Working Draft, April 10, 2022
By Dr. Mike Yeadon
Summary
I contend that all the main narrative points about the coronavirus named SARS-CoV-2
are lies. Furthermore, all the “measures” imposed on the population are also lies. In
what follows, I support these claims scienti”cally, mostly by reference to peer-reviewed
journal articles. In 2019, World Health Organization (WHO) scientists reviewed the
evidence for the utility of all non-pharmaceutical interventions, concluding that they
are all without e#ect.
Given the foregoing, it is no longer possible to view the last two years as wellintentioned errors. Instead, the objectives of the perpetrators are most likely to be
totalitarian control over the population by means of mandatory digital IDs and cashless
central bank digital currencies (CBDCs).
$ere is no medical or public health emergency. We can and should take back our
freedoms with immediate e#ect. Testing healthy people stops. If you’re sick, please stay
home. Masks belong in the trash. $e Covid-19 gene-based injections are not
recommended and must not be coerced or mandated. Crucially, the vaccine passports
database must be destroyed. Economic rectitude is recommended.
Serious crimes have obviously been committed. It is not the purpose of this document
to accuse anyone or to assemble the evidence against them at this time. However, when
this is all resolved, We $e People are strongly recommended to pay much more
attention to Washington than previously.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
$e Covid Lies
How Much of the Covid-19 Narrative Was True?
Additional Re%ections
About Dr. Mike Yeadon
pages 2–15
pages 19–28
page 29
Page 2 of 31
THE NARRATIVE POINT
1. SARS-CoV-2 has such a high lethality that every measure
must be taken to save lives.
Note: Covid-19 is the disease resulting from infection with the virus, SARS-CoV-2.
$ey are o!en used interchangeably. Sometimes it doesn’t much matter, but the
confusion was sowed deliberately.
IMPORTANCE
Essential to claim high lethality in order that unprecedented responses may seem
justi”ed. To “pep up” the claim, recall “falling man” in Wuhan? $e person was
allegedly sick but walking about, before falling dead on his face. $at was never real. It
was theatre.
THE REALITY
Early estimates of lethality were very high with, in some reports, an “infection fatality
rate” (IFR) of 3%. Seasonal in%uenza is generally considered to have a typical IFR of
0.1%. $at means some seasons, IFR for %u may be 0.3% and other times, 0.05% or
lower.
In practise, and this was usual, estimates of IFR for Covid-19 were revised downwards
repeatedly and now are generally recognised as in the range of 0.1–0.3%. It cannot now
be argued that it is signi!cantly di”erent from some seasonal in#uenza epidemics.
Why, then, have we all but destroyed the modern world over it?
CONCLUSION AND VERDICT
FALSE
• $e perpetrators knew that lethality estimates of new respiratory viral illnesses
ALWAYS start high and reduce. $is is because, early on, we do not have any estimate
of the number of people infected but not seriously ill and the number infected with no
symptoms at all.
• $ey created the impression of extreme danger, which was never true. $is is such a
crucial point, for once one sees it for what it is, the rest of the narrative is
super#uous.
• Dr. John Ioannidis is one of the world’s most-published epidemiologists and he has
been scathing about the inappropriate responses to a novel virus of not particularly
unusual lethality. Like most respiratory viruses, SARS-CoV-2 represents no serious
health threat to those under 60 years of age, certainly not children, and is a serious
threat only to those nearing the end of their lives by virtue of age and multiple
comorbidities.1
• Dr. Ioannidis’s current estimate of global IFR is around 0.15%. For reference, a typical
seasonal in%uenza outbreak has a typical IFR of around 0.1%, but can be markedly
worse in bad winters.2
Page 3 of 31
THE NARRATIVE POINT
2. Because this is a new virus, there will be no prior immunity
in the population.
IMPORTANCE
Seems reasonable, doesn’t it? $is remark, made repeatedly early on, aimed to squash
any notion that there was a degree of “prior immunity” in the population. Prior
immunity and natural immunity are only now, two years in, not considered
“misinformation”.
THE REALITY
Within a few months, multiple publications showed that a large minority (ranging from
30%–50%, some later said even more) of the population had T-cells in their blood
which recognised various pieces of the viral protein (synthesised, as no one seemed to
have any real virus isolates to use).
While some people argued that recognition by T-cells didn’t mean functional immunity,
really it does.
We were prevented from learning that we already knew of six coronaviruses, four of
which cause “common colds,” which in elderly and in”rm people can cause death.
CONCLUSION AND VERDICT
FALSE
• $is was a straight lie. It’s pretty much never true that there’s no prior immunity in a
population. $is is because viruses are each derived from earlier viruses and some of
the population had already defeated its antecedents, giving them either immunity or a
big head start in defeating the new virus. Either way, a sizeable proportion of the
population never had cause to worry.
• !is article includes all the important peer-reviewed articles to mid-2020, with many
showing at least 30%–50% having prior immunity (it depends upon the measure used
to assess it).3
Page 4 of 31
THE NARRATIVE POINT
3. $is virus does not discriminate. No one is safe until
everyone is safe.
IMPORTANCE
Intention was to minimise the numbers who might reason they’re not “at risk” people.
THE REALITY
$is claim was always absurd. $e lethality of this virus, as is common with respiratory
viruses, is 1000X less in young, healthy people than in elderly people with multiple
comorbidities.
CONCLUSION AND VERDICT
FALSE
• In short, almost no one who wasn’t close to the end of their lives was at risk of severe
outcomes and death. In middle-aged individuals, obesity is a risk factor, as it is for a
handful of other causes of death.
• !is intriguing review details how the initial modelling induced fear and provided the
excuse for heavy-handed measures, especially “lockdowns”.4 It was, however, just that:
an excuse. All experienced public health experts knew that lockdowns were absurd,
ine#ective, and hugely destructive. $ere’s no way to sugar-coat this. It was wrong
before it was ordered, and it’s necessary to examine why those who knew did not
protest. It’s almost as if they were complicit.
Page 5 of 31
THE NARRATIVE POINT
4. People can carry this virus with no signs and infect others:
asymptomatic transmission.
IMPORTANCE
$is is the central conceptual deceit. If true, then anyone might infect and kill you.
Falsely claimed asymptomatic transmission underscores almost every intrusion:
masking, mass testing, lockdowns, border restrictions, school closures, even vaccine
passports.
THE REALITY
$e best evidence comes from a meta-analysis of a larger number of good studies,
examining how o!en a person testing positive went on to infect a family member (they
compared as potential sources of infection people who had symptoms with those who
did not have symptoms). ONLY those WITH symptoms were able to infect a family
member at any rate that mattered.5
CONCLUSION AND VERDICT
FALSE
• Asymptomatic transmission is epidemiologically irrelevant. It’s not necessary to argue it
never happens; it’s enough to show that if it occurs at all, it is so rare as not to be worth
measuring.
• In this video, we also have Fauci and a WHO doctor telling us exactly this.6 Also, I
show why it is like it is. It’s very clear.
Page 6 of 31
THE NARRATIVE POINT
5. $e PCR test selectively identi!es people with clinical
infections.
IMPORTANCE
$is is the central operational deceit. If true, we could detect risky people and isolate
them. We could diagnose accurately and also count the number of deaths.
Polymerase chain reaction (PCR), at its best, can con”rm the presence of genetic
information in a clean sample and is useful in forensics for that reason. It involves cycle
a!er cycle of ampli”cation, copying the starting material at the beginning of each cycle.
$e inventor of the PCR test, Kary Mullis, won a Nobel Prize for it and o!en criticised
Fauci for misusing that test to diagnose AIDS patients, which Mullis insisted was
inappropriate.
THE REALITY
In a “dirty” clinical sample, there is more than a possible piece of, or a whole, virus
which might replicate. $ere are bacteria, fungi, other viruses, human cells, mucus, and
more. It’s not possible unequivocally to know, if a test is judged “positive” a!er many
cycles, what it was that was ampli”ed to give the signal at the end that we call “positive”.
In mass testing mode, commonly used, no one ever runs so-called “positive controls”
through the chain of custody. $at’s diagnostic testing 101. It’s a deception.
Every test has an “operational false positive rate” (oFPR), where some unknown percent
of samples turns positive, even if there is no virus present. A good oFPR would be less
than 1%, but is it 0.8% or 0.1%? If you test 100,000 samples daily, and the oFPR is 0.8%,
you will get 800 positive tests or “cases,” even if there is no virus in the entire
community. O!en, the “positivity,” the fraction of tests that are positive, is in that range,
sub-1% or low-single-digit percent. I believe much or all of that can be caused by false
positives. Note, criminals can manipulate the content of the test kits because there are
very few providers in a territory, o!en just one. $e conditions for running the test are
also subject to variation by the authorities, like the CDC.
CONCLUSION AND VERDICT
FALSE
• You can be genuinely positive, yet not ill. $ere is no lower limit of true detection below
which you’d be declared to have some copies of the virus, but declared clinically well. It’s
an absurd idea.
• You can have no virus yet test positive (with or without symptoms). All of these are
swept together and called “con”rmed Covid-19 cases”. If you die in the next 28 days,
you’re said to be a “Covid death,” no matter what the cause.
• $ose using the test kits provided commercially are what are called “black box”. $ey
are unable to say what is in the kit, because this is proprietary. $e original “methods
paper” was published in 48 hours, making a mockery of claimed peer review, by a
Page 7 of 31
Berlin lab headed by Professor Christian Drosten, scienti”c advisor to Angela Merkel of
Germany. $e paper was comprehensively rebutted by an international team.7
• $e WHO released a series of guidance notes on PCR,8 and it was clear that their
technical sta# did not approve of mass testing the population, because it’s possible to
return wholly false positives. Indeed, at times of low genuine prevalence, that’s all they
can be.
• I o!en wonder if this 2007 real-life example of a PCR-based testing system which
returned 100% false positives, yet convinced a major hospital that they had a huge
disease outbreak for weeks, might have been the inspiration for the untrustworthy
methods used in the Covid-19 deception?9
• Drosten also led the TV publicity around the idea of asymptomatic transmission. One
lucky scientist is at the centre of the two most important deceptions in the entire
Covid-19 event!
• Professor Norman Fenton here presents a multi-part lecture with two main elements.10
First, he describes how mass testing of people with no symptoms unavoidably drives up
the proportion of positive PCR test results that are false. $e second part deals with the
possibility that data fraud entirely accounts for the apparent e0cacy of the vaccines,
while attempting to hide vaccine deaths, by classifying them as unvaccinated for 14 days
a!er injection.
Page 8 of 31
THE NARRATIVE POINT
6. Masks are e#ective in preventing the spread of this virus.
IMPORTANCE
$is is mostly used to maintain the illusion of danger. You see others’ masks and feel
afraid. Complying is also a measure of whether you do what you’re told, even if the
measure is useless.
THE REALITY
We have known for decades that surgical masks worn in medical theatres do not stop
respiratory virus transmission. Masks were tested across a series of operations by
doctors at the Royal College of Surgeons (UK). No di#erence in post-operative
infection rate was seen by mask use.
Cloth masks de”nitely don’t stop respiratory virus transmission as shown by several
large, randomised trials. If anything, they increase risk of lung infections. $e
authorities have mostly conceded on cloth masks.
Some people speak of “source control,” catching droplets. Problem is, there is no
evidence that transmission takes place via droplets. Equally, there is no evidence it
occurs via “ne aerosols. No one “nds it on masks, or on air “lters in hospital wards of
Covid patients, either. Where is the virus?
CONCLUSION AND VERDICT
FALSE
• It’s not necessary to use up time on this topic. It was known long before Covid-19 that
face masks don’t do anything.
• Many don’t know that blue medical masks aren’t “lters. Your inspired and expired air
moves in and out between the mask and your face. $ey are splashguards, that’s all.
• $is is a good review of the “ndings with masks in respiratory viruses by a recognised
expert in the “eld. No e#ect.11
• Neither masks nor lockdowns prevented the spread of the virus. $is review
summarizes 400 papers.12
Page 9 of 31
THE NARRATIVE POINT
7. Lockdowns slow down the spread and reduce the number
of cases and deaths.
IMPORTANCE
$e most impactful yet wasteful intervention, accomplishing nothing useful.
Useful to the perpetrators, however, wishing to damage the economy and reduce
interpersonal contacts. $is measure was surprisingly tolerated in many wealthy
countries, because “furlough” schemes were put in place, compensating many people
for not working, or requiring them to work from home.
THE REALITY
$e measure, though among the most repressive acts ever imposed on citizens in a
democracy, was intuitively reasonable to many. $is is an example of how far o#-course
uninformed intuition can be.
$e core idea was simple. Respiratory viruses are transmitted from person to person.
Reducing the average number of contacts surely reduces transmission? Actually, it
doesn’t, because the transmission concept is wrong. Transmission is from a
SYMPTOMATIC person to a susceptible person. $ose with symptoms are UNWELL.
$ey remain at home in most cases with no action from the government. Transmission
occurred mostly in institutions where sick people and susceptible people were forced
into contact: hospitals, care homes, and domestic settings.
CONCLUSION AND VERDICT
FALSE
• A general lockdown had no detectable impact on epidemic spreading, cases,
hospitalisations, or deaths.
• $is is now widely accepted, a!er a meta-analysis by Johns Hopkins University
(interestingly, as the JHU repeatedly features as an actor in a documentary about
pandemic-related fraud by German journalist Paul Schreyer).13
• $is is because those involved in the vast bulk of human-to-human contacts are “t and
well and such contacts didn’t result in transmission. Essentially, if you’re fooled by the
“asymptomatic transmission” lie, then lockdown might make sense. However, since it is
epidemiologically irrelevant, lockdowns can never work, and of course, all the
voluminous literature con”rms this.
• $is concept is unequivocally known to multiple public health scientists and doctors.
$is is why “lockdown” had never been tried before.
• Importantly, WHO scientists dra!ed a detailed review of all the non-pharmaceutical
interventions (NPIs) in 2019 and distributed copies of the report to all member states.14
• $is means that ALL member states already knew, late in 2019, that masks, lockdowns,
border restrictions, and business or school closures were futile. Only “stay home if
you’re sick” works at all, and people don’t need to be told this, for they are too unwell to
go out.
Page 10 of 31
THE NARRATIVE POINT
8. $ere are unfortunately no treatments for Covid beyond
support in hospital.
IMPORTANCE
Reinforced the idea that it was vital to avoid catching the virus.
Legally, it was essential for the perpetrators bringing forward novel vaccines that there
be no viable treatments. Had there been even one, the regulatory route of Emergency
Use Authorisation would not have been available.
THE REALITY
In my opinion, while all these measures were destructive and cruel, active deprivation
of access to experimentally applied but otherwise known safe and e#ective early
treatments led directly to millions of avoidable deaths worldwide. In my mind, this is a
policy of mass murder.
Contrasting with the o0cial narrative, the therapeutic value of early treatment was
already understood and demonstrated empirically during spring 2020. Since then, a
sizeable handful of well-understood, o#-patent, low-cost and safe oral treatments have
been characterised.
CONCLUSION AND VERDICT
FALSE
• $e o0cial position was that the disease Covid-19 could not be treated and the patient
only “supported,” o!en by mechanical ventilation. Ventilation is wholly inappropriate
because Covid-19 is rarely an obstructive airway disease, yet has a high associated
morbidity and mortality. An oxygen mask is greatly preferred.
• In my view, due to the very large amount of empirical treatment and good
communication, Covid-19 is the most treatable respiratory viral illness ever. We
knew in the “rst three months of 2020 that hydroxychloroquine, zinc, and azithromycin
were empirically useful, provided treatment was started early and tackled rationally.15
• It’s very important to note that it has been known for a decade and more that elevating
intracellular zinc acts to suppress viral replication.16
• $ere is no question that senior advisors to a range of governments knew that so-called
“zinc ionophores,” compounds which open channels to allow certain dissolved minerals
to cross cell membranes, were useful in severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in
2003 and should be expected also to be therapeutically useful in SARS-CoV-2 infection.
• $is is a starting point for all of the clinical trials in Covid-19,17 including especially
ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine (which are zinc ionophores).18
• It should be noted that using known safe agents for experimental purposes as a priority
has always been an established ethical medical practice and is known as “o#-label
prescribing”.
Page 11 of 31
THE NARRATIVE POINT
9. It’s not certain if you can get the virus more than once.
IMPORTANCE
$e idea of natural immunity was %atly denied and the absurd idea that you might get
the same virus twice was established. $is ramped up the fear, which might otherwise
have passed swi!ly.
THE REALITY
$ose with even a basic grasp of mammalian immunology knew that senior advisors to
government, speaking in uncertain terms on this question, were lying. Certainly, in the
author’s case, it was a pivotal point. I shared a foundational education in UK
universities at the same time as the UK government’s Chief Scienti”c Advisor. $is
shared education meant we’d have had the same set texts. I reasoned that he knew what
I knew and vice versa. I was as sure as it is possible to be that it wouldn’t be possible to
get clinically unwell twice in response to the same virus, or close-in variants of it. I was
right. He was lying.
CONCLUSION AND VERDICT
FALSE
• $ere have been scores of peer-reviewed journal articles on this topic.19 Very few
clinically important reinfections have ever been con”rmed.
• Beating o# a respiratory virus infection leaves almost everyone with acquired
immunity, which is complete, powerful, and durable.
• You wouldn’t know it for the misdirection around antibodies in blood, but such
antibodies are not considered pivotally important in host immunity. Secreted
antibodies in airway surface liquid of the IgA isotype certainly are, but most important
are memory T-cells.20
• $ose infected with SARS in 2003 still had clear evidence of robust, T-cell mediated
immunity 17 years later.21
Page 12 of 31
THE NARRATIVE POINT
10. Variants of the virus appear and are of great concern.
IMPORTANCE
I believe the purpose of this “ction was to extend the apparent duration of the
pandemic—and the fear—for as long as the perpetrators wished it. While there is
controversy on this point, with some physicians believing reinfection by variants to be a
serious problem, I think untrustworthy testing and other viruses entirely is the
parsimonious explanation.
THE REALITY
I come at it as an immunologist. From that vantage point, there is very strong precedent
indicating that recovery a!er infection a#ords immunity extending beyond the
sequence of the variant that infected the patient to all variants of SARS-CoV-2.
$e number of con!rmed reinfections is so small that they are not an issue,
epidemiologically speaking.
We have good evidence from those infected by SARS in 2003: they not only have strong
T-cell immunity to SARS, but cross-immunity to SARS-CoV-2. $is is very important
because SARS-CoV-2 is arguably a variant of SARS, there being around a 20%
di#erence at the sequence level.
Consider this: if our immune systems are able to recognise SARS-CoV-2 as foreign and
mount an immune response to it, despite never having seen it before, because of prior
immunity conferred by infection years ago by a virus which is 20% di#erent, it’s logical
that variants of SARS-CoV-2, like delta and omicron, will not evade our immunity.
No variant of SARS-CoV-2 di#ers from the original Wuhan sequence by more than 3%,
and probably less.
CONCLUSION AND VERDICT
FALSE
• Normal rules of immunology apply here.22 Despite the publicity to the contrary, SARSCoV-2 mutates relatively slowly and no variant is even close to evading immunity
acquired by natural infection.
• $is is because the human immune system recognises 20–30 di#erent structural motifs
in the virus, yet requires only a handful to recall an e#ective immune memory.23
• $e variants story fails to note “Muller’s Ratchet,” the phenomenon in which variants of
a virus, formed in an infected person during viral replication (in which “typographical
errors” are made and not corrected) trend to greater transmissibility but lesser lethality.
If this was not the case, at some point in human evolution, we would have expected a
respiratory viral pandemic to have killed o# a substantial proportion of humanity.
$ere is no historical record for such an event.
• I do not rule out the possibility that the so-called vaccines are so badly designed that
they prevent the establishment of immune memory. If that is true, then the vaccines are
worse than failures, and it might be possible to be repeatedly infected. $is would be a
form of acquired immune de”ciency.
Page 13 of 31
THE NARRATIVE POINT
11. $e only way to end the pandemic is universal vaccination.
IMPORTANCE
$is, I believe, was always the objective of the largely faked pandemic. It’s NEVER been
the way prior pandemics have ended, and there was nothing about this one that should
have led us to adopt the extreme risks that were taken and which have resulted in
hundreds of thousands, probably millions, of wholly avoidable deaths.
THE REALITY
$e interventions imposed on the population didn’t prevent spread of the virus. Only
individual isolation for an open-ended period could do that, and that’s clearly
impossible (hospital patients and residents of care homes have to be cared for at very
least and additionally, the nation has to be supplied with food and medicines).
All the interventions were useless and hugely burdensome.
Yet we have reached the end of the pandemic, more or less. We would have done so
faster and with less su#ering and death had we adopted measures along the lines
proposed in the Great Barrington Declaration and used pharmaceutical treatments as
they were discovered, plus general improvements to public health, such as encouraging
vitamin supplements.
CONCLUSION AND VERDICT
FALSE
• It was NEVER appropriate to attempt to “end the pandemic” with a novel technology
vaccine. In a public health mass intervention, safety is the top priority, more so even
than e#ectiveness, because so many people will receive it.
• It’s simply not possible to obtain data demonstrating adequate longitudinal safety in the
time period any pandemic can last.
• $ose who pushed this line of argument and enabled the gene-based agents to be
injected needlessly into billions of innocent people are guilty of crimes against
humanity.
• It quickly became apparent that natural immunity was stronger than any protection
from vaccination,24 and most people were not at risk of severe outcomes if infected.25
• Even children who were immunocompromised are not at elevated risk from Covid-19,
so advice that such children should be vaccinated is lethally %awed.26
• $ese agents are clearly underperforming against expectations.27
Page 14 of 31
THE NARRATIVE POINT
12. $e new vaccines are safe and e”ective.
IMPORTANCE
I feel particularly strongly about this claim. Both components are lies. I outline the
inevitability of the toxicity of all four gene-based agents below.
Separately, the clinical trials were wholly inadequate. $ey were conducted in people
not most in need of protection from safe and e#ective vaccines. $ey were far too short
in duration. $e endpoints only captured “infection” as measured by an inadequate
PCR test and should have been augmented by Sanger sequencing to con”rm real
infection. Trials were underpowered to detect important endpoints like hospitalisation
and death.
$ere’s evidence of fraud in at least one of the pivotal clinical trials. I think there is also
clear evidence of manufacturing fraud and regulatory collusion. $ey should never have
been granted emergency use authorisations (EUAs).
THE REALITY
$e design of the agents called vaccines is very bothersome. Gene-based agents are new
in a public health application. Had I been in a regulatory role, I would have informed all
the leading R&D companies that I would not approve these without extensive
longitudinal studies, meaning they could not receive EUA before early 2022 at the
earliest. I would have outright denied their use in children, in pregnancy, and in the
infected-recovered. Point blank. I’d need years of safe use before contemplating an
alteration of this stance.
$e basic rules of this new activity, gene-based component vaccines, are: (1) to select
part of the virus that has no inherent biological action—that rules out spike protein,
which we inferred would be very toxic, before they’d even started clinical trials;28 (2)
select the genetically most stable parts of the virus, so we could ignore the gross
misrepresentations of variants so slight in di#erence from the original that we were
being toyed with via propaganda—again, this rules out spike protein; (3) choose parts
of the virus which are most di#erent from any human proteins. Once more, spike
protein is immediately deselected, otherwise unnecessary risks of autoimmunity are
carried forward.
$at all four leading actors chose spike protein, against any reasonable selection
criteria, leads me to suspect both collusion and malign intent.
Finally, let nature guide us. Against which components of the virus does natural
immunity aim? We “nd 90% of the immune repertoire targets NON-spike protein
responses.29 I rest my case.
CONCLUSION AND VERDICT
FALSE
• $ese agents were always going to be toxic. $e only question was, to what degree?
Having selected spike protein to be expressed, a protein which causes blood clotting to
be initiated, a risk of thromboembolic adverse events was burned into the design.
Page 15 of 31
• Nothing at all limits the amount of spike protein to be made in response to a given
dose. Some individuals make a little and only brie%y. $e other end of a normal range
results in synthesis of copious amounts of spike protein for a prolonged period. $e
locations in which this pathological event occurred, as well as where on the spectrum,
in my view played a pivotal role in whether the victim experienced adverse events,
including death.
• $ere are many other pathologies %owing from the design of these agents, including,
for the mRNA “vaccines,” that lipid nanoparticle (LNP) formulations leave the injection
site and home to the liver and ovaries,30 among other organs,31 but this evidence is
enough to get started.
• See this interview for evidence of clinical trial and other fraud, publicised by Edward
Dowd, a former BlackRock investment analyst.32
• See this video for evidence of o0cial data fraud (UK O0ce of National Statistics):
especially at 2min 45sec for the heart of the matter.33
• See here for evidence of manufacturing fraud.34 $e same methodology was used to
obtain regulatory authorisations, and so it is my contention that there is also regulatory
fraud.
• In the P”zer clinical trial brie”ng document to FDA, which was used for issuing the
EUA (on p. 40 or thereabout), there is a paragraph stating that there were approximately
2,000 “suspected uncon”rmed Covid cases”—meaning people were sick with symptoms
but were not tested (otherwise, it would be stated that the tests were negative). Of these,
in the “rst seven days a!er injection, there were 400 in the vaccine arm and 200 in
placebo. $ese subjects were excluded from the dataset used to assess e0cacy. It’s as
clear evidence of fraud as you can get; they admit to it in the FDA brie”ng! Nobody
paid any attention to this that I am aware of.
• $ere’s also evidence of data fraud in that clinical trial as summarised by Dr. Peter
Doshi, associate editor of “e BMJ (formerly called the British Medical Journal).
• $ough many people refuse to accept or even look at the evidence, it is clear that the
number of adverse events and deaths soon a!er Covid-19 vaccination is astonishing
and far in excess, in 2021 alone, than all adverse e#ects and deaths reported to the U.S.
Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) in the previous 30 years. Here is a
simpli”ed view of Covid vaccine-related mortality reports from VAERS.35
• $is excellent presentation by a forensic statistician, well used to presenting analyses
for court purposes, dismantles the claims that the vaccines are e#ective and shows how
toxicity is hidden (see the second half of the recording).10
• Another paper published by the same group questions vaccine e0cacy.36
Page 16 of 31
References
1. Ioannidis JPA, Axfors C, Contopoulos-Ioannidis DG. Population-level COVID-19
mortality risk for non-elderly individuals overall and for non-elderly individuals
without underlying diseases in pandemic epicenters. Environ Res. 2020 Sep;188:109890.
2. Ioannidis JPA. Reconciling estimates of global spread and infection fatality rates of
COVID-19: an overview of systematic evaluations. Eur J Clin Invest. 2021
May;51(5):e13554.
3. Doshi P. Covid-19: Do many people have pre-existing immunity? BMJ.
2020;370:m3563.
4. Jo#e AR. COVID-19: Rethinking the lockdown groupthink. Front Public Health. 2021
Feb 26;9:625778.
5. Madewell ZJ, Yang Y, Longini Jr IM, Halloran ME, Dean NE. Household transmission
of SARS-Cov-2: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Dec
1;3(12):e2031756.
6. “Exposing the lie of asymptomatic transmission, once and for all.” May 10, 2021.
7. https://cormandrostenreview.com/
8. World Health Organization. Diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2. Interim guidance,
Sep. 11, 2020. https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/334254/WHO-2019-
nCoV-laboratory-2020.6-eng.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
9. Kolata G. Faith in quick test leads to epidemic that wasn’t. New York Times, Jan. 22,
2007. Available at https://eumeswill.wordpress.com/2020/08/11/faith-in-quick-testleads-to-epidemic-that-wasnt/
10. “Prof. Norman Fenton – Open science sessions: How %awed data has driven the
narrative.” PANDA, Feb. 3, 2022. https://rumble.com/vtxi1h-open-science-sessionshow-“awed-data-has-driven-the-narrative.html
11. Je#erson T, Del Mar CB, Dooley L, et al. Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce
the spread of respiratory viruses. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020 Nov
20;11(11):CD006207.
12. Alexander PE. More than 400 studies on the failure of compulsory Covid interventions
(lockdowns, restrictions, closures). Brownstone Institute, Nov. 30, 2021. https://
brownstone.org/articles/more-than-400-studies-on-the-failure-of-compulsorycovid-interventions/
13. Dinerstein C. $e Johns Hopkins lockdown analysis. American Council on Science and
Health, Feb. 16, 2022. https://www.acsh.org/news/2022/02/16/johns-hopkinslockdown-analysis-16135
14. World Health Organization. Non-pharmaceutical public health measures for mitigating
the risk and impact of epidemic and pandemic in%uenza: annex: report of systematic
literature reviews. World Health Organization, 2019. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/
10665/329439. License: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO
15. McCullough PA, Kelly RJ, Ruocco G, et al. Pathophysiological basis and rationale for
early outpatient treatment of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) infection. Am J Med. 2021
Jan;134(1):16-22.
Page 17 of 31
16. Te Velthuis AJW, van den Worm SHE, Sims AC, Baric RS, Snijder EJ, van Hemert MJ.
Zn(2+) inhibits coronavirus and arterivirus RNA polymerase activity in vitro and zinc
ionophores block the replication of these viruses in cell culture. PloS Pathog. 2010 Nov
4;6(11):e1001176.
17. COVID-19 early treatment: real-time analysis of 1,609 studies. Retrieved Apr. 4, 2022
from https://c19early.com/.
18. Bryant A, Lawrie TA, Dowswell T, et al. Ivermectin for prevention and treatment of
COVID-19 infection: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and trial sequential analysis to
inform clinical guidelines. Am J “er. 2021 Jun 21;28(4):e434-e460.
19. Alexander PE. How likely is reinfection following Covid recovery? Brownstone
Institute, Dec. 29, 2021. https://brownstone.org/articles/how-likely-is-reinfectionfollowing-covid-recovery/
20. Wyllie D, Mulchandani R, Jones HE, et al. SARS-CoV-2 responsive T cell numbers are
associated with protection from COVID-19: a prospective cohort study in keyworkers.
MedRxiv, Nov. 4, 2020.
21. Le Bert N, Tan AT, Kunasegaran K, et al. SARS-CoV-2-speci”c T cell immunity in
cases of COVID-19 and SARS, and uninfected controls. Nature. 2020
Aug;584(7821):457-462.
22. Tarke A, Sidney J, Methot N, et al. Negligible impact of SARS-CoV-2 variants on CD4+
and CD8+ T cell reactivity in COVID-19 exposed donors and vaccinees. BioRxiv, Mar.
1, 2021.
23. Tarke A, Sidney J, Kidd CK, et al. Comprehensive analysis of T cell immunodominance
and immunoprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 epitopes in COVID-19 cases. BioRxiv, Dec. 9,
2020.
24. Gazit S, Shlezinger R, Perez G, et al. Comparing SARS-CoV-2 natural immunity to
vaccine-induced immunity: reinfections versus breakthrough infections. MedRxiv,
Aug. 25, 2021.
25. Alexander PE. 150 plus research studies a0rm naturally acquired immunity to
Covid-19: documented, linked, and quoted. Brownstone Institute, Oct. 17, 2021.
https://brownstone.org/articles/79-research-studies-a#rm-naturally-acquiredimmunity-to-covid-19-documented-linked-and-quoted/
26. Chappell H, Patel R, Driessens C, et al. Immunocompromised children and young
people are at no increased risk of severe COVID-19. J Infect. 2022 Jan;84(1):31-39.
27. Alexander PE. 46 e0cacy studies that rebuke vaccine mandates. Brownstone Institute,
Oct. 28, 2021. https://brownstone.org/articles/16-studies-on-vaccine-e#cacy/
28. Grobbelaar LM, Venter C, Vlok M, et al. SARS-CoV-2 spike protein S1 induces
“brin(ogen) resistant to “brinolysis: implications for microclot formation in
COVID-19. MedRxiv, Mar. 8, 2021.
29. Ferretti AP, Kula T, Wang Y, et al. Unbiased screens show CD8+ T cells of COVID-19
patients recognize shared epitopes in SARS-CoV-2 that largely reside outside the spike
protein. Immunity. 2020 Nov 17;53(5):1095-1107.
30. Schädlich A, Ho#mann S, Mueller T, et al. Accumulation of nanocarriers in the ovary:
a neglected toxicity risk? J Control Release. 2012 May 30;160(1):105-112.
Page 18 of 31
31. https://www.docdroid.net/xq0Z8B0/p$zer-report-japanese-governmentpdf#page=14
32. “Edward Dowd interview portion on Steve Bannons War Room Ep #1602.” https://
www.onenewspage.com/video/20220204/14277521/Edward-Dowd-Interviewportion-on-Steve-Bannons-War.htm
33. “Norman Fenton interviewed by Majid Nawaz, LBC Radio 4 Dec 2021.” Truth Archive
2030, Feb. 21, 2022. https://www.bitchute.com/video/KApFxhjiWLqI/
34. “COVID vax variability between lots – independent research by international team.”
Craig-Paardekooper, Dec. 15, 2021. https://www.bitchute.com/video/4HlIyBmOEJeY/
35. https://openvaers.com/covid-data/mortality
36. Neil M, Fenton NE, Smalley J, et al. Latest statistics on England mortality data suggest
systematic mis-categorisation of vaccine status and uncertain e#ectiveness of Covid-19
vaccination. ResearchGate, December 2021. DOI:10.13140/RG.2.2.14176.20483
Page 19 of 31
How Much of the Covid-19 Narrative Was True?
Additional Reflections
Introduction
$e purpose of this document is to demonstrate that all of the key narrative points
about the SARS-CoV-2 virus said to cause the disease Covid-19 and the measures
imposed to control it are incorrect. Given that the sources of these points are
scientists, doctors, and public health o0cials, it is evident that they were not simply
mistaken. Instead, they have lied in order to mislead. I believe the motivations of those
who I call “the perpetrators” become clear, once it is internalised that the entire event is
based on lies.
In recent days, breaking news indicates that coronavirus antibodies are present in blood
stored in European blood banks from 2019.1 $e implications are momentous.
Unprecedented Pronouncements
In the “rst three months of the Covid event, I started noticing senior scienti”c and
medical advisors on UK television saying things that I found disturbing. It was hard to
put my “nger on the speci”cs, but they included remarks like:
• “Because this is a new virus, there won’t be any immunity in the population”.
• “Everyone is vulnerable”.
• “In view of the very high lethality of the virus, we are exploring how best to protect
the population”.
I had been reading extensively about the apparent spread of SARS-CoV-2 in China and
beyond, and had already arrived at a number of important conclusions. Essentially, I
was sure that, objectively, we weren’t going to experience a major event. I based some of
my conclusions on the Diamond Princess cruise ship experience. Note that no crew
members died, and only a minority on the ship even got infected, suggesting substantial
prior immunity, a steep age-lethality relationship, and an infection fatality ratio (IFR)
not much di#erent, if at all, from prior respiratory virus infections. But what was
happening was that, in my view, senior people were acting a lot more frightened than
seemed appropriate.
It was with this heightened interest that I began to closely examine all aspects of the
alleged pandemic. I suspected something very bad was happening when the Imperial
College released its modelling paper by Neil Ferguson. $is claimed that over 500,000
people in the UK would die unless severe “measures” were put in place. Ferguson had
over-projected all of the last “ve disease-related emergencies in the UK and had been
responsible for the destruction of the beef herd through his modelling of the spread of
foot-and-mouth disease.
I had also been reading about all sorts of “non-pharmaceutical interventions” (NPIs),
and what this had taught me was that there was absolutely no experimental literature
around any of the NPIs being spoken of, except masks—which were clearly ine#ective
in blocking respiratory virus transmission. Moreover, the non-experts in the
Page 20 of 31
mainstr
READ MORE:
COVID-19 Vaccines: Proof of Lethality. Over One Thousand Scientific Studies
