“Pandemic is Over” – Former Pfizer Chief Science Officer Says “Second Wave” Faked

This video provides one of the most erudite and informative looks at Covid-19 and the consequences of lockdowns. As AIER notes, it was remarkable this week to watch as it appeared on YouTube and was forcibly taken down only 2 hours after posting.

The copy below is hosted on LBRY, a blockchain video application. In a year of fantastic educational content, this is one of the best we’ve seen.

Dr. Michael Yeadon is an Allergy & Respiratory Therapeutic Area expert with 23 years in the pharmaceutical industry. He trained as a biochemist and pharmacologist, obtaining his PhD from the University of Surrey (UK) in 1988.

Dr. Yeadon then worked at the Wellcome Research Labs with Salvador Moncada with a research focus on airway hyper-responsiveness and effects of pollutants including ozone and working in drug discovery of 5-LO, COX, PAF, NO and lung inflammation. With colleagues, he was the first to detect exhaled NO in animals and later to induce NOS in lung via allergic triggers.

Joining Pfizer in 1995, he was responsible for the growth and portfolio delivery of the Allergy & Respiratory pipeline within the company. He was responsible for target selection and the progress into humans of new molecules, leading teams of up to 200 staff across all disciplines and won an Achievement Award for productivity in 2008.

Under his leadership the research unit invented oral and inhaled NCEs which delivered multiple positive clinical proofs of concept in asthma, allergic rhinitis and COPD. He led productive collaborations such as with Rigel Pharmaceuticals (SYK inhibitors) and was involved in the licensing of Spiriva and acquisition of the Meridica (inhaler device) company.

Dr. Yeadon has published over 40 original research articles and now consults and partners with a number of biotechnology companies. Before working with Apellis, Dr. Yeadon was VP and Chief Scientific Officer (Allergy & Respiratory Research) with Pfizer.

What likely triggered the Silicon Valley censor-mongers is the fact that a former Chief Science Officer for the pharmaceutical giant Pfizer says "there is no science to suggest a second wave should happen." The "Big Pharma" insider asserts that false positive results from inherently unreliable COVID tests are being used to manufacture a "second wave" based on "new cases."

As Ralph Lopez write at HubPages, Yeadon warns that half or even "almost all" of tests for COVID are false positives. Dr. Yeadon also argues that the threshold for herd immunity may be much lower than previously thought, and may have been reached in many countries already.

"we are basing a government policy, an economic policy, a civil liberties policy, in terms of limiting people to six people in a meeting...all based on, what may well be, completely fake data on this coronavirus?"

Even more significantly, even if all positives were to be correct, Dr. Yeadon said that given the "shape" of all important indicators in a worldwide pandemic, such as hospitalizations, ICU utilization, and deaths, "the pandemic is fundamentally over."

"Were it not for the test data that you get from the TV all the time, you would rightly conclude that the pandemic was over, as nothing much has happened. Of course people go to the hospital, moving into the autumn flu season...but there is no science to suggest a second wave should happen."

In a paper published this month, which was co-authored by Yeadon and two of his colleagues, "How Likely is a Second Wave?", the scientists write:

"It has widely been observed that in all heavily infected countries in Europe and several of the US states likewise, that the shape of the daily deaths vs. time curves is similar to ours in the UK. Many of these curves are not just similar, but almost super imposable."

In the data for UK, Sweden, the US, and the world, it can be seen that in all cases, deaths were on the rise in March through mid or late April, then began tapering off in a smooth slope which flattened around the end of June and continues to today. The case rates however, based on testing, rise and swing upwards and downwards wildly.

Media messaging in the US is already ramping up expectations of a "second wave."

The survival rate of COVID-19 has been upgraded since May to 99.8% of infections. This comes close to ordinary flu, the survival rate of which is 99.9%. Although COVID can have serious after-effects, so can flu or any respiratory illness. The present survival rate is far higher than initial grim guesses in March and April, cited by Dr. Anthony Fauci, of 94%, or 20 to 30 times deadlier. The Infection Fatality Rate (IFR) value accepted by Yeadon et al in the paper is .26%. The survival rate of a disease is 100% minus the IFR.

Dr. Yeadon pointed out that the "novel" COVID-19 contagion is novel only in the sense that it is a new type of coronavirus. But, he said, there are presently four strains which circulate freely throughout the population, most often linked to the common cold.

"There are at least four well characterised family members (229E, NL63, OC43 and HKU1) which are endemic and cause some of the common colds we experience, especially in winter. They all have striking sequence similarity to the new coronavirus."

The scientists argue that much of the population already has, if not antibodies to COVID, some level of "T-cell" immunity from exposure to other related coronaviruses, which have been circulating long before COVID-19.

"A major component our immune systems is the group of white blood cells called T-cells whose job it is to memorise a short piece of whatever virus we were infected with so the right cell types can multiply rapidly and protect us if we get a related infection. Responses to COVID-19 have been shown in dozens of blood samples taken from donors before the new virus arrived."

Introducing the idea that some prior immunity to COVID-19 already existed, the authors of "How Likely is a Second Wave?" write:

"It is now established that at least 30% of our population already had immunological recognition of this new virus, before it even arrived...COVID-19 is new, but coronaviruses are not."

They go on to say that, because of this prior resistance, only 15-25% of a population being infected may be sufficient to reach herd immunity:

"...epidemiological studies show that, with the extent of prior immunity that we can now reasonably assume to be the case, only 15-25% of the population being infected is sufficient to bring the spread of the virus to a halt..."

In the US, accepting a death toll of 200,000, and a survival rate of 99.8%, this would mean for every person who has died, there would be about 400 people who had been infected, and lived. This would translate to around 80 million Americans, or 27% of the population. This touches Yeadon's and his colleagues' threshold for herd immunity.

Finally, the former Pfizer executive and scientist singles out one former colleague for withering rebuke for his role in the pandemic, Professor Neil Ferguson. Ferguson taught at Imperial College while Yeadon was affiliated. Ferguson's computer model provided the rationale for governments to launch draconian orders which turned free societies into virtual prisons overnight. Over what is now estimated by the CDC to be a 99.8% survival rate virus.

Dr. Yeadon said in the interview that "no serious scientist gives any validity" to Ferguson's model.

Speaking with thinly-veiled contempt for Ferguson, Dr. Yeadon took special pains to point out to his interviewer:

"It's important that you know most scientists don't accept that it [Ferguson's model] was even faintly right...but the government is still wedded to the model."

Yeadon joins other scientists in castigating governments for following Ferguson's model, the assumptions of which all worldwide lockdowns are based on. One of these scientists is Dr. Johan Giesecke, former chief scientist for the European Center for Disease Control and Prevention, who called Ferguson’s model “the most influential scientific paper” in memory, and also “one of the most wrong.”

It was Ferguson's model which held that "mitigation" measures were necessary, i.e. social distancing and business closures, in order to prevent, for example, over 2.2 million people dying from COVID in the US.

Ferguson predicted that Sweden would pay a terrible price for no lockdown, with 40,000 COVID deaths by May 1, and 100,000 by June. Sweden's death count is under 6,000. The Swedish government says this coincides to a mild flu season. Although initially higher, Sweden now has a lower death rate per-capita than the US, which it achieved without the terrific economic damage still ongoing in the US. Sweden never closed restaurants, bars, sports, most schools, or movie theaters. The government never ordered people to wear masks.

Dr. Yeadon speaks bitterly of the lives lost as a result of lockdown policies, and of the "savable" countless lives which will be further lost, from important surgeries and other healthcare deferred, should lockdowns be reimposed.

Yeadon's warnings are confirmed by a new study from the Infectious Diseases Society of America., summarized succinctly in the following twitter thread from al gato malo (@boriquagato) Anyone still presuming that a Positive PCR test is showing a COVID case needs to read this very carefully:

even 25 cycles of amplification, 70% of "positives" are not "cases." virus cannot be cultured. it's dead.

lot of people still seem to not understand what this means, so let's lay that out for a minute.

PCR tests look for RNA. there is too little in your swab. so they amplify it using a primer based heating and annealing process.

the US (and much of the world) is using a 40 Ct (cycle threshold). so, 40 doublings, 1 trillion X amplification.

The way that we know this is by running this test, seeing the Ct to find the RNA, and then using the same sample to try to culture virus.

If you cannot culture the virus, then the virus is "dead." it's inert. if it cannot replicate, it cannot infect you or others. it's just traces of virus, remnants, fragments etc

PCR is not testing for disease, it's testing for a specific RNA pattern and this is the key pivot

When you crank it up to 25, 70% of the positive results are not really "positives" in any clinical sense.

i hesitate to call it a "false positive" because it's really not. it did find RNA.

if 70% of positives are NCP's at 25, imagine what 40 looks like. 35 is 1000X as sensitive.

no one can culture live virus past about 34 and we have known this since march. yet no one has adjusted these tests.

TWEET: el gato malo @boriquagato · Mar 27 presuming it bears out, this is a key finding.

it shows that many patients that are PCR+ for COV-19 are not shedding infectious virus.

this would imply shorter quarantine needed and provide a testable basis for discharge of isolated patients.

This is more very strong data refuting the idea that you can trust a PCR+ as a clinical indicator.

The FDA would never do it, the drug companies doing vaccine trials would never do it... it's because it's nonsense.

And this same test is used for "hospitalizations" and "death with covid" (itself a weirdly over inclusive metric)

It's not how to get control of an epidemic, it's how to completely lose control of your data picture and wind up with gibberish and we have done this to ourselves before.

TWEET: Dr Clare Craig @ClareCraigPath · Nov 16 The last major false positive pseudo-epidemic was Swine Flu in 2009. Everyone said we would never let it happen again.

Saying "a sample requiring 35 Ct to test + has a 3% real clinical positive rate" does not mean "97% of + tests run at 35 Ct are NCP's"

Most tests are just amplified and run. they don't test every cycle as these academics do. that would make the test slow and expensive, so you just run 40 cycles then test.

Obviously, a real clinical positive (RCP) that would have been + at 20 is still + at 40.

but when you run the tests each cycle as the academics do, that test would already have dropped out.

so saying that only 3% at 35 are RCP really means that 3% of those samples not PCR + at 34 were PCR and RCP + at 35.

so we cannot say "at 25 Ct, we have a 70 NCP rate." in fact, it's hard to say much of anything. it depends entirely on what the source material coming in looks like.

Today at 40 Ct, 7% PCR positive rate could be 1% RCP prevalence when that same thing meant 6% RCP prev in april.

If there is lots more trace virus around, more people who have recovered and have fragments left over, etc this test could be finding virus you killed 4 months ago.

So if we consider RCP rate/PCR+ rate, we would expect that number to drop sharply late in an epidemic because there is more dead virus around for PCR to find, but we have no idea what that ratio is or how it changes.

Testing is being made out to be like the high beams on a car, but when it's snowing like hell at night, that is the LAST thing you want. It is not illuminating our way, it's blinding us.

A bad inaccurate map is much worse than no map at all, and this is a world class bad map...

We're basing policy that is affecting billions of humans on data that is uninterpretable gibberish.

It's a deranged technocrat's wet dream, but for those of us along for the ride, it's a nightmare.

Any technocrat or scientist that does not know this by now is either unfit for their job or has decided that they just don't care and prefer power to morality.

This is, of curse, precisely the kind of person who winds up running a gov't agency... oopsie.

*****THE HEAD OF THE NIH IS NOT THE BEST SCIENTIST, IT'S THE BEST POLITICIAN.****

Clinical Infectious Diseases CORRESPONDENCE CORRESPONDENCE • CID 2020:XX (XX XXXX) • 1 Correlation Between 3790 Quantitative Polymerase Chain Reaction–Positives Samples and Positive Cell Cultures, Including 1941 Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Isolates o 󰁴󰁨󰁥 E󰁤󰁩󰁴󰁯󰁲—he outbreak o the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic due to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) was declared a pandemic on 12 March 2020 by the World Health Organization [1]. A major issue related to the outbreak has been to correlate viral RNA load obtained ater reverse-transcription pol-ymerase chain reaction (R-PCR) and expressed as the cycle threshold (Ct) with contagiousness and thereore duration o eviction rom contacts and discharge rom specialized inectious disease wards. Several recent publications, based on more than 100 studies, have attempted to propose a cuto Ct value and duration o eviction, with a consensus at approx-imately Ct >30 and at least 10 days, re-spectively [2–5]. However, in an article published in Clinical Infectious Diseases , Bullard et al reported that patients could not be contagious with Ct >25 as the virus is not detected in culture above this value [6]. his limit was then evoked in the French media during an interview with a member o the French Scientiic Council Covid-19 as a possible value above which patients are no longer contagious [7]. At the beginning o the outbreak, we correlated Ct values obtained using our PCR technique based on ampliﬁcation o the E gene and the results o the culture [8]. Since the beginning o the pandemic, we have perormed 250 566 SARS-CoV-2 R-PCR or 179 151 patients, o whom 13 161 (7.3%) tested positive. Up to the end o May, 3790 o these samples, reported as positive on nasopharyngeal samples, were inoculated and managed or culture as previously described [8]. O these 3790 inoculated samples, 1941 SARS-CoV-2 isolates could be obtained afer the ﬁrst in-oculation or up to 2 blind subcultures. Te correlation between the scanner values and the positivity o the culture allows us to observe that the image obtained with 10 times more isolates than in our prelim-inary work (1941 vs 129) does not change signiﬁcantly (Figure 1). It can be observed that at Ct = 25, up to 70% o patients re-main positive in culture and that at Ct = 30 this value drops to 20%. At Ct = 35, the value we used to report a positive result or PCR, <3% o cultures are positive. Our Ct value o 35, initially based on the results Figure 1. Percentage of positive viral cultures of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 polymerase chain reaction–positive nasopharyngeal samples from corona-virus disease 2019 patients, according to Ct value (plain line). The dashed curve indicates the polynomial regression curve. Abbreviations: Ct, cycle threshold; Poly., polynomial.

The last thing that was similar was H1N1 and it wasn’t quite this bad. We always have periods of stress and difficulty staffing but they usually only last a week or two at a time. to be this prolonged is outside the usual We will get through. In the last few days it has eased up a bit. will see if it is a trend or not. It may be people just not coming n because they don’t want to be in the hospital for thanksgiving

It seems to me that if the system is so stressed by 1,000 people out of 5.75 million entering the hospital then there’s something wrong with the system. Frankly I don’t think authorities have done anything to prepare for a REAL honest to goodness, we”re all gonna die, Omega Man second coming of the Black Death style outbreak.

Politicians always piss money away and never do what they’re really supposed to. Then they take advantage of a crisis to get more control for themselves. And the little people get shafted.

Your reading comprehension is on par with your medical knowledge. I said I am not a fan of masking orders or lockdowns. Neither am I stupid nor a shill. Now you go piss off.

You want to make a crack about reading comprehension? LOL I never asked you about your opinion on masks or lockdowns. Nor did I call you stupid. I asked you for something to back up your claim that there is an actual surge at your hospital (or some hospital). That was all.

If you are going to throw out a comment or claim that plays into the narrative being used to lockdown and control this country, you could at least have the courtesy to provide some corroborating evidence. Every single time, for the last 9 months, someone has claimed that a hospital is "overwhelmed" it has turned out to be provably false.

We have no idea what your subjective interpretation of things is. "we are currently at about twice our hospitalization numbers as we were in March and April"? Well, 2 is twice as much as 1.

Please explain how the medical community can tell the difference between COVID-19 and any other FLU/VIRUS when a person comes into the hospital? Also, please tell people how many of them had an underlying condition. How is this any worse than, say, pneumonia?

Testing positive is different than actually getting sick. The reports are not being clear about this. The same with “uptick in hospital admittance.”

I will try one more time. covid 19’ comes with a typical clinical constellation. of symptoms, physical findings, and lab findings like any other disease. The positive covid test is helpful but only one piece of the puzzle. some have underlying conditions and do fine others have no underlying conditions and end up in ICU. No one is admitted in the basis of a positive test they have to be sick to be admitted.

It is different from other viruses because of the rapid clinical deterioration that can be seen and the virus it is caused by. corona virus is not influenza or adenovirus or rhinovirus or hundreds of other viruses and we can differentiate by testing. The uptick in hospitalized cases consists of those who have the lab and clinical findings of covid 19 and are ill enough to require hospitalization. It is real despite what some here so vehemently deny

I am not a proponent of masking or lockdowns. I also do not deny what is happening around me. This wave will pass and the virus will settle down into an endemic level in the population just like every other virus we have encountered and hysteria on both sides of the equation will
change nothing. i hope you have a happy thanksgiving.

Thank you, even though I don't necessarily understand the science behind the difference. However, I find that the "experts" and CDC have been terrible in making the public aware of many factors. It doesn't help when they waver in their recommendations.

I'm not denying it exists; for me, it's just that the so called experts can't seem to make up their mind. When I see people driving their vehicle with no one else inside wearing masks, or walking in the park, wearing a mask, yet no one else around, I know the experts have not been clear on the protocol.

corona virus is not influenza or adenovirus or rhinovirus or hundreds of other viruses and we can differentiate by testing.

Then if it's not one of those, and my understanding this is not the first COVID that has entered the USA, what the heck is it? This is what people don't understand.

others have no underlying conditions and end up in ICU.

I'd be interested in discovering if this is definitive. Maybe they had asthma or pneumonia early in life.

Anyway HAPPY THANKSGIVING

Well perhaps you should actually READ THE STUDIES CITED.

Your assumption that the Covid test you are using to diagnose is valid is the freaking problem because you assume your medical knowledge is complete and you do not have to keep learning.

You ARE false diagnosing your patients and are a large part of the problem not the cure.

Are you or are you not using a PCR test at 20 25 and thirty amplification levels to discern who is actual carrying live virus and who is actually immune and are being diagnosed and their treatment is focused not on what is making them sick but on a FALSE DIAGNOSIS thereby being left to die from what brought them to the hospital at the first place!

This is full ignorance that is malpractice KILLING PATIENTS!

Your business pride in your abilities is deadly. A doctor NEVER has too much of a patient load to keep their eyes and mind open.

You piss me off.

How does your CV compare to his?

. Michael Yeadon is an Allergy & Respiratory Therapeutic Area expert with 23 years in the pharmaceutical industry. He trained as a biochemist and pharmacologist, obtaining his PhD from the University of Surrey (UK) in 1988.

...Dr. Yeadon has published over 40 original research articles and now consults and partners with a number of biotechnology companies. Before working with Apellis, Dr. Yeadon was VP and Chief Scientific Officer (Allergy & Respiratory Research) with Pfizer.

Do not fail to see the forest for the predominance of trees.

Deaths due to covid continue to go down even as the alleged number of cases goes up. 95% of the people are sheep and wear a mask when they are instructed to. I haven’t worn a mask in weeks and I won’t unless a private business owner makes me.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.