Monday, November 16, 2020

Pfizer's Unprecedented Vaccine Experiment

With the recent news that Pfizer has developed a vaccine that is certain to save humanity from a sure death thanks to COVID-19, a recent letter from a former high-level Pfizer insider to the United Kingdom's Secretary of State for Health and Social Care is most timely...and, at the same time, somewhat frightening.


As background, the author of the letter, Dr. Michael Yeadon, has the following qualifications:


As you can see from his resume, Dr. Yeadon spent 16 years at Pfizer Research and Development as its Chief Scientific Officer and a total of 6 years and 10 months as Vice President in Pfizer's Global Research and Development department.  As further background, Dr. Yeadon worked on his PhD in Pharmacology at the University of Surrey between 1985 and 1988 where he studied the central nervous system and peripheral pharmacology of the effect of opioids on respiration.  Obviously, he is highly qualified to weigh in on Pfizer (as an insider) and the company's research and development culture and the development of a very novel and unprecedented vaccine for a coronavirus. 


Here is a list of some of the research Dr. Yeadon has been part of:


Now, let's look at the aforementioned letter (all bolds are mine) to one of the United Kingdom's most influential politicians, Matt Hancock who, by the way, has these qualifications to be in charge of the nation's health care system:


Dear Mr. Hancock,


I have a degree in Biochemistry & Toxicology & a research based PhD in pharmacology. I have spent 32 years working in pharmaceutical R&D, mostly in new medicines for disorders of lung & skin. I was a VP at Pfizer & CEO of a biotech I founded (Ziarco – acquired by Novartis). I’m knowledgeable about new medicine R&D.


I have read the consultation document. I’ve rarely been as shocked & upset.


All vaccines against the SARS-COV-2 virus are by definition novel. No candidate vaccine has been in development for more than a few months.


If any such vaccine is approved for use under any circumstances that are not EXPLICITLY experimental, I believe that recipients are being misled to a criminal extent.


This is because there are precisely zero human volunteers for whom there could possibly be more than a few months past-dose safety information. My concern does not arise because I have negative views about vaccines (I don’t), Instead, it’s the very principle that politicians seem ready to waive that new medical interventions at this, incomplete state of development- should not be made available to subjects on anything other than an explicitly experimental basis. That’s my concern.


And the reason for that concern is that it is not known what the safety profile will be, six months or a year or longer after dosing.


You have literally no data on this & neither does anyone else.


It isn’t that I’m saying that unacceptable adverse effects will emerge after longer intervals after dosing. No: it is that you have no idea what will happen yet, despite this, you’ll be creating the impression that you do.


Several of the vaccine candidates utilise novel technology which have not previously been used to create vaccines. There is therefore no long term safety data which can be pointed to in support of the notion that it’s reasonable to expedite development & to waive absent safety information on this occasion.


I am suspicious of the motives of those proposing expedited use in the wider human population. We now understand who is at particularly elevated risk of morbidity & mortality from acquiring this virus.


Volunteers from these groups only should be provided detailed information about risk / benefit, including the sole point I make here. Only if informed consent is given should any EXPERIMENTAL vaccine be used.


I don’t trust you. You’ve not been straightforward & have behaved appallingly throughout this crisis.


You’re still doing it now, misleading about infection risk from young children. Why should I believe you in relation to experimental vaccines?


Dr. Michael Yeadon

Let's close with this interview with Michael Yeadon from September 2020 weighing in on the current COVID-19 PCR-RT test being used by governments around the world to justify relocking us down:


I don't believe that I need to say any more.  Since March 2020, we have all been part of a massive and unprecedented experiment on humanity, both socially and pharmaceutically.

1 comment:

  1. This is what I’ve learned:
    There are 4 possibilities: 1. True positive - if the person is sick and the test result is positive. 2. False negative - if the person is sick and the test result is negative. 3. True negative - if the person is not sick and the test is negative. 4. False positive - if the person is not sick and the test is positive.

    The essential measures given for a test are the sensitivity and the specificity.

    The sensitivity of a test (the true positive rate) - is the percentage of those that are sick that are correctly identified as being sick. The sensitivity = True positives/(True positives+ false negatives)

    The specificity of a test (the true negative rate) - is the percentage of those that are not sick that are correctly identified as not being sick. The specificity = True negatives/(True negatives + False positives).

    The other important figure is the prevalence of the virus in the population. With regard to SarsCov2 virus. The estimates for the prevalence vary from 0.1% to 0.05%. The specificity that I’ve seen reported for the PCR test is 99%, some say it’s lower, which would mean a 1% are false positive rate.

    So if we assume a prevalence rate of 0.1% and a specificity of 99% and if 20,000 people are tested, you can expect to find about (0.1%*20,000) 20 people that are actually sick. If the sensitivity of the test is for example 99%, you can expect to identify 19 of those 20 people, 1 will be false negative.

    But the important measure is the specificity. If there are 20 sick people, (20,000-20) 19,980 will not be sick. Of those 19,980, (99% * 19,980) about 19,780 will be correctly identified as not being sick, which means (19,980 -19,780 ) approximately 200 people will be incorrectly identified as being sick, 1% of 19,980.

    So, assuming a 100% sensitivity, i.e. that all 20 people that are actually sick are detected. The media would report (20+200) 220 cases of Covid . Of those 220 cases (200/220) 90% are false positives.

    Here’s a hint as to what Mr. Klaus Schwab’s primary motive is, on november 8 he tweeted the following:

    "Due to mandatory social restrictions, single people are finding it more difficult than ever to meet each other. As the global population is currently not sustainable and birth rates need to fall, this can be viewed as a very positive outcome of the Covid19 pandemic."