"No Evidence Whatsoever for an Infectious Entity"

More dialogue with Dr. Mike Yeadon

To further encourage substantive dialogue, I am once again sharing an exchange between myself and

Dr Mike Yeadon

. (If you missed the first time, see here.)

Responding to a reader comment on my second e-letter to Clare Craig, I said,

Although Clare Craig uses the word "spread," her hypothesis MIGHT be better-captured as involving dispersal, expiration, and "circulation." (I don't want to put words into her mouth - which is an impetus for initiating the conversation.)

Laying aside the bigger scientific question about what viruses are or aren't, those who hold a Lab Origin view should be able to explain what they think happened on the events and physics side.

I tried to address this in an article in December:

Do the Origins of SARS-CoV-2 Matter?

Robert Kogon has argued (and I think he's mostly correct) that Lab Origin = deliberate planning/release. Like Clare, he has demurred on proposing mechanisms or scenarios.

Among the popularized academics with a 'Next Pandemic' view, Sunetra Gupta is the most logically consistent of anyone who holds a natural origins perspective. That doesn't mean I agree with her - I don't. But the intellectual consistency and depth of her position is strong.

Sunetra Gupta's View on the Origins of SARS-CoV-2 and the 'Threat' Posed by Gain-of-Function Research

[As] far as I can tell, Clare differs substantially from Gupta with respect to what Gain of Function research is able to produce. Clare Craig’s and Robert Kogon's arguments would be stronger if they posited direct and plausible mechanisms for the agent named SARS-CoV-2 getting from a lab(s) to everywhere else - and did so in a manner mindful of on-the-ground events and timeline.

Dr Yeadon replied via Note,

I’m an outlier, then. I see no evidence whatsoever for an infectious entity.

Not even any evidence of a new, defined illness.

There’s a lot of clever deception with “sequencing” which virtually none of us understands, me included. But this “evidence” is often cited as proving something arrived & moved around. I think it’s fraud. Knowing deception. I think the same about “tests for anti-virus antibodies”.

So few people even understand the bones of these technologies. Mostly the tests are performed centrally or involve reference to a central database. We don’t know the sequences of the “bait” in the tests (used in sequencing and in PCR based “tests”). We don’t know the antigen used to raise antibodies (which are used in antisera tests).

Full sequence evaluation claims to the original “virus” I think I have an outline understanding of how they use “contigs” and “assembler software”, including provision of “templates”, asking the program to find the best fit of all the contigs to create a full length sequence something like the template.

The entire affair is a long planned crime, and not a single component has been left to chance.

What definitely didn’t happen is some infectious sequence got into the population and spread round the world, because that doesn’t happen (the spreading part at least). Several molecular biologists have pointed out that even if you constrain copying of mRNA, you get poor fidelity copying even in a test tube. The idea that a code for the claimed largest sequence “virus” ever claimed, 1273 residues, as “SARS-Cov-2” is supposed to be is copied from person to person with 99.999% fidelity is literally not possible. We can’t do this in totally controlled settings.

It’s all a planned crime, so I’m looking for evidence of criminal activity in all the component parts. Whenever I get to the bottom of a component, all I find is deception, every time.

My reply, also via Note (and enhanced here with things I referenced):

No, you’re not an outlier.

I don’t see evidence for one. I make allowances for the idea that the appearance of one in certain places could be created using means in addition to PCR “tests.”

I see no evidence of a new, defined illness either – and have said so repeatedly.

I have also said and shown how the testing was used to create an illusion. People can watch a presentation I gave to

PANDA

in May 2023 (which Clare Craig attended) wherein I highlighted the best study there is for showing that this was done. Martin Neil and Jonathan Engler later included the study in an article, I have multiple threads about it (example) and footnotes in articles (example). Jonathan Engler also wrote a piece with it. Illusion with H1N1 shown in figures 6-9 here.

Then there’s this set of graphs I’ve shown repeatedly. I don’t know what else to say.

Retro sero-testing samples for coronavirus is a fool’s errand for many reasons – including those you cited. I understand why people have pointed to certain studies involving specimens/wastewater from 2019 – because I used to do the same thing, albeit from a different orientation. But this too has served the perpetrators because it feeds the “new thing and we need to build herd immunity” side of a false binary we were given in early 2020.

“What definitely didn’t happen is some infectious sequence got into the population and spread round the world, because that doesn’t happen (the spreading part at least).” I concur. 🎯

However, many do not concur - including Clare - which does not make her a bad person - or me a bad person for challenging her view.

She and others assert SARS-CoV-2 was manmade. She says she believes it spread via the air, etc. Okay, how did it get from the place it was manmade to the air? I’m not trolling; I genuinely don’t grasp the physics of the proposition, especially alongside contemporaneous events and time series data. Data fraud, of course, makes all things possible, but that’s not an idea Lab Origin advocates advance.

Yes to “the entire affair is a long planned crime, and not a single component has been left to chance,” but I would add that no heist is error-free and there were MANY things TPTB did not account for or plan on happening. We may not agree on what those things are, but that’s largely a matter of opinion and non-critical debate points at this juncture.

Unlike you (for example) I believe they DID plan for/expect the COVID shot to take blame and are relatively fine with the ‘dissident’ focus on COVID shot harms. I could be wrong.