EXPLOSIVE COMMENTS FROM DR. YEADON ON IVERMECTIN
What is the truth?
I have been following Dr. Michael Yeadon for some time in relation to his views on Covid-19 and the Covid-19 “vaccines” because he has impressive credentials and experience in the development of vaccines for big Pharma internationally. One would be foolish not to take note of what he has to say.
But Dr. Yeadon has recently apparently offered some explosive comments about ivermectin. CLICK HERE for a 4 min video.
Apparently, in reference to certain animal fertility studies, Dr. Yeadon said that ivermectin was a “violent fertility toxin”. Such a comment is out of character for Dr. Yeadon. The use of the word “violent” raises alarm bells - it is not a word used by toxicologists. Given the insurmountable body of evidence supporting ivermectin safety and efficacy in the management of Covid-19, why would Yeadon be making this sort of statement at this time?
To be brutally frank….. I am suspicious.
The possibilities are that Yeadon has been leaned on, or he may have a commercial conflict of interest, or his has lost his marbles or maybe his interview is an AI fake.
All I can say is that I need more information. I want to see the full toxicology study upon Yeadon bases his comments. I want to know who did the study, what are the conflicts of interests of those conducting the study and can the study results be reproduced by other researchers.
All I know so far is that rabbits were given a human equivalent of 240mg per day (10 times the recommended dose for Covid-19) for 56 days and the follow up period was relative short so we do not know if the claimed fertility impairment was short-lived or not. See Dr. Tess Lawrie’s Substack (CLICK HERE) of 16 Aug.
All I know is that ivermectin is widely used in tens of millions of Africans every week for many years to prevent serious River Blindness and there has been no hint of fertility impairment. Strange don’t you think?
Dr. Tess Lawrie has been a long-time supporter and advocate of ivermectin. For those who do not know, Tess is one of the most-experienced systematic literature reviewers anywhere. Dr. Lawrie has challenged Dr. Yeadon to debate this astounding claim. CLICK HERE to view her Substack of 20 Aug.
Dr. Lawrie has also presented fertility data from Our World in Data in her Substack of 22 August (CLICK HERE).
Much is at stake here.
Frankly, I am skeptical about Dr. Yeadon’s claim. I want to see the data. I want to see it reproduced. I want to know more. Is this a hit-job organised by big Pharma? Is it real?
Let’s wait and see if Dr. Yeadon accepts the challenge from Dr. Lawrie. My bet is on Lawrie.
DISCLAIMER:
The information and personal opinions presented in this Substack is based on or derived from sources which I believe are credible and usually reliable. Any inadvertent errors or inaccuracies in my Substacks which come to my notice will be corrected as soon as possible. I endeavour to reference any relevant published information and provide links to websites so readers can do their own research. The opinions expressed are not intended nor should they be interpreted to be medical advice. I do not accept any liability for comments placed on my Substack and my failure to respond to any potentially defamatory or contentious comment should not be taken as passive or otherwise approval by myself. I neither seek nor receive any financial compensation for my writings.
MY SUBSTACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARE FREE. I ENDEAVOUR TO BRING YOU THE TRUTH. PLEASE SHARE WITH FRIENDS AND FAMILY. THAT IS ALL I ASK.
I too follow Dr Yeadon , but I also follow Dr Tess Lawrie....She explains the study Dr Yeadon refers to and refutes it's methodology and relevence. I myself consulted the Australian DAEN on the adverse reactions to Ivermectin and they were negligible especially compared to the murderous covid poisons or " run death is near ".....given that the overdosed mice ( the same stunt used to discredit HCQ ) regained some of that lost fertility when they stopped being overdosed on ivermectin , to this layman , I'll take the risk on ivermectin over experimental gene altering poisons anyday.....and at least these two honourable scientists can be heard by all.....that is how it should be....!🙏
To add some context here, Yeadon is also now convinced that there was no novel virus involved at all in the "pandemic". He then attached Tess Lawrie for continuing to promote ivermectin because, if there was no virus, promoting anything was pointless. He claims he had challenged her to debate the issue but she no not answered any of his mails.
It might be that this ian extension of the above argument?
As an aside, I would like to see BOTH issues debated because I think he may very well be right about the lack of a novel virus. I suspect that BOTH sides of this debate might be correct because it could have been either a deliberately released RNA sequence created in a lab or the vaccine itself that was the "weapon". Certainly the first wave of deaths pre-mod-mRNA were largely iatrogenic and the major peaks in excess deaths came after the "vaccines" were released. So there might have been "something" but not a live virus or there may have been nothing. Technically both sides would be correct. Sasha Latypova got into this issue in detail in her recent post on "Anthrax is not Anthrax", which is worth the time to read carefully.