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.
Thank you for your appreciative words to Dr. Mike Yeadon ! The considerable expertise in toxicology and immunology, plus 100 percent honesty, coexist with another rare gift of not being gullible. Add to that the perfect combination of information from geo- and economic policy with medical fraud. Such a mixture is extremely rare. That is how I see Dr. Yeadon and his censored statements. An endless chain of sharing his contributions by readers can do a lot of good. Much now depends on the readers.
Great piece again with only one point to add to this incredible collection of Mike Yeadon insights and more specifically to finding content that tech tools have undermined... in 2014 Julian Assange published a book about his meeting with Eric Schmidt titled 'When Google Met WikiLeaks' that foretold the nefarious manipulation many of us have come to know.
Following that book's revelations my cyber-angels moved me to Presearch a blockchain-based search engine with distributed nodes and it has been my default since 2015 with its spiffy tools for the tech types and search results for me like it's 2007 again.. Add this decentralized, user based option to your list and encourage everyone to boycott Google no matter what they choose.. do not empower the enemy by feeding search terms into their trackers!! https://presearch.io/
"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.."
I had a 'picture' that certain proteins are known to 'fold' in certain ways e.g various sectors of embryos get instruction to fold local proteins into organs ; bones ; etc.
There was an analogous picture presented, in some 'scientific' media pieces, about the 'spike' protein protruding from the virus body ( I laughed as I wrote that considering next bit).
So, here's what I'm wondering.....
In the sars2 ( all ) virus is a construct explanation, and virologists and vaccinologists, use the computer modeled genetic code, generated by an analysis of organic material, alledged to be spurious ( devil's advocate), to categorise this virus 'enity'......
What is it in this code that allows them to visualise this spike protein attached to the surface of the main virus body?
In pharma, there is the idea ( for lay people clearly ! ) of protein receptors / inhibitors etc, you know the idea like for SSRIs, but it always seemed like this key - lock concept was a chemically solid concept, not a computer model.
Where did this concept come from in relation to viruses, did they just isolate parts of the code that had sequences similar to known 'spike-like' proteins from other fields?
"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)."
Anyone aware whether this 'checks and balances' structure / culture had already changed markedly between the author's description and prior to 'operation EUA get them jabbed' ?
Dr. Yeadon clearly pointed out and described several toxicity mechanisms. Other experts have also confirmed several such "pseudo-errors" that were known before the introduction of the bioweapon. Some of the most important damage was therefore to be expected and has also been confirmed. I myself have learned about several toxicity mechanisms BEFORE the introduction of the pseudo-"vaccination" from several scientists. In addition to Dr. Mike Yeadon, I have also heard the statements of Prof. Sucharit Bakhdi and Prof. Stefan Hockertz. The descriptions given by these experts were very detailed. These damage mechanisms were clearly very diverse. The lipid nanoparticles were certainly not the only ones.
PS.
Just to give a single example of another mechanism of damage: there is no way of dosing such substances, so anything in excess can be considered poison. No one can predict how much and for how long the body of a "vaccinated" person will produce the foreign proteins.
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.
Dear Monica,
Thank you for your appreciative words to Dr. Mike Yeadon ! The considerable expertise in toxicology and immunology, plus 100 percent honesty, coexist with another rare gift of not being gullible. Add to that the perfect combination of information from geo- and economic policy with medical fraud. Such a mixture is extremely rare. That is how I see Dr. Yeadon and his censored statements. An endless chain of sharing his contributions by readers can do a lot of good. Much now depends on the readers.
Best wishes,
Suavek
Great piece again with only one point to add to this incredible collection of Mike Yeadon insights and more specifically to finding content that tech tools have undermined... in 2014 Julian Assange published a book about his meeting with Eric Schmidt titled 'When Google Met WikiLeaks' that foretold the nefarious manipulation many of us have come to know.
Following that book's revelations my cyber-angels moved me to Presearch a blockchain-based search engine with distributed nodes and it has been my default since 2015 with its spiffy tools for the tech types and search results for me like it's 2007 again.. Add this decentralized, user based option to your list and encourage everyone to boycott Google no matter what they choose.. do not empower the enemy by feeding search terms into their trackers!! https://presearch.io/
"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.."
I had a 'picture' that certain proteins are known to 'fold' in certain ways e.g various sectors of embryos get instruction to fold local proteins into organs ; bones ; etc.
There was an analogous picture presented, in some 'scientific' media pieces, about the 'spike' protein protruding from the virus body ( I laughed as I wrote that considering next bit).
So, here's what I'm wondering.....
In the sars2 ( all ) virus is a construct explanation, and virologists and vaccinologists, use the computer modeled genetic code, generated by an analysis of organic material, alledged to be spurious ( devil's advocate), to categorise this virus 'enity'......
What is it in this code that allows them to visualise this spike protein attached to the surface of the main virus body?
In pharma, there is the idea ( for lay people clearly ! ) of protein receptors / inhibitors etc, you know the idea like for SSRIs, but it always seemed like this key - lock concept was a chemically solid concept, not a computer model.
Where did this concept come from in relation to viruses, did they just isolate parts of the code that had sequences similar to known 'spike-like' proteins from other fields?
"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)."
Anyone aware whether this 'checks and balances' structure / culture had already changed markedly between the author's description and prior to 'operation EUA get them jabbed' ?
Dr. Yeadon clearly pointed out and described several toxicity mechanisms. Other experts have also confirmed several such "pseudo-errors" that were known before the introduction of the bioweapon. Some of the most important damage was therefore to be expected and has also been confirmed. I myself have learned about several toxicity mechanisms BEFORE the introduction of the pseudo-"vaccination" from several scientists. In addition to Dr. Mike Yeadon, I have also heard the statements of Prof. Sucharit Bakhdi and Prof. Stefan Hockertz. The descriptions given by these experts were very detailed. These damage mechanisms were clearly very diverse. The lipid nanoparticles were certainly not the only ones.
PS.
Just to give a single example of another mechanism of damage: there is no way of dosing such substances, so anything in excess can be considered poison. No one can predict how much and for how long the body of a "vaccinated" person will produce the foreign proteins.