How I Was Greeted by Mike Yeadon, Ex-Pfizer Pharmacologist

Reader email:

Hi Jeff,

I think you may like to comment on this article as it seems to reflect the confusion growing amongst many now who are sincere about the need to look closer at the recent covid event but not taking a more objective look at the nature of the virus?

Mike Yeadon recently released an article along with co-author Tim West about Jamie Andrew’s No-Virus control ‘studies.’ I wrote about those experiments here: Jamie Andrew's Cell Culture Falsehoods

A long and dedicated reader of my work emailed me to inform me of Yeadon’s article and recommended that I should comment on the article to bring awareness to some of Jamie’s falsehoods. Below, you will read the main comment I left. Unfortunately, my comment and replies were deleted, so I will be quoting my texts as they appeared.

My initial comments:

Firstly, Massey’s FOI requests are deliberately misleading. They are crafted in such a way as to ensure negative results, rendering them meaningless. These requests should be dismissed for what they are: irrelevant. The actual evidence lies in the studies themselves, along with the credibility of the authors and the institutions behind them.

---

In a separate comment on FOI request falsehoods:
FOI requests function similarly to police reports: information must be requested appropriately. For instance, if you ask whether there are any virus studies that do not use fetal bovine serum, the response will likely be negative because most virus studies use some form of growth medium that includes bovine serum. Massey’s FOI requests are therefore dishonest.

---

“The cytopathic effect occurs exactly the same if no sample of a 'virus-containing sample' is added to the stressed, starved, poisoned (usually monkey kidney cell) tissue culture.”

This statement is entirely inaccurate. Jamie Andrew’s cell culture 'experiments' have repeatedly been exposed as misrepresentations, not only by me but also by other microbiologists and virologists who are well-versed in virology. Spontaneous cytopathic effects (CPE) do not occur in cell cultures unless those cells contain retroviruses [or similar types of viruses, latent or otherwise] that become active or there is contamination. Apart from these scenarios, cytotoxicity resulting from starvation does not produce viral CPE. Jamie Andrews and his colleagues have grossly misrepresented their results. Additionally, no chemical analysis was conducted on the samples to substantiate the outcomes they claim. The same issues are present in Lanka's experiments, which this study attempts to replicate. Both experiments are fundamentally flawed and should not be taken seriously.

“and ’found’ every single virus they looked for: measles, HIV, SARS-CoV-2…”

These viruses were never actually found in Jamie's controls. The Contract Research Organization (CRO) was instructed to identify objects that, at a superficial glance, might resemble these viral particles. However, none of these particles actually resemble viruses, and there is no supporting evidence to substantiate their identification as such. Furthermore, as mentioned, no chemical analysis was performed to verify these claims. These are enveloped viruses, which can sometimes be mistaken for vesicles. Jamie Andrews and his team exploit this fact, knowing their audience may not be aware that thousands of other non-enveloped viruses exist, with clear and distinct structures that cannot be mistaken for anything other than viruses.

In response to these messages, I soon received a response on my own Substack from Tim West.

---

---

I also responded to a commenter by refuting the claim that graphene oxide was present in any recent or past vaccines. Subsequently, Mike Yeadon asked for evidence to support my statements. The 2nd paragraph is my response.

Graphene is not in any of the vaccines. Again, this is a false claim made by fearmongers with zero evidence. Claims suggesting otherwise are based on misinformation and lack credible scientific evidence.

---

Extensive analyses and regulatory reviews conducted by health authorities, including the FDA and EMA, have not identified graphene or graphene oxide in the vaccines. Claims suggesting otherwise are based on misinformation and lack credible scientific evidence.

Commenting on the nature of virus purity and cell cultures:

Isolation does not mean purifying a substance to 100% purity. It never has, and it never will. Particles are purified to a level suitable for the specific research topic or area of study. Different research areas require varying levels of purity: higher purity is necessary for nucleic acid testing, while structural studies generally require less stringent purity.

---

Cells in culture do not die quickly unless they are deprived of nutrients or subjected to other harmful conditions. In virological research, cells are maintained under conditions that allow them to remain alive and produce viruses. Additionally, live tissue is routinely used in virological studies to investigate viruses using living tissue samples, making the claim about cell death or the use of dead tissue irrelevant.

---

The argument is flawed because cells in culture continue to produce proteins, including viral proteins, as long as they are provided with adequate nutrients to sustain their functions. Your assertion is incorrect. Cells do not live indefinitely; they have a finite lifespan, which is why research is conducted within a specific timeframe to ensure that the cells used are still viable. A dead cell cannot produce viruses because it has lost its capacity for protein synthesis.

---

They do not simply add substances to a mixture of dead tissue. Instead, they introduce purified viruses, which have been centrifuged and filtered, to a specific cell line known to be receptive to that type of virus through extensive scientific testing. In microbiology, "isolation" does not imply 100% purity.

After making these comments, as previously mentioned, Tim West proceeded to leave multiple vulgar comments on my Substack page. Due to his violation of my commenting rules, he was promptly banned, and his comments were removed. In retaliation, he blocked me from Mike Yeadon’s Substack and removed my comments. Subsequently, Mike Yeadon also blocked me from his page. This illustrates how No-Virus suppress any viewpoints that challenge their own. You see, Mike Yeadon and No-Virus must squash any opposing views other than their own. Exposing their audience to different viewpoints would be dangerous to their narrative and to their motives.

This, dear readers, is precisely why I disregard much of the ‘constructive critiques’ that attempt to dictate how I should manage my page or approach various issues. While such advice may come from a place of good intention, those offering it often lack awareness of the totality of challenges I have faced over the past five years in trying to shed light on these subjects, and therefore, like to judge me on my tact. Myself and others have faced relentless attacks because we pose a legitimate threat to the No-Virus narrative. We have been relentlessly targeted from all angles. Jeremy Hammond, whom I consider an acquaintance, has experienced similar attacks. Such people offering their ‘advice’ are unaware of just how radical and unhinged these people are, rendering your tact—no matter how well-reasoned and presented—as virtually meaningless.

---

Gaslighting in action:

Yeadon writes this in his article, and Andrews comments later in the comment section:

---

Jeff Green