Dr. Mike Yeadon, Former Chief Scientist at Pfizer, Sounds the Alarm: At Least Five Intentional Mechanisms of Toxicity in mRNA COVID Vaccines
"Others with great expertise in intracellular signalling and molecular biology quickly spotted at least two other, clearly designed-in, obviously intentional, mechanisms of toxicity"
Below is an unedited message (highlights are mine!) from Dr Mike Yeadon, former Chief Scientist and Vice-President of the Allergy and Respiratory Research Division of Pfizer, and is the co-founder and former CEO of the biotechnology company Ziarco.
Dear all, I am a card carrying trained mechanistic toxicologist (as well as a biochemist, at least, that’s what my degree certificate says).
More relevantly, I have over 30 years experience leading new drug design teams across the disciplines.
Over the life of the pharmaceutical industry, we have collectively learned a great deal what kind of chemical and biochemical structures confer what kinds of safety and toxicity risks. We still miss things, especially when they’re not understood and all we have is harms leading to abandonment of research projects or even withdrawal of launched products. Sometimes, board level executives still don’t withdraw harmful products if they think there’s some slight or arguable uncertainty & if they think they can get away with it. Thalidomide for example was sold in Spain deep into the 1970s, 15 years after it was unequivocally known to be a teratogen in humans. Merck didn’t withdraw their COX2 inhibitor until it was so obvious that they were more or less going to get caught. Other times, companies behaved well.
Equally, we have learned what kinds of design features confer good or poor absorption, low or high plasma protein binding, fast or slow oxidative or conjugative metabolic clearance of drugs via which pathways (hepatic to stool, renal to urine, etc). Drug disposition is perhaps the best understood to the extent there are AI systems which a century of medicinal chemistry & drug metabolism data has fed.
Toxicology is much less well understood by the industry broadly, but students of the specialist field almost all of the well understood mechanisms of toxicity. Things like aspirin, paracetamol, paraquat, rotenone, masked anilines, certain free radical generators, planar polyaromatic hydrocarbons, etc etc. I’ve forgotten so many.
One classic example was dioxin release at Seveso, Italy, which resulted in widespread harms from halogenated biphenyls, which injure us via the aryl hydrocarbon receptor, a nuclear factor controlling expression or repression of numerous genes. The underlying biology is extremely complex and I don’t believe we can claim to understand it. We’re not even sure what the endogenous ligands are.
In one project in industry in which I was lead biologist, I noticed two chemistry colleagues had developed unusual facial rashes. I always pored over chemical structures, and noticed a plausible similarity between part of the new molecules that were being made & tested for this program and those industrial pollutants involved in the Italian accident. Sure enough, they had chloracne and it became a major incident, which we solved, killing the project (obviously) and teaching the industry worldwide to avoid close-in analogues.
So when I looked at the purported vaccines, I detected at least three distinct mechanisms of toxicity. I assure you, not one of those features would have remained in molecules in the research teams armoury after the first project meeting. It wouldn’t need to be me leading it. Any of my senior staff would see the very obvious safety risks. My peers in industry would also know of them. I’ve talked about them in interviews, pieces to camera and affidavits.
No one has tapped me on the shoulder to explain why I’ve got it all wrong. Several very clever people have independently said overlapping things, such as Professor Sucharit Bhakdi.
Others with great expertise in intracellular signalling and molecular biology quickly spotted at least two other, clearly designed-in, obviously intentional, mechanisms of toxicity (to do with nuclear localisation signals).
That makes at least five, independent, starkly obvious, in-the-structure harms. Based on at least some of these, I and doctor in Germany, Wolfgang Wodarg, wrote an open letter to the European Medicines Agency, prior to any such product being granted an Emergency Use Authorization. We listed several concerns for the kinds of harms we expected and feared would follow from mass administration to the population. In response to this letter, the media fell upon us both, we were smeared by our national broadcasters and pushed off numerous online platforms. Within weeks of commencement of mass rollouts, all but one of our concerns were starkly obvious. The last one had to do with reproductive toxicity, which duly rolled in a year later. If you choose to disregard this testimony, I don’t know what to say.
link to open letter to EMA:
-Dr Mike Yeadon
This is Mike’s official telegram channel:
A17 Comments: I can attest to what Mike is saying (for my newer readers, I’m also a Big Pharma exec - you can read my story here). Some Pharma Board execs don’t withdraw harmful products until they become very obvious.
Over ten years ago, I held the role of country commercial head and was tasked with the sales and marketing of a highly successful respiratory drug, or a "blockbuster," as we call it in the industry, referring to its annual revenue exceeding a billion US dollars.
During this time, we encountered a crisis when our headquarters informed us that a batch of this respiratory medication had been contaminated with a certain chemical.
Rather than opting for a recall, headquarters provided us with a small theoretical explanation (not even a study!) suggesting that the contaminated batch was presumably safe. Our instructions were to discreetly engage with local drug regulation authorities to assess their stance.
Should their concern be minimal, the plan was to proceed with selling the contaminated batch. Upon contacting the regulatory agency, their response, to paraphrase, was that “without significant concern from major countries, they would choose not to escalate the issue to avoid public panic”.
Signing off for now
All my posts are free because we need maximize our fight against these Global Health Terrorists! PharmaFiles by Aussie17 is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.