TOXIC BY DESIGN - PART 8 : The most censored statement in Earth's history is explained in detail here. Such toxicity mechanisms can only be intentional.
Dr. Mike Yeadon : "I’m telling you that there’s not one shred of uncertainty here".
Dr. Mike Yeadon, September 26, 2024 :
https://t.me/DrMikeYeadonsolochannel/1873
I’m glad to be joined by other, serious-minded people, asking basic questions at last about “How did it happen that gene-based injections were selected as the modality for the injections?”
Because of my professional background, I was among the first to ask this question and doing so was, I believe, the main reason for why I have been subjected to extreme censorship (& initially, intense & unpleasant smearing: these days, they don’t even do that, i deduce for fear of drawing attention to me and what I’m still saying). I make this link, between publicly challenging the basic design principles of the injections and the predictable adverse consequences & a large, obvious and persistent increase in smearing and censorship, because this change was very distinct, and occurred within two days of the open letter written to EMA by Dr Wolfgang Wodarg & me on December 1, 2020.
They went as far as to record a segment on the national radio broadcaster, BBC Radio 4’s “Women’s Hour”, helmed by Emma Barnett, a well-known anchor on the nightly politics program on BBC television, “Newsnight”. Barnett had as a guest a representative from the Royal College of Obstetricians & Gynaecologists (unfortunately I don’t recall her name).
The two of them laid into me by name, told their audience that I was completely wrong and was guilty of foul misinformation etc.
My children heard the broadcast and were horrified, both contacting me about it.
I listened to it and considered my options. I confess I was frightened, recognizing that the intervention meant that government at the highest levels was aware of me and not prepared to tolerate what I was saying.
I found the producers email address, which wasn’t difficult, and wrote to her. I pointed out that several of the things they’d said about me were lies & were legally actionable.
I further said I was actively consulting a London law firm with a view to suing all involved personally and the BBC as the organisation hosting the libellous content.
I gave them 48 hours to remove the offending piece from their “Listen Again” website or I would initiate legal proceedings.
To my surprise, I received a reply in which the producer accepted that I’d never said the statement that had been attributed to me by Barnett, recognizing that their “mistake” was to have accepted a third party’s report on that point *without checking it, and they deleted that segment from the show.
In retrospect, I probably should’ve sued. However if I had done so, it’s possible that things would have taken a different course.
With that captured for posterity, I commend Dr Jonathan Engler’s observations.
My post below his article.
Best wishes
Mike
*it was later pointed out to me that this could not have been an oversight. The Journalists Code requires that adverse statements to be made about a person MUST be checked with them, giving them “right of reply”. This wasn’t amateur broadcasters, but a major show on the national network. This was deliberately not checked.
Editor`s note : In the above post, a short but very insightful article by Dr. Jonathan Engler was linked. Together with this article, Dr Yeadon's statement appears even clearer :
https://sanityunleashed.substack.com/p/design-choices-made-for-the-injections
Editor`s note : In the above post, Dr Yeadon refers to his comment under the linked article by Dr Jonathan Engler. You can also read this comment here :
Dr. Mike Yeadon, September 26, 2024 :
https://sanityunleashed.substack.com/p/design-choices-made-for-the-injections/comment/70376371
As a person who spent my entire career in commercial R&D in big pharma including Pfizer (where I was responsible for global research and early clinical development for experimental therapeutics for allergic & respiratory diseases) as well as in biotech (where I both founded and led a company as CEO & also consulted to over 30 biotechs and small pharma), I am steeped in the “rational drug design” method.
I also, unusually, have a formal training in “mechanistic toxicology”, the field in which the ways foreign substances can cause harm are elucidated and used to “teach away from” using certain design principles in order to reduce or eliminate unanticipated human toxicity.
This combination of training and commercial experience in a single therapeutic area is unusual in the industry. Most senior people move from their original field of expertise in order to “gain breadth”, often seen as a requisite to be further promoted. Unfortunately the effect of this is to ensure that very few senior leaders in big pharma really understand what is going on in the departments below them and in their laboratories. It’s convenient because it makes plausible deniability so easy and plausible. I declined such career advice and was more than content to “plateau” at vice president level. I could have gone further (witness my ability to succeed in biotech both as a consultant and as a CEO) but I was actively against being promoted to my level of incompetence.
With that as background, I was several times laid out how the declared composition of the do-called “vaccines” can ONLY have arisen through a conscious, deliberate attempt to cause injuries to a proportion of those who received them.
Any single person can “make a mistake”. However, this isn’t how new drugs get into development. Anyone who’s worked in commercial R&D knows every idea & every assumption gets tested continually by your peers, line discipline experts (including those in the drug safety evaluation department, previously called toxicology or toxicity testing).
So I’m telling you that it’s impossible for one OBVIOUS “mistake” to get out of the lab & in humans. Choosing the underlying technology as described by Dr Jonathan Engler here is one such decision. There wasn’t a good reason to choose it. In my opinion all mRNA based products will be dangerous. That’s inherent in making a persons body manufacture non-self, or foreign proteins.
Another “mistake” was in selecting a known toxic protein, so-called “spike protein” for the mRNA to encode. Don’t be mislead by the name. The name is arbitrary and does not imply a viral source. It could be completely synthetic or from a surprising source. That closely related sequences of amino acids were known to be harmful to mammalian biology was known before 2020.
Another “mistake” was choosing to formulate the product in lipid nano particles (LNPs). These were known for over a decade to facilitate distribution of the formulated “payload” widely throughout the body. This is inherently undesirable. The components of the LNPs were also widely known to be both unapproved in medicinal preparations and the reason for this is that they possess various toxicities. But it gets worse. LNPs are also widely known to lead to accumulation of the payload into visceral organs, in particular, the ovaries.
There are many more “mistakes”. Another is that all four leading companies (Pfizer / BioNTech; Moderna; J&J & AstraZeneca) adopted precisely the same basic design principles. Two used mRNA & two used DNA, but otherwise extraordinarily similar designs. I know from prior experience that we never would do this. Firstly, and from a commercial perspective, if you’re essentially duplicating someone else’s product, one at least is going to get discarded because it’ll lack an feature, however trivial, that the other has. Or, possesses a weakness that the other lacks. It’s very unlikely to be a good idea to be so similar. The strategic reason is that your product is highly likely to have similar flaws. So if, for example, it wasn’t previously known that “spike protein” was toxic & could prompt blood coagulation or cause damage to neurones, the discovery of such properties would kill off all four products at a stroke. The similarities are, in my opinion and experience, highly suggestive either of collusion, or the entire multi company publicity was a deception. I’ve long thought it possible that there were only two products (mRNA & DNA) and that the plan was to kill off the latter. If this is what happened, the pharma companies are merely window dressing what was ordered by the Department of Defense.
There are yet more “mistakes”. I’m telling you that there’s not one shred of uncertainty here. There are multiple, independent, unnecessary and (to me and my peers) obvious mechanisms of toxicity, deliberately built into these molecules.
Someone or some small group was tasked with accomplishing something & it wasn’t merely making money. They could have used medical saline and made exactly the same money. That something was clearly to injure, to kill & to reduce fertility in survivors. These preparations were then, reportedly, administered to most of the people on the planet. A low single figure % of those into whom they were injected have died & a higher % are now unwell, many of them chronically. Of those, more are going to die earlier than they otherwise would have. We’re not going to know for some time how this all shakes out. I think this is arguable well up in the list of the worst ever crimes against humanity.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Dr. Mike Yeadon and Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg
The petition to EMA :
Editor`s note : Please note that this document is dated December 1, 2020. The use of toxic pseudo-“vaccinations” began later, at the end of December 2020.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
“Safe mRNA vaccines are an immunological impossibility”.
— Dr. Mike Yeadon.
An older warning from Dr. Yeadon, describing a mechanism of toxicity that has been well known in immunology for decades :
Dr. Mike Yeadon, April 22, 2023 :
https://substack.com/@drmikeyeadon/note/c-15068498
Safe mRNA vaccines are an immunological impossibility.
When your body expresses the NON-SELF protein encoded by the mRNA, your immune system will attack & kill every cell that expresses it.
Ask Sucharit Bhakdi. Ask any immunology textbook.
How wonderful is it that you can go to war with non-self antigens, yet be at peace with your own body?
We know the answer. When you’re formed, your immune system is capable of attacking more or less EVERYTHING.
But in a grace period, early In development, your immune systems is shown the repertoire of every one of the randomly formed T- and B-cells. Every clone which recognises you, or SELF, is removed. Told to commit suicide. It’s called “Clonal Deletion”. Now you tolerate self. Unless you develop some illness, which we call autoimmune diseases, like RA.
However, everything else your cells recognise is by definition NON-SELF.
Every mRNA will encode non-self, and you will attack it.
It guarantees tissue injury.
Please do not accept any such product.
Best wishes
Mike
Dr Mike Yeadon
30+ year veteran Biopharma R&D executive
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Related article :
………………………………….
https://drmikeyeadon.substack.com/p/statement-by-mike-yeadon
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
For the most reliable information about the "Covid" scam and deceptions of the system, read Dr. Mike Yeadon's daily statements :
Here you can find Dr. Mike Yeadon and his statements :
Substack by Dr. Mike Yeadon : https://drmikeyeadon.substack.com/
The Telegram channel of Dr. Mike Yeadon ( other Telegram channels with his name are fake ! ) :
https://t.me/DrMikeYeadonsolochannel
There is also a chat channel connected to the channel linked above, which is managed by his friends : https://t.me/DrMikeYeadonsolochannelChat
When searching for Dr. Yeadon's videos only two browsers are recommended:
Yandex :
and Mojeek :
Censorship is omnipresent on Google or Safari.
Many statements and videos from Dr. Mike Yeadon can also be found on Suavek's Substack, which is recommended by Dr. Yeadon on the main page of his Substack.
Both links lead to Suavek`s Substack :
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
This is truly the most important and most censored message we have ever heard. Therefore, I expect some comments from paid trolls in this comment section. These are not always easy to distinguish from well-intentioned comments. The medical-political fraud was made possible by criminal censorship and expensive propaganda. I ask you to consider that we are in an information war that requires increased attention. Comments that detract from this important message from Dr. Yeadon or that display a know-it-all attitude that undermines the message itself are unwelcome. I ask for your understanding, for which I thank you in advance.
Best wishes,
Suavek
If the depraved and totally scummy BBC smears and censors Mike it's truly a badge of honour. It demonstrates that what he is saying is true.
I guess Mike didn't sign up for any of this but he's on the right side of history.