Dr Mike Yeadon’s testimony is missing from Andrew Bridgen’s Parliamentary event
HART was all set to review the event held by Andrew Bridgen at Parliament’s Portcullis House yesterday evening, however Independent journalist Sonia Elijah has done such a good job that it seems silly to double up! Visit/follow Sonia’s substack for the full rundown.
A stand-out point from the evening was that made with passion by Steve Kirsch, regarding the release of Record Level Data from all vaccinating nations. The audio can be heard in the tweet below:
Westminster: @stkirsch @drcole12 @RWMaloneMD @PierreKory Dr Angus Dalgleish & Dr David Martin hosted by @ABridgen— HART (@hartgroup_org) December 5, 2023
"A message to all the world's governments.. release the covid shot Record Level Data now.. why are you keeping this information secret?" @ONS ? @GOVUK ? pic.twitter.com/tVX6FykLeG
Dr Mike Yeadon was unable to attend the event in person, but had provided a pre-recorded testimony. As it transpired, his address could not be played due to ‘technical difficulties’. It arrived safely on a laptop, but Andrew Bridgen announced that we were not able to hear it because ‘the television had been muted and they did not have the remote control’. As ‘the dog ate my homework’ excuses go, this one was pretty poor. Couldn’t one of the many people there to help have popped out to ask a staffer to find a remote?
HART is a great believer that people should not be censored for their views. Open debate is fundamental to a working democracy and to science. However, that does not mean that we all have to agree. Not everyone in HART agrees with all the points Dr Yeadon raises.
In the spirit of free speech, we would like to share Dr Yeadon’s unheard address:
Boom!! 🚨🚨🚨— aussie17 (@_aussie17) December 5, 2023
Dr. Mike Yeadon's address to the Members of UK Parliament (4 December 2023)
Hello. My name is Dr. Mike Yeadon. Probably know by now that I'm a career research scientist and biologist. I've worked in the… pic.twitter.com/WNM1xp2YB5
In terms of the content, there are a couple of points made here that we feel are not verifiable.
1. “The design of the so called vaccines was intentionally to harm people” and he calls them “intentionally toxic.” Dr Yeadon is right that the people designing the product would have known that cell sacrifice was an intergral part of their design. Many people were involved in the design and many of these people seemed to think sacrifice was necessary because they’d been terrified into believing there was a high mortality risk from covid.
2. “Not a single atom or molecule in a synthetic drug is in there by luck.” What was intended to be in the drug was not there by luck, but as Dr Yeadon points out later, “the methods development alone for the development of a reproducible manufacturing process itself takes a number of years.” The manufacturing was such that there were significant contaminants and degradation of the RNA which meant unknown proteins would be produced alongside the spike proteins.
3. “Denis Rancourt’s data shows that the all cause mortality evidence data did not increase at all in the run up to the Declaration.” While this is true there have been numerous covid-labelled death surges across the world which also appeared out of the blue. Like other coronaviruses, SARS-CoV-2 surges in response to a seasonal trigger. HART agrees that there absolutely were excess deaths due to the unprecedented policies put in place at the time. People within HART do not all agree on what proportion of excess deaths can be attributed to virus versus policies (including with how people with an acute infection were treated). It is an important point for debate.
4. “An inappropriate fraudulent PCR test was used to give people the impression that they had a particular disease where they didn’t. They were all normal diseases.” PCR testing certainly resulted in overdiagnosis. Swapping out one causative virus for another could arguably be regarded as a new disease, however, the big picture suggests that in regard to acute respitatory infections as a whole, covid was similar to previous bad influenza seasons e.g. 1989, 1991, 2000.
5. “Lipid nanocarriers deposit their cargo, preferentially in the ovaries.” Lipid nanoparticles were designed to reach every cell of the body so they could replace genes missing in patients that needed gene therapy. The biodistribution studies do indeed show concentration in the ovaries, along with liver, adrenal glands and spleen at 48 hours but no studies have been carried out beyond that time point.
6. “17 million of whom have died so far.” This analysis included all excess – every covid-labelled death and every policy induced death after vaccination was rolled out. It therefore cannot be said to all be down purely to the vaccines. In the absence of the political response one must ask if we would have had any of this excess mortality? Denis Rancourt points out that there was a tight correlation between vaccine waves and excess mortality waves. Vaccination does indeed lead to immune suppression which increases the risk of infection and therefore transmisison to others. However, vaccine waves were also diven by politicians in respone to covid waves. The “17 million deaths caused by vaccines” claim is hyperbole that just increases polarisation in the same way the “20 million deaths caused by covid” claim did. The former is at least based on real world data but assumes there was no excess caused by any other aspects of the response. Given the ongoing increased mortality we may yet reach that figure but there is certainly uncertainty about how many have died because of vaccines at this point in time.
Censorship is not something we support at HART. If Dr Yeadon is wrong, engage in the debate to explain how and why. If he is right, the public deserve to know. This is how science should work.
One can argue endlessly about details and intent of the covid era, but one thing seems increasingly obvious: the public were sold a lie of gargantuan proportions from start to finish.