Jessica Hockett, PhD
I appreciate comments on one of my posts earlier this week made by Dr. Mike Yeadon regarding transmission of respiratory illness, flu shot efficacy, and Gain-of-Function research. I think readers will appreciate his perspective too – even if they see things differently. Dr. Yeadon is former Pfizer executive who, like myself (and others), holds a ‘No Pandemic’ view.
Yeadon wrote:
Where it comes to acute respiratory illnesses, the published clinical efforts intended to demonstrate that transmission of the symptoms of illness from a sick person can occur to a well person have all failed, from 1918 to 2024.
These illnesses are not contagious.
Influenza of course exists. However, it’s not contagious nor is it infectious (the latter follows from the former).
“Flu vaccines” are a multi decade fraud. They don’t help, because these illnesses aren’t caused by airborne, submicroscopic, infectious particles termed “viruses”. In this sense, there’s no scientific evidence for their existence. Every “pillar” that is claimed to show that they do exist is also fraud.
Given the basic premises of the pathology of the postulated agent, SARS-CoV-2, are fundamentally the same as never-identified “influenza viruses”, it is reasonable to expect the same, real-world correlates, ie none.
It doesn’t exist independently of a computer sequence database.
“Covid19”, the new illness, does not exist. “Vaccines” against the non-existence, claimed cause of the illness, are illogical and do not have any beneficial effects.
I did not expect that they would. All mRNA- and DNA-based injections were expected to trigger a range of illnesses, dominated by autoimmune disorders and other toxicities arising from the nucleic acids inherently as well as from other components such as lipid nanoparticles.
Finally, it’s illogical to be concerned about “gain of function” research in this field, because there’s no starting point to modify.
GOF does exist as a fairly routine molecular biological technique, accompanied by its opposite, Loss of Function. These are endpoints observed after editing a genetic sequence of a known gene, who’s mechanism of action and role in health and disease we’re trying to understand.
I replied:
Thanks for your comments, Mike.
I agree where it concerns the things I’ve learned or read about.
When you say, “Influenza of course exists,” you mean the collection of symptoms we think of as influenza, yes?
As far as I can tell, it seems the answer to “Can scientists gain function in a thing by altering the structure of the thing?” is no. Function is lost and/or cannot be sustained.
To which he responded,
Yes, influenza is a real illness, which varies tremendously in its presentation and symptoms. It’s simply not infectious in nature nor contagious.
Exactly what it is is not known. I’ve speculated on my Substack that it’s a consequence of losing control of the complex, lifelong, dynamic equilibrium of managing airway surface liquid. When that’s disrupted, we go through an acute response then a healing sequence.
On Gain (or Loss) of Function, it’s a well recognised technique in molecular biology, used to probe and try to understand the function of genes and gene products.
I agree it’s not possible to add complex functions like transmission & hijacking cellular functions to sequences not associated with any of these things.
Leave a Reply