"treatment nihilism", asymptomatic transmission, at most as bad as influenza, COVID-9, Dr. John Ioannidis, Dr. Mike Yeadon, global IFR, HCQ & IVM, people deliberately deprived of treatment, Propaganda, RT-PCR cycle thresholds, the futility and harms of masks, the push to sell vaccines, treatable infection
To paraphrase Dr. Mike Yeadon: ‘Every single point officially asserted about the virus and the illness is a lie.’
Negligible impact of SARS-CoV-2 variants on CD4 + and CD8 + T cell reactivity in COVID-19 exposed donors and vaccinees
Concerning the “vaccine passports”, please be aware of Revelation 13:16: “And he will make all, the small and the great, the rich and the poor, the free and the slave, that they should give to them a mark on their right hand or on their forehead in order that no one can buy or sell if they do not have the mark, the name of the beast or the number of his name.”
This was a revelation given by Jesus Christ to his apostle over 1900 years ago. Nothing that is happening is outside the plan or the foreknowledge of God. He has told us of these things from long ago. He has also promised us that whoever calls on the name of Jesus will be saved.
God made us and loves us. But we as humans have rebelled against him, have cut ourselves off from him, and are justly deserving of eternal punishment for our sins. But God in His love made a way for us to be saved. He became one of us and has extended to us an offer of spiritual “marriage”. If we accept this offer and are united to Jesus, acknowledging Him as our Lord and our God, His death on the cross will be accepted as payment for our sins and the virtue of His sinless life will be credited to our spiritual account, as we will be coheirs with Him, as a wife is with her husband.
God raised Him bodily from the dead to show that His payment was accepted and that for all those who are in Christ, “It is finished!” We may suffer yet in this flesh, but He has promised to never leave us nor to forsake us and to grant us eternal joyous life!
LikeLiked by 2 people
Norman Pilon said:
The “passports” serve no medically justifiable purpose. Consequently the result is effectively a society that arbitrarily segregates people en masse. It is certainly deeply immoral.
Tanli Lundgren said:
I have listened to Mike Yeadon since he first spoke out in 2020 and have found him to be the voice of reason. He disappeared for a while and I’m so relieved to see that he’s interviewing again. I have 2 questions:
1) asymptomatic people not being able to spread the virus and the reason that was used as a legitimate excuse for lockdowns: You mention that sick people don’t go to work and use transport etc… but is it not possible that you can wake up feeling a bit ‘under the weather’ but by the time you leave that day to travel home you are very symptomatic and therefore able to spread the virus?
2) I’ve had one shot of the AZ vaccine and wont have a second, especially after watching Professor Sucharit Bhakdi’s video. The AZ vaccine is not MRNA, is it as dangerous as the MRNA ones? And can i ‘dodge the bullet’ so to speak by only having one of the jabs (too late to change that now)?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Norman Pilon said:
Given what I think I know based on the exposure I’ve had over the last year-and-a-half to scientific views running against the mainstream narrative(s), I think I can make a reasonalbe stab at answering your questions:
I think that Yeadon would answer in the affirmative on this point, that is to say, that to find oneself a bit ‘under the weather’ is actually to find oneself already in the ‘symptomatic’ phase of infection. A person who is ‘asymptomatic’ is in fact someone who feels perfectly fine though they may be harboring the virus, but in concentrations well below a threshold at which their immune system would begin to struggle to keep the infection in check.
The difference between the AZ vaccine and the Pfizer and Moderna type vaccines is the manner in which they deliver mRNA into our cells. AZ uses an adenovirus vector whereas the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines use ‘lipid nano particles.’ In both instances, the strategy is to get our cells to produce spike protein. And as it turns out, however, the spike protein is biologically active and all on its own is capable of causing severe adverse effects. See THIS and THIS. Thus whether one chooses AZ or any of the other mRNA vaccines, one is only choosing between the manner in which the mRNA responsible for the production of spike protein is being inserted into individual human cells.
Yes, of course, you can dodge the bullet, so to speak. In fact, most people who will receive the jabs probably will neither in the short- nor long-term experience anything seriously debilitating. However, many who otherwise would not have experienced anything at all will in due course experience serious injuries and some will even die as a result of their injuries.
Although in absolute terms the number who will be seriously injured by these vaccines may be small, the fact remains that if they had not been vaccinated, they would not have been injured.
To vaccinate cohorts of people — for example, children — who are statistically at no risk of injury if they contract COVID-19 guarantees that some of those individuals will be severely injured or killed as a result. THAT is the scandal and the crime of this vaccination campaign: it does not properly discriminate between the risks of different age groups associated with COVID-19, that and the fact the vaccines are highly experimental and simply dangerous in their potential known and as yet unknown effects going forward. It is utterly reckless and irresponsible to expose millions upon millions in an indiscriminate fashion to these biologics.
But that said, if you are healthy, yes, it is very likely that you will dodge the bullet. Keep yourself fit and in good company and try not to worry too much about having taken a single shot.
Take good care!
Tanli Lundgren said:
Thank you so much for taking the time to answer, much appreciated. Just back to the question of lockdowns not being necessary as symptomatic people ‘stay at home’, do you think that is really the case? If you are under pressure at work, and have bills to be paid and cannot afford to be off work, is it also not reasonable to assume that many people still go to work when feeling slightly ‘off’ or even quite ill? I’m a wedding photographer, and if i don’t shoot a wedding i lose thousands of pounds so in the past, if i was not feeling well, i’d pop a few paracetemol and make it through the day. Is that not the point of the lockdown? To not leave it up to the public to decide if they are well enough to work, travel on public transport etc? As i think thousands of people do everyday. Not saying i agree with lockdowns, but just not sure that Mike’s reason of ‘ill people staying at home’ is reasonable one?
Norman Pilon said:
All that you state about our socioeconomic context is true: under our present system, people must earn an income to pay bills and cannot afford to be off work. Therefore, because that pressure is paramount, people who are ‘under the weather’ will nevertheless show up for work, potentially exposing others to whatever infection(s) may be ailing them. And that is precisely why lockdowns cannot work: on the one hand, we live under a system of mass employment, i.e., people must work in settings that concentrate human interactions; on the other hand, the penalty for most for not showing up for work is potentially always catastrophic, economically speaking, and by implication, also socially and emotionally speaking. Because lockdowns cannot mean the complete cessation of industrial production, seasonal infections will be inevitable come what may; because people are en masse forced to live lives of impecuniosity, lockdowns cannot but literally destroy the lives of many in social and financial terms. Lockdowns do not and cannot work in our societies because of the exiting economic and organizational imperatives of our societies. In our structural context, lockdowns end up causing harms that by far and away exceed any harms now known to be caused by COVID-19. Pre-COVID era, we did not institute lockdowns on account of influenza outbreaks and yet those outbreaks are now known to be more indiscriminately harmful than anything being caused by COVID-19. In a different kind of society, one truly organized for the welfare of everyone rather than to ensure a steady accretion of wealth for a few, lockdowns might conceivably be made to work, that is to say, if the re-production of society was deliberately designed to accommodate strategies to counter the potential outbreak of any pandemic. As it is, we are not there, and the consequence is that lockdowns as they are currently designed and implemented do not work to mitigate contagion and only aggravate a situation that would otherwise be, on the whole, rather more benign.
This particular example is, I think, heuristically relevant to the point:
LikeLiked by 1 person