Saturday, April 3, 2021

Michael Yeadon 3/31interview "I no longer believe anything I hear." How bad could things get? 1 hr

 https://www.podbean.com/media/share/pb-fxdut-ff643b?utm_campaign=au_share_ep&utm_medium=dlink&utm_source=au_share

Posted by Meryl Nass, M.D. at 4:17 PM

18 comments:

Yvette said...

So his theory is that the spike protein itself may be the cause of the clotting, as a fusogenic protein (at 18m in the recording). I'm wondering why we're only hearing about the problem with the Astrazeneca. If it's because the tracking of side effects is inadequate, then it wouldn't be tracked in the AstraZ either.
Maybe it'a not being seen yet in the mRNA vaccines because not enough younger ppl have received the Pfizer/Moderna yet and the AstraZ is the most rolled out over different age groups?

April 3, 2021 at 7:53 PM
Meryl Nass, M.D. said...

During the J and J trial, clotting was noticed as the only significant possible adverse event.

The A-Z vaccine issue was picked up because there were a lot of brain clots (cavernous sinus thrmobosis aka venous sinus thrmobosis) in young people and DIC, which virtually never happens. Also there have been rare arterial clots. And the clotting was associated with low platelet counts, which is unusual. The combination was very striking.

Had there been "just" clots or the legs or even pulmonary emboli (which there have been) it might have been written off because these are relative common. Once the problem wa recognized, people looked backwards for other cases.

It appears that in the UK and US the only information provided the public about adverse events following any Covid vaccine comes from self-reports, which by their nature cannot provide a RATE of the adverse event. This has served to put a lid on a quantitative analysis of safety by anyone other than government agencies.

April 3, 2021 at 8:26 PM
ML said...

I really liked the Michael Yeadon interview except for one strange comment... he does not seem to believe the virus has been isolated as the cause of Covid-19 disease. If he had not said that, it would have been a much more acceptable interview that I would have shared. Still, I really enjoyed it. I guess he’s never seen an electron microscopy photo of the virus or maybe does not believe that those pictures are truthful proof of the virus’ existence? What do you think Meryl?

April 4, 2021 at 12:14 PM
Meryl Nass, M.D. said...

You know there is a virus. I have previously linked to photomicrographs of it.

This is the problem when we have been lied to about so many things--unless you look very deeply into a subject it is hard to know what to believe. Apparently Yeadon has not looked deeply into this subject.

Since I treated two new patients today for Covid, and many others, there is no doubt in my mind it exists, and causes a very identifiable syndrome.

April 4, 2021 at 3:25 PM
Yvette said...

Thanks Meryl - you are one of the few people who takes this nuanced approach to sorting through all the confusion. I'm wondering what you think of the Brazil variant? It's starting to spread here in Canada - it does look more serious anecdotally in BC, Canada. It's really beyond me to make sense of all the statistics in different regions with different policies, demographics, climates, etc.

April 4, 2021 at 5:01 PM
Anonymous said...

@ 30 minutes " Normally when you make a vaccine you have to have some of it—dead virus—to make it. No one has any. No one has an SARS Covid 2 virus…they haven’t isolated the virus?"

I thought China mapped the genome in January of last year--and shared it "with no strings attached"....what does he mean that no one "HAS" any of the (dead) virus?

Why DIDN'T they culture SARS COVID 2 to scale? Yeadon speculates the reason is time...takes too long. But what is he inferring here--why is it important that "they" dont' have any of the virus...? Can you clarify?

April 4, 2021 at 8:44 PM
Meryl Nass, M.D. said...

Yvette,

The mortality rate is way down. Both total deaths and deaths per case diagnosed. This tells me that the variants, which are scattered all over the US and Canada, and in regions make up the majority of the virus, are not more virulent than the old version.

It would be hard to claim the new variants are "more" infectious, since the old variants were extremely infectious. I think they are a concept that was drummed up to try and instill fear as this pandemic tails off.

There are pockets that never did get hit badly by the virus (I live in one) and we still could see peaks of infection before things peter out. The good news is that Ivermectin works no matter what variant there is.

April 4, 2021 at 8:46 PM
ML said...

Thanks for your answer, Meryl. Of course, I concur as an NP who has done nothing but research this whole thing from a year ago in January. Lots of retired time on my hands and I’ve enjoyed sharing fruitful info and helping, many people with Covid with ivermectin. All have done beautifully on it, even my 88 year old. Yeadon is an interesting fellow and he makes many good points. But I do wish people like him would leave the “maybe there is no virus” out of their talks. Then, I could more comfortably share the important points he does make, with others. The Dr. Ryan Cole talk was a really good one. Thanks so much for finding all these excellent articles you post. You a truly appreciated.

April 4, 2021 at 10:26 PM
Meryl Nass, M.D. said...

Re: Yeadon says they can't seem to find a virus--there is a powerful meme travelling across cyberspace, based on specious arguments that rely on a journalist asking the wrong FOIA question, and governments replying in such a way that it appears they have no virus. See:

https://off-guardian.org/2021/01/31/phantom-virus-in-search-of-sars-cov-2/

I have discussed this in 3 prior blog posts and had an argument with Tom Cowan and Andrew Kaufman (both ignorant MDs) about their straw man argument (that boils down to viruses do not exist) this week. It left a bad taste in my mouth. How do you argue with people who share no basic science beliefs with you?

Here are the 3 blog posts, and the comments add to the discussion:

https://anthraxvaccine.blogspot.com/2021/02/again-is-virus-real.htmlhttps://anthraxvaccine.blogspot.com/2021/02/again-is-virus-real.html

https://anthraxvaccine.blogspot.com/2020/10/the-testing-mess-lack-of-reliable-data.html

https://anthraxvaccine.blogspot.com/2021/01/is-virus-real-has-it-been-photographed.html

April 4, 2021 at 11:12 PM
Nina McDonald said...

And then there is this:
https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/california/double-mutant-covid-19-variant-found-in-the-bay-area/2567758/?_osource=taboola-recirc&fbclid=IwAR2CP4266syZjpM3h8QORLScLcgRctPYG99-EFAMlFJnrBhPcWpbHSSOC3U

April 5, 2021 at 4:34 PM
Nina McDonald said...

This article also seems to suggest that these variants are more dangerous...if what Yeadon is saying is true--that ones immunes system could still recognize these variants and defeat them--then how does this article stack up against what Yeadon says?
https://www.quantamagazine.org/how-to-understand-covid-19-variants-and-their-effects-on-vaccines-20210225/

"In addition to these specific changes, the B.1.351 and P.1 lineages also have approximately 20 additional unique mutations each. If both variants are indeed better than older viruses at escaping immunity, this could explain some of the second surge in Manaus, and it may leave previously infected individuals at risk of reinfection by these variants. Indeed, several case reports in Brazil have already documented such reinfections with variants containing the E484K mutation.

Are vaccines still effective against these variants?
Yes, but perhaps not quite as effective.

It only takes one variant replicating in the right person and in the right setting to take off and spread in the population.

In a pair of recent manuscripts, the developers of the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines examined whether antibodies from vaccinated individuals would neutralize (prevent from replicating) viruses containing mutated forms of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein in cell culture. The antibodies functioned well against a virus carrying the B.1.1.7 mutations, but neutralization was reduced when the B.1.351 mutations were introduced. However, both companies expect the vaccines to work well even against this variant; the lower level of protective antibodies is still considered enough to prevent infection."

April 5, 2021 at 5:08 PM
Meryl Nass, M.D. said...

We don't know for sure. The media are reporting that people who had covid are still susceptible to new variants. I think this would be a rare event but I can't say for certain.

After a year of fear porn, the variant issue seems like more of the same. But I might be wrong.

As I said before, it seems to me that the most productive way to manage this situation is to get yourself some medications or a friendly doc who will prescribe them if you get Covid, prepare fully with Vit D, zinc, etc., and then live your life without fear. Then one can be in a better position to evaluate the veracity of the various stories we are being presented. And determine how you want to respond.

I will not be injected with experimental and probably dangerous vaccines no matter how many venues or flights I have to miss. That is the hill I die on. If enough people felt the same way, that would be the end of these vaccine passports and mandates: the airlines and the venues need our dollars to survive. Government helicopter money isn't forever for them.

April 5, 2021 at 10:09 PM
Anonymous said...

The main rational for questioning the virus’s existence is that the supposed genome was only registered in a gene bank upon testing a lung wash of ONE PATIENT in Wuhan, a lung wash which is a mix of many things…tested by metagenomics that only uses primers and tries to fill in the rest from a data base of previous bugs on a computer system, not a de novo sequencing of biologic material (see Zhang et al). Since Sars-Cov-2 is a new bug there cant be a reference in the data base. Metagenomics is only to tell if previously well-characterized organisms are in a sample-so this is a no-no and a fudged start. There was no centrifuge density gradient to separate the contents (assuming you can trust China to be honest with intellectual property to begin with) and see which isolate band caused illness. So when anything is referenced to the “genome” like the PCR test, then it’s referencing this computer made-up genome, not a bug proven to cause illness in a person, and since the PCR test can be positive for many erroneous reasons, none the least cross-over reaction to Flu A&D, Adeno, RSV (see PCR test manuals), we are only looking for what is said to look for, e.g., Sars-Cov-2, not what a person has. The genome could just as well been pre-made in a computer registry and the lung-wash just a story.

The FDA states it had no isolates, the CDC only had unpurified cell-cultures (all just PCR +), the China CDC director said on video “the problem is that the virus has never been isolated”, and FOIA request to dozens of health authorities about the Pfizer vax state that the vax is not based on a genome isolated from an infected person.Writing to biotech firms like BEI Resources about their "Covid-isolates" they will state these are non-purified cell cultures (e.g., no density gradient isolation).

About EM photos, they look like a corona virus, but there are lots of Corona around, it doesn’t prove it’s Sars-Cov-2, nor the cause of a particular patient’s illness. It’s like a photo of a snake and writing “poisonous snake” as the caption with no analysis of the make up of the snake or it’s venom. Most people don't read the first paper from Wuhan, nor bother to see what metagenomics is about. Thank you for considering my comment.

May 17, 2021 at 7:13 AM
Meryl Nass, M.D. said...

While Drosten designed the first PCR test he did not design all the subsequent ones. Currently there are 270 different PCR tests offered in the US, which use a variety of gene targets. Previously there were over 300. Your generalizations do not apply to most of them.

That said, there are many ways a PCR test can yield an erroneous result.

CDC, FDA and commercial labs now have thousands of isolate to choose from.

Density gradients are one old method to separate things but there are many others.

May 17, 2021 at 9:05 AM
Anonymous said...

Thanks for reading my comment. I would say that metagenomics is the root of the entire problem because it gets a genome out of thin air. I honestly appeal to everyone to read the Zhang paper on the first case and what metagenomics is and isn't (see Science Direct for example).

About the many isolates, I wrote to BEI Resources, just about the biggest maker of Covid“isolates”, they replied:

---------------------
None of these products are really purified. Each of the virus strains are provided as cell lysate and supernatant. They definitely will not have been separated into density gradients and this is not something we would have tested for during the course of the normal QC and Authentication testing for these items.

Walter Usener

BEI Resources
Customer/Technical Services
Administered by ATCC
10801 University Blvd
Manassas Virginia, 20110-2209
Email: Contact@BEIResources.org
Phone: 800-359-7370
--------------------------

So, as I say they say, they can't really confirm what's in it, and it is Covid only because a PCR maps positive to it, which doesnt mean much.

For the best debunkng of Drosten, see Exhibit B here for the technical details, besides the fact that Drosten is on the Board of the journal he published this in.

There is no shame in not knowing about metagenomics deeply, in fact, if Yeadon knew about the sham metagenomics gives thru the company that did it called Illumina, then he wouldn't have had to spend so much time debunking the PCR as it becomes a moot point. It all boils down to a genome registered in a gene bank on paper-because that's the only thing we have, and a PCR test that maps to that, then the rest is easy, just call every other ill person a confirmed Covid case when the PCR maps positive.

You may not like what I'm writing, I'm sorry it's nothing personal, I don't even know you, but neither you, nor Yeadon, nor Fauci, nor anyone anywhere has a purified (separated) and pathogen proving isolate of Covid-19. Try to call a place or researcher and see for yourself.They call many non-purified things isolates but when you read the methods they are not or it doesn't say. Be well.

May 17, 2021 at 10:36 AM
Meryl Nass, M.D. said...

While I am not a PCR expert, I do use PCR tests (for example, for Lyme disease). My colleague Sin Hang Lee, former professor of Pathology at Yale, is a bench scientist who owns his own lab, which specializes in PCR testing, Milford Molecular Diagnostics. I did perform density gradient tests 45 years ago, when I worked at the John Curtin School of Medical Research in the Immunology Department.

Sin agrees with me that in fact, SARS-CoV-2 has been isolated, grown, tested. And it is from these thousands of isolates that companies have developed targets, primers and probes for their different PCR tests.

I am not saying all these tests give accurate results, not by any means.

What I am saying is that cars beta coronaviruses causing Covid have been isolated from sick patients, grown, separated, purified, and used to develop tests, treatments like monoclonal antibodies, etc.

What Walter Usener, a customer service rep seems to be saying is that in the material sold by BEI, the virus has not been separated from the cell culture debris in which it was grown.

Why is this surprising, as long as it has been separated from all other viruses and bacteria?

Meryl

May 17, 2021 at 11:43 AM
Anonymous said...

No, I asked BEI if Sars-Cov-2 was separated and purified to then put in a cell culture, and they say no it was not.

The CDC claimed isolate was based on one-patient from this CDC paper which only did a cell-culture, no isolation:

https:// wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/ article/26/6/pdfs/20-0516.pdf

Please give a link for a commercial seller of PURIFIED and SEPARATED sars-cov-2 isolate, and write to them asking how they purified it. This has already been closely investigated, none are such. If there were purified isolates it would be found there is no real genome that matches the one in the gene bank put there by a computer at Illumina Inc.There are none because Sars-Cov-2 is a genome only on paper.Many research groups would then try to replicate this and the whole narrative would crumble, that's why there are only PCR positive non "isolates". PCR is only a primer test with huge problems in every aspect, see Yeadon's Exibit 2. Not sure your site gets links, you'd need to close the spaces in the links above. Regards

May 17, 2021 at 8:02 PM
Meryl Nass, M.D. said...

I appreciate that you and a few other people think that, on the basis of answers you have been given by customer service reps and government flunkies, you can take down the entire Covid mess.

You have failed to ask the thousandss of scientists who did the isolating how they did it.

And instead of spending time taking down the Covid hoax by undermining the hoaxers, you come to my blog. Why?

Not a single one of the several people who have tried these specious arguments on me have probably ever been in the same room with a PCR machine. It is a virus, it causes a disease, and wishing it isn't won't make it so. Aller vite, s'il vous plais.

May 17, 2021 at 8:53 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)