Back to Fort Fairfield Journal WFFJ-TV Contact Us
Former Pfizer V.P./CSO says;
Pandemic Has Ended
Mainstream Media Ignoring the Memo, Pushing Fear-based Narrative to Sell DNA-Altering Vaccines for Big Pharma
Without a Lockdown Exit Strategy, Governments Look Forward to Hi-Jacking
Flu Season Numbers to Artificially Stage a “Second Wave” of COVID-19
By: David Deschesne
Fort Fairfield Journal, October 7, 2020
A new paper co-written by the former V.P. and Chief Science Officer of Pfizer Global R&D has shown how the COVID-19 pandemic has effectively ended in most European counties and many of the States in the U.S.
The paper, which is being largely ignored by the establishment corporate media is entitled “How Likely is a Second Wave?” Its most recent iteration is dated September 8, 2020. The authors are Dr. Mike Yeadon, former CSO and VP, Allergy and Respiratory Research Head with Pfizer Global R&D and co-founder of Ziarco Pharma Ltd.; Paul Kirkham, Professor of Cell Biology and Head of Respiratory Disease Research Group at Wolverhampton University; and Barry Thomas, Epidemiologist.
While the work is being ignored by the establishment, the authors base their conclusions on peer-reviewed scientific literature recently published in medical journals, as well as public data from the countries’ respective health departments and have posted their work on a non-establishment website platform.1
At this point in time, the authors state that the proportion of people in the population of most countries affected early on has fallen sufficiently far that a sustained and growing outbreak of disease is no longer supported. “It is now established that at least 30% of our population already had immunological recognition of this new virus, before it even arrived,” the authors state, citing peer-reviewed research by Le Bert, Braun and Grifoni. “COVID-19 is new, but coronaviruses are not. There are at least four well characterized family members which are endemic and cause some of the common colds we experience, especially in winter. They all have striking sequence similarity to the new coronavirus.”
They suggest COVID-19 was in circulation much earlier than reported by the media. “Responses to COVID-19 have been shown in dozens of blood samples taken from donors before the new virus arrived...It had previously been suggested that pre-pandemic immune responses in circulating T-cells might have occurred following exposure to one or more of the endemic coronaviruses. Mateus, by using parts of these endemic coronaviruses which also exist within COVID-19 confirmed this.”
They note that current literature “finds that between 20% and 50% of the population display this pre-pandemic T-cell responsiveness.”
They also note how the mechanism that makes children and young adults less susceptible to COVID-19 is now understood. “To do us harm, viruses need to get inside our cells - in the case of the new virus, and at high speed, scientists determined it is an enzyme called ACE2. It turns out that the levels of ACE2 are highest in adults and much lower in children, becoming progressively lower the younger they are. That is a fortunate finding indeed, and goes some way in explaining why children have been relatively spared.”
The disease did progress rapidly around the world in Spring and Summer, 2020 but in many areas it is burning itself out. The authors state, “The most susceptible were those already elderly and/or ill, some very ill, and so we saw very high death rates initially. Once that super-susceptible group were removed from the pool of susceptible individuals by the virus, it began a slower march through everyone else, slowing all the time, as the remaining population’s susceptibility fell continually towards the herd immunity threshold. That is where our evidence indicates we are now and why the virus is disappearing from the environment.”
While skeptics may contend that “positive cases are rising” the authors point to the misapplication of the PCR testing protocol as the culprit, identifying false positives and viral particles from previous infections that are no longer viable or infectious. “The PCR test for the virus is good enough to confirm infection in someone with symptoms. ‘Is it flu or is it COVID-19?’ is a question easily answered. What it is very poor at, however, is what is being asked of it now, namely estimating the percentage of people who are currently infectious in the community...The result of continuing to use this test alone on a massive widescale screening program is inevitably to generate a high proportion of false positives.”
They point to excessive reliance on the PCR positive case numbers as detrimental to the data and health of the public. “It is not rational and may even be dangerous to use these results to drive policy. Note that recent so-called ‘spikes’ were never accompanied or followed by people getting ill, going to hospital and dying in elevated numbers. Consequently, it is possible that most of the positives from mass testing are either false positives or ‘cold positives’ (fragments of real virus which are not intact and incapable of replication or causing disease or infecting others) and therefore begs the question of whether mass-testing of patients without symptoms is in fact helpful or misleading?”
Despite the rising “positive” case numbers from the misapplied PCR tests, the authors look at the more important hospitalizations and death numbers to conclude that the population has achieved a level of herd immunity in many population centers and thus the pandemic has ended in those areas.
“It has widely been observed in all heavily infected countries in Europe and several of the US states likewise, that the shape of the daily deaths vs. time curves is similar to ours in the UK. Many of these curves are not just similar, but almost super imposable. Italy, France, Spain, Sweden and the UK, for example.”
They also point out that the government mandated lockdowns, social distancing, face masks and other non-pharmaceutical interventions appeared to have little impact on the progression of the virus. “The shape of the deaths vs. time curve implies a natural process and not one resulting mainly from human interventions, given the widely varying non-pharmaceutical interventions in those countries. Taking this and applying it more widely, the very strong similarities of UK data with that of nearby countries which employed different responses yields another conclusion - that none of the interventions altered the broad course of the pandemic event. Further, it is reasonable to conclude that the pandemic event has ended in those countries, too.”
They conclude, “The evidence we’ve presented leads us to believe there is unlikely to be a second wave and that while there have been apparent multi- ‘wave’ respiratory viruses in the past, notably 1918-20, in many cases it became clear that this was either different populations being infected at different times or in some cases multiple different organisms involved. There is no biological principle that leads us to expect a second wave based on the accumulation of data over the past six months. Instead, it is likely there will be local, small and self-limiting mini-outbreaks as areas previously unexposed come into contact with the virus.”