Can You Get Re-Infected?
Yeadon also says he's "sick and tired" of people claiming that immunity against SARS-CoV-2 may wane after a short time, leaving you vulnerable to reinfection. If you've been ill with COVID-19 and recover, you will have antibodies against the virus, and you will be immune. Yeadon categorically denies the premise that you can recover from COVID-19 and later get re-infected and experience severe illness again.
According to Yeadon, there are only two ways by which COVID-19 would not provide lasting immunity. The first would be if it destroys your immune system. The HIV virus, for example, which causes AIDS, disarms your immune system, causing permanent impairment, hence you do not become immune to the HIV virus. Coronaviruses do not do that. From reliable sources, I have information that COVID-19 is manmade and contains a HIV component. So it would not surprise me that some people will end up not recovering from CV-19, like with Epstein Barr virus and other chronic viral infections, that is happening to young people.
The second way is if the virus mutates, which is common among influenza viruses. If the virus mutates, your immune system may not fully recognize it and will have to mount a defense again, thereby creating another set of antibodies. However, coronaviruses are genetically stable, Yeadon says.
I agree, but that is only for normal Coronaviruses, not man made viruses like Covid-19, which escaped from a lab in Wuhan. My working theory is that China with possible help from other dark forces released this in the wild to break down the economy of the world. In China they are dancing in disco’s while here in the west we are facing the worst economic destruction since the great depression.
Hidden Agenda in Plain Sight
As noted by Yeadon, people are now changing the laws of immunology, which simply shouldn't happen. This should not be a political issue, but somehow it is being treated as one. He claims to have no ideas at all as to why these false narratives are being created, and why scientific truth that contradicts the mainstream narrative is being censored.
Others, however, have become more outspoken about this issue, pointing out how the pandemic is being used as a convenient excuse and justification for redistribution of wealth and the technocratic takeover of the whole world under the banner of a Great Reset to a "more equitable" social order and greener commerce.
It's being used to usher in social changes that simply could never be introduced without some sort of calamity, be it war or a biological threat, because they involve a radical limitation of personal freedoms and the elimination of privacy. Those in charge of pandemic response measures also refuse to consider the price of these measures.
When making public health decisions, you need to calculate the cost in terms of lives saved and the price in dollars and cents of saving those people, against the cost of not implementing the measure in question. This is not being done. The question is why is such an illogical stance being taken?
Yeadon on Vaccination
Toward the end of the interview, Yeadon addressed the issue of COVID-19 vaccination. Many are nervous about it becoming mandatory, and rightfully so. Vaccine passports are already being rolled out, and all the indicators point to vaccination becoming a requirement for travel, perhaps even within national borders.
Having spent his career in the pharmaceutical industry, Yeadon fully supports vaccination, believing they prevent large numbers of deaths. However, when it comes to SARS-CoV-2, he believes the vaccine will only benefit the elderly. For those over 80, a vaccine might give them a few more months of life.
In an open letter to the British health minister, Yeadon wrote, "I have read the consultation document. I've rarely been as shocked and 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 and 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, I don't trust you. You've not been straightforward and 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?"
"Let's get back to the facts," Yeadon says. "There are no excess deaths. But that's not what you hear from the BBC now, is it? I'm never going to trust the BBC again, by the way. I've watched BBC for 41 years. [They're] never coming back into my ears, because they've lied in my face all year. There's a fraud going on. You're walking into voluntary house arrest when there are no excess deaths. Why are you doing that? Seriously? I'm fearful, because it doesn't make any sense and there are no benign outcomes." said Yeadon.
Do you know someone who is on the fence about the vaccination? Share this information with them!
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten