHANES component, technicians surveyed adults in the home about perceived smell and taste problems, distortions, and diminished abilities since age 25 (termed “alterations”), and chemosensory-related health risks and behaviors. The prevalence of self-reported smell alteration was 23%, including phantosmia at 6%; taste was 19%, including dysgeusia at 5%. Prevalence rates increased progressively with age, highest in those aged 80+ years (smell, 32%; taste, 27%). In multivariable logistic regression, controlling for sociodemographics, health behaviors, and chemosensory-related conditions, the strongest independent risk factor for smell alteration was sinonasal symptoms (odds ratio [OR] = 2.06; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.63–2.61), followed by heavy drinking, loss of consciousness from head injury, family income ≤110% poverty threshold, and xerostomia. For taste, the strongest risk factor was xerostomia (OR = 2.65; 95% CI: 1.97–3.56), followed by nose/facial injury, lower educational attainment, and fair/poor health. Self-reported chemosensory alterations are prevalent in US adults, supporting increased attention to decreasing their modifiable risks, managing safety/health consequences, and expanding chemosensory screening/testing and treatments. ( … ).
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Even though this clinical study is based on the erroneous assumption that the patient groups under investigation were suffering from persistent loss of smell due to an alleged “viral infection,” it nonetheless demonstrated that common colds can lead to the destruction and functional loss of the olfactory epithelium :
Identification of viruses in patients with postviral olfactory dysfunction
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17277621/
Feb. 2007.
DOI: 10.1097/01.mlg.0000249922.37381.1e
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Study from the year 2001 (Clinical differentiation of obstructive loss of smell):
This publication deals with the two main causes of sensory loss in cold illnesses: The acute, mechanical blockage of the olfactory clefts due to swelling of the mucous membrane (conductive loss of smell) versus the permanent damage after alleged “viral infections” of the respiratory tract.
The diagnosis of a conductive olfactory loss
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11192906/
January 2001.
DOI: 10.1097/00005537-200101000-00002
( … )
Methods
This study reviewed 428 patients seen at a university-based taste and smell clinic from July 1987 through December 1998. Of this total, 60 patients were determined to have a conductive olfactory loss.
( … ).
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Related articles :
…………………………………….
https://suavek1.substack.com/p/the-covid-symptoms-were-completely-325
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
The most reliable information on the “Covid” hoax and the deceptions of the system can be found in the statements of Dr. Mike Yeadon, at the links below :
Dr. Mike Yeadon’s Substack #1 :
https://drmikeyeadon.substack.com/
( Notes : https://drmikeyeadon.substack.com/notes, and other activities on Substack : https://substack.com/@drmikeyeadon )
The Telegram channel of Dr. Mike Yeadon ( other Telegram channels with his name are fake ! ) :
https://t.me/DrMikeYeadonsolochannel
A collaborative Substack by Dr. Yeadon and Suavek ( Dr. Mike Yeadon’s Substack #2 ) :
Fraud Prevention Hotline / suavek1.substack.com
…………………………………………………
Source :
https://drmikeyeadon.substack.com/p/reminder-suaveks-substack-the-fph
…………………………………………………
Dr. Mike Yeadon, December 21 ( update Dec. 23 ), 2025 :
Source :
https://drmikeyeadon.substack.com/p/scorpions-in-the-dock
Consider subscribing to my friend Suavek s publication an essential move please. There you can find many posts from my Telegram channel collated with other material in a skilful way. Fraud Prevention Hotline
Best
Mike
……………………………………………………
DEAR FRIENDS,
The two Substacks, Dr. Yeadon’s and Suavek’s, have merged into a single, highly informative entity. The Fraud Prevention Hotline is now officially Dr. Yeadon’s Substack No. 2. You can find his statement on this at the following link :
https://drmikeyeadon.substack.com/p/my-other-substack
…………………………………………………
Good to know to avoid potential misunderstandings :
Before publishing an article, there isn’t enough time during the editorial process to discuss every detail. In case of doubt, each author is therefore only responsible for their own statements.
…………………………….
We urge you, if possible, to add both Substacks to your recommended list in your Substack. Thank you very much in advance,
Mike & Suavek
………………………………
The possible support goes to Suavek. Any support is especially welcome at this time, and is VERY appreciated, but of course is not mandatory, as this Substack is free. I extend my sincere thanks to those who have supported me so far.
You can either do something against or for something :
Hello Friends,
PART 2 of this article series has just been released:
https://suavek1.substack.com/p/the-covid-symptoms-were-completely-325
The title :
The "Covid" symptoms were completely made up – PART 2 : The treatment for the alleged "Covid" involved medications that damaged the senses of smell and taste.
Do you think this happened purely by chance?
Best wishes,
Suavek
Dear Friends,
Every year, a certain number of people experience difficulties with their sense of smell and taste. There are numerous possible causes for these symptoms. Those affected should not be too quick to accept explanations for these causes based on alarmist TV coverage and the usual fearmongering propaganda. Doing so creates an echo chamber that further fuels the very harmful propaganda we are fighting against. A hasty and ill-considered linking of facts can undo the time-consuming educational efforts of many people. For this reason, and to distance ourselves from false propaganda, I propose always enclosing any non-existent disease ("Covid")—or "pandemic"—in quotation marks.
To date, there are no figures or other evidence of mass poisoning in 2020. Therefore, I regard any account attributing the loss of smell and taste to malicious chemical poisoning as an arbitrary link between fearmongering propaganda and personal suffering. From a statistical standpoint, this can only be viewed as an anecdotal instance with no broader significance. If you make claims that contradict what has been said above, I ask you to provide evidence.
Evidence of mass poisoning is not found in anecdotal cases or the technical possibility of causing an illness—for instance, via EMF—but solely in statistically significant, *elevated* numbers of poisoning cases. However, since such data is not available, the claim of widespread mass poisoning must be dismissed as mere scaremongering—originating in propaganda and spread within the echo chamber.
By the same token, it cannot be proven that no poisons were sprayed anywhere in the world—in any town, on any train, or on any cruise ship—in 2020. However, that is an epistemological matter regarding the burden of proof and plays no role here, given the topic of an alleged global "pandemic." In light of the available evidence, it must be concluded that there was no "pandemic" at all, nor did any widespread mass poisoning occur that could have justified "measures" against an alleged, "novel health threat." The whole thing was, in fact, a big LIE.