Dr. Yeadon Explains For First Time How The Covid Tests Can't Detect Proteins Like WHO Purports! Pandemic THEORY Is Wrong & We Will PROVE IT! Pandemics Do NOT Exist.
Dr. Yeadon Explains For First Time How The Covid Tests Can't Detect Proteins Like WHO Purports! Pandemic THEORY Is Wrong & We Will PROVE IT! Pandemics Do NOT Exist.
WHO recommended those tests - because they are so wise we need to pay them MORE $ for more great tests... Time to cut off the pseudo science cabal. What a racket!
Open Call To WHO DG Tedros: Contact Dr. Yeadon So He Can Explain How The Covid Tests Can't Detect Proteins Like You Purport!
The Pandemic THEORY Is Wrong & We Will PROVE IT! Pandemics Do NOT Exist.
Help support IoJ’s legal mission to expose the fraud. We back up our chief scientist Dr. Yeadon’s scientific analysis and will be using it in one of the many cases against State and WHO tyranny! This mission literally cannot happen without community support & we really believe we can and will win! Thank you for your assistance in trying to get real JUSTICE!
IOJ thanks Dr. Yeadon for this brilliant and precise explanation, it’s perfect for our court case to challenge the testing methods. Our case regarding the fake pandemic declaration of emergency is near done and being filed asap!! We think we can win & prove the WHO lied to the world, causing States to follow unscientific testing diagnostics recommended by WHO (for the purpose of faking the pandemic).
Lets see if Dr. Yeadon makes more sense than the elusive WHO experts:
a claim that “there must have been a spreading virus because viral proteins were detected at such and such a date & location” or “there must have been a contagious new virus because antibodies to parts of the virus have been extremely widely reported” are both nonsense until the methods used to detect the things claimed have been pored over and shown unequivocally to be correctly set up & beyond reproach. - Dr. Mike Yeadon (and IOJ agrees VERY MUCH)
Message from Dr. Yeadon:
Another fine piece from Sasha Latypova.
May I direct your attention to the comments?
There’s a very long comment from one gentleman about the PCR tests.
I’ve taken the liberty for the first time of writing a long comment myself on a topic I’ve never seen discussed: the methods used to claim to detect viral proteins and antibodies to said viral proteins in samples from humans.
I outline how such methods could be developed. Its been a considerable period since I last did work like this, but unlike PCR, which didn’t exist, at least as a routine analytical approach for PhD students when I was doing my own PhD research, I did develop & use immunoassays to measure things including circulating antibodies to things, so I know how easily they can be subverted (usually by accident of course!).
I believe that these test methods could easily have been subverted. My assumption is that they have been, just as the PCR based tests were. Why would they not be?
So a claim that “there must have been a spreading virus because viral proteins were detected at such and such a date & location” or “there must have been a contagious new virus because antibodies to parts of the virus have been extremely widely reported” are both nonsense until the methods used to detect the things claimed have been pored over and shown unequivocally to be correctly set up & beyond reproach.
Anyone believe that latter scenario is likely? Or might we again detect the hidden hand of deception?
Best wishes
Mike
Here are screen grabs of the comment.
https://t.me/DrMikeYeadonsolochannel/579
Screen grabs of the comment from Sasha’s substack article
side note: For people in other languages please scroll below, we took the effort to get you Dr. Yeadon’s printed words to translate or for people to copy:
Posted here
https://t.me/DrMikeYeadonsolochannel/572
I also have not delved into the serology, the purported detection of circulating antibodies. However, unlike PCR-based methods, which didn’t exist when I was doing my PhD, I did develop & use enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISAs). The basic principle is to use the fact that antibodies can be used as components or tools in detection methods for almost anything.
I have to be exquisitely clear that I’m referring to deliberately generated antibodies as tools at this point. I am not talking about the antibodies that you & I might have made in response to some foreign substance, living or dead, that has been somehow introduced into our bodies.
As a second concept, claimed infections by the alleged virus could be supported by either of two methods.
1. Detection in blood of the virus or a viral protein such as spike.
2. Detection in blood of circulating antibodies to spike.
Completely different concepts.
To do 1, using ELISAs or a fundamentally similar approach to detect something, first you need the something that you wish to develop a method to detect.
That’s very important. You cannot create a tool to detect something without a sample of the thing to be detected.
So when we’re told, “We have detected viral infection because we’ve measured spike protein in blood samples”, ask where they got the original spike from in order to develop the test method. Obviously, they never have had it. However, they could make part of it, using the genetic sequence. But if the origins of that genetic sequence are shrouded, everything that follows from it is likewise mysterious. To measure spike in a sample, you need deliberately created antibodies to spike, which you can accomplish by injecting, say, a donkey, with your polypeptide which it is claimed is part of authentic spike. A couple of weeks later, you draw blood from the donkey and create serum by allowing it to clot & drawing up the clear serum, which contains any antibodies. Now you stick the antibodies to a plate, add a biological sample such as plasma from a human, and if there’s spike in it, that spike sticks to the donkey anti-spike antibody on the plate. You can detect that spike by using a second anti-spike antibody, classically from a different species, such as a sheep (that had also been injected with spike & serum collected). That second antibody would have had a colour-creating enzyme chemically bound to it, so that when you add your colourless starting material, colour develops in your plate only if your second antibody finds the spike bound to the first antibody, the latter itself previously stuck to the plate. So that’s one way to develop a test for eg spike protein. Do note though that we’ve only got liars word for it that what they inoculated the donkey with really was a piece of spike, itself synthesised using the dubious genetic sequence. I’ve no way to know what it is that they’re really detecting in this test. In order to qualify the test, it’s necessary to show what it doesn’t respond to & this “cross reactivity testing” has to be very thorough. If it’s not done well enough, the test will be positive, but it might be because something other than spike, circulating in your blood, stuck to the original donkey antibody. You can I think see how complicated this all is and how readily it could be deliberately subverted. Does anybody think it would NOT have been subverted in order to yield the kinds of results the perpetrators wanted to see? Note that commercial reagents could then be sold to hundreds of labs around the world. Scientists using it who are not involved in the fraud use it at face value to knock out thousands of scientific papers. The thicket of lies accumulates rapidly.
The second use is to develop methods purporting to detect antibodies to the virus, in this case viral spike protein.
Again, when we’re told “We have detected (naturally created, in your body) antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 spike protein”, a very good question is “How did you develop a test for antibodies which you say are directed to this viral protein?”
Just as with detecting spike protein itself, you need authentic spike or a part of it in order to detect circulating antibodies to spike. The purported spike this time is first stuck to the plate. Then the serum sample from a human you think might have been “infected by the virus” is added. If there are anti-spike antibodies in the sample, they’ll adhere to the spike you stuck to the plate. You then wash the plate and detect human antibodies by using a second reagent, something like enzyme labelled sheep anti-human serum (generated by inoculating sheep with any human antibody, bleeding the sheep, then labelling their antibodies).
But the claim that you’ve detected circulating antibodies in human blood samples turns exquisitely on how well you set up the method & generated the tools you’ve used. If the so-called partial viral spike protein actually contains domains to something that humans routinely encounter and might raise antibodies to, well, your “test for antibodies to spike protein” is completely subverted. Again, I ask the rhetorical question about whether there’s any chance that the liars working for the perpetrators did what they claimed is worth asking.
Personally, I do not trust the claimed methods for detecting ANY of the purported viral proteins OR claimed methods for detecting antibodies to the purported virus or viral proteins in human samples.
I think it’s naive in the extreme to read any of those papers, thinking they are measuring what is claimed to be being measured.
Now, I might have wrongly & harshly misjudged the scientists who honestly & diligently worked very carefully to develop the methods to detect various alleged viral proteins and antibodies to same.
I hope they’ll contact me, hotly to explain how there’s no doubt whatsoever that what’s being detected using those commercial kits is anything but what they say, and here are the dozens of control experiments, making that unequivocally clear, at which point I’ll prostrate myself in a grovelling apology.
Or, tumbleweed. You decide.
Best wishes,
Mike
Side note: IOJ’s comment on Sasha Latypovas same article:
“How to fake pandemics part 1 & 2 is absolutely the playbook - it is clearly what is occurring. Hands down. Thanks for sharing the truth Sasha!”
Help support IoJ’s legal mission to expose the fraud. We back up our chief scientist Dr. Yeadon’s scientific analysis and will be using it in one of the many cases against State and WHO tyranny! This mission literally cannot happen without community support & we really believe we can and will win! Thank you for your assistance in trying to get real JUSTICE!
If you haven’t signed yet- please sign the 2 notice and demands below
* If you were having trouble signing earlier, we fixed the issue & it works now on all devices!
1st action: Demand no treaty accord
If you want to take action to ensure the treaty is prevented by the WHA 77, please sign the form below which is sent to HHS who asked us to comment. They are still listening, so make some noise to be heard. The pen is mightier than the sword and we are going to slash the ridiculous dreams of the WHO to create a pandemic accord that is binding upon the states to listen to the WHO and invest in their human experimentation racket. SIGN NOW to make a real difference while they are still deciding.
Link To Sign: https://whowatch.org/sign-to-protest-who-agendas
2nd action: Demand US to not approve IHR amendments
Support our friend James Roguski and Interest of Justice’s demand to HHS and US Government to enforce article 55 of the IHR and officially notify the WHO DG Tedros that US will not approve any IHR amendments at the WHA 77
Link To Sign: https://whowatch.org/enforce-article-55-prevent-late-ihr-amendments
