Dr. Michael Yeadon (Former Pfizer Chief Scientist) Warns Pregnant Women of the Dangers of Taking The Experimental COVID Vaccine

Study on women showed “vaccine induced autoimmune attack, on their own placenta.”

Dr. Michael Yeadon, a former Chief Scientist and VP of the Allergy and Respiratory Unit of Pfizer, has been very outspoken in his assessment of these “vaccines”, and has called this agenda out several times for being deliberate crimes against humanity. The following video below is an explanation and warning to people – specifically for women who are pregnant or who are of child-bearing potential, to avoid these dangerous injections.

Source: bitchute | WHAT IS TRUTH?/WAS IST WAHRHEIT? |

The following text is transcribed from the above video with some embellishment added for emphasis. All words are from Dr. Michael Yeadon.

“You’re being lied to. I’m being lied to. We’re not being treated like adults. And the authorities are not giving us full information about the, the risks of these products. And so I’m going to try and do a non-science presentation, um, because I really want to speak to you who are probably not scientists. You’ll be a lay audience. So I’m going to do my best.

So, uh, three things to tell you about my concerns about the impact of these vaccines in reproductive health, fertility and pregnancy.

The first thing, is so obvious, that you’ll agree with me when I tell you. And that’s, we never, EVER, give experimental medicines to pregnant women. Why do we not do that? Well, you’ll probably will have heard of the word ‘thalidomide’. 60 years ago, through, I think an ignorant failure of medicines regulation, we were more exposed to a new product for morning sickness called thalidomide. And it led to at least 10,000 birth malformations. And we didn’t know at the time, that the studies they were doing at the time simply wouldn’t pick out thalidomide as the actual toxin in the womb.

And I think it also taught us that babies are not safe and protected inside the uterus, which is what we used to think. But in fact, there are a miracle of minute development, critical stages, especially in the early stages, where if they interfered with biochemicals or something else, it can change the course of development to that child irreparably.

So that’s the thing to tell you. You never ever give, really inadequately tested medicines, medicinal products, to a pregnant woman. And that’s exactly what is happening. Our government is urging pregnant women, and women of child-bearing age, to get vaccinated. And they’re telling them they’re safe. And that’s a lie. Because those studies have simply not been done.

So reproductive toxicology has not been undertaken with any of these products. Certainly not a full battery of tests that you would want. So here we are, dosing potentially hundreds of millions of women of child-bearing potential, with products which are untested in terms of impacts on fertilization and development of a baby. That’s bad enough, because what that tells me is that there’s recklessness; no one cares. The authorities do not care what happens. But it’s much worse than that. And remember, I’m a toxicologist as well as a research scientist.

Two things to tell you.

The first only came to light because of a Freedom of Information request made by somebody to the Japanese medicines regulator. So the Japanese medicines regulator had required Pfizer to do a study where they looked at how the vaccine distributed around the body, in this case of a rat, over time. It’s a distribution pharmacokinetic study. And they were not required in America or Europe, because that’s not what you do with vaccines. Another – for another day. But the Japanese regulators required it.

Now I’ve seen a copy of that report, and I’m entirely able to read and interpret it. And to my horror, what we find is the vaccine doesn’t just distribute around the body and then wash out again. Which is what you hope. It concentrates in ovaries of rats. And it concentrates, at least, twenty-fold over the concentration in other background tissues like muscles.

Um, what’s it doing there? Well I don’t know. You don’t want this product in your ovaries. It’s simply not necessary to induce immunity to have a vaccine in your ovaries. And, as it’s concentrating in the ovaries, getting higher concentrations over time, they have not even defined what the maximum levels are or when that occurs.

So, so now we’ve got a second problem; that the vaccine, at least in rats, distributes in the ovaries. And I’ll tell you, a general rule of thumb in toxicology, is if you don’t have any data to counter contradict what you’ve learned, that’s the assumption you make for humans. So my assumption at the moment, is that’s what’s happening to every female who’s been given these vaccines. These vaccines are concentrating in her ovaries.

That’s very worrying. So we don’t know what that will do, but it cannot be benign. And it could be seriously harmful. Because the vaccines will then express the coronavirus spike protein and we know that there are unwanted biologies from that spike proteins. That’s the second one.

I’ve got another one now, and it’s even worse! Because it’s actually, this time an experiment in humans. In females.

I wrote with a German doctor 8 months ago, a petition to the European Medicines Agency. And amongst several concerns we had, one was that the spike protein is faintly similar, not very strongly, but faintly similar to an essential protein in your placenta. Something that’s absolutely required for both fertilization and formation and maintenance of the placenta. So you can’t get pregnant and have a successful pregnancy if this protein is damaged in any way. And we noticed that the coronavirus spike protein is similar. Similar enough that I would worry.

And I wanted them to do some experiments, hopefully to rule out the possibility that when you vaccinate the person, who then makes spike proteins, and they develop an immune response against this spike protein; my worry was that there would be an echo. You know. A faint signal that would potentially bind this similar protein in the placenta. And the studies just came out a few weeks ago and it says, exactly, what I was worried about.

15 women were given Pfizer vaccines, they drew blood samples every few days, and they measured antibodies against the spike protein; which took several weeks to appear. They also measured antibodies against the placenta. And they found within the first 1-4 days an increase of two and a half to three times – a 300% increase, in the antibodies against their own placenta. In the first 4 days. Um, so, I’m sorry to say this, but that is a vaccine induced autoimmune attack, on their own placenta.

And I think you can only expect that that is happening in every woman of child-bearing potential, is generating antibodies against this critical protein required for fertilization and successful pregnancy. Now, what the effect will be we can’t be certain. Again it can’t be benign. I don’t know whether it’s enough to cause first trimester losses. But I would think it would, because I’ve looked at the literature, and women who are unfortunate enough to have what are called autoimmune diseases, tend to have a higher rate of first trimester losses. And what this vaccine’s done is induced an autoimmune response.

So, I’m here to warn you that if you are of child-bearing potential, or younger – so, not at menopause, I would strongly recommend you do not accept these vaccines. Thank you.”

Thank you to Dr. Michael Yeadon for bringing this awareness and research to the forefront and warning people of the potential dangers to this COVID vaccine.

I also want to point out that most vaccine trials take 10-15 years, if not more, to determine safety and efficacy. Yet with the COVID vaccine, it was developed in 2 MONTHS since word of the outbreak hit (some sources are claiming it is because of the wonderful advancements being made in tech and the “stupendous foresight of the NIH” to predict a similar outbreak would happen… if that’s what you would like to believe…) and the clinical trials started soon after. With emergency authorized use only, NOT APPROVED, 9 months later.

With this in mind, even if it becomes “approved” – in which this little caveat has caused more drama and confusion than what was necessary – are we going to still continue to trust the FDA, the CDC, NIH, NIAID on these incredibly unnecessary vaccines, when we can now see the results of this rushed mRNA/spike protein experiment? Not to mention, there are treatment regiments available that are KNOWN to treat this illness, in which the EUA would not be required since under their own regulations they state:

“Under an EUA, FDA may allow the use of unapproved medical products, or unapproved uses of approved medical products in an emergency to diagnose, treat, or prevent serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions when certain statutory criteria have been met, including that there are no adequate, approved, and available alternatives.”https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/vaccines/emergency-use-authorization-vaccines-explained

Doctors have proven, IN COURT, that Ivermectin, an already approved medicine, works and nutraceutical bundles are beneficial in treating these respiratory syndromes. Yet they are being SUPPRESSED by the very health agencies that are promoting vaccines every where we turn, even though the vaccines are not approved and are causing thousands upon thousands of side effects and deaths.

Please do your research and use critical thinking and discernment. Doctors like Michael Yeadon get nothing from trying to save your life and help you (except censorship and ridicule from the mainstream media and big tech platforms) and shows genuine concern for our well-being. While pharmaceutical companies have gained BILLIONS from pushing these experimental vaccines onto the population.

Thank you again to all of the sincere doctors/scientists/healthcare workers/researchers who are bringing all of this information to light.

Genesis 2: Adam and Eve

Earnest Examination

To start, I’ve realized that I have never read the Bible front to back, and so would like to remedy that. On some of my posts, I quote from the Bible, which I feel is a little insincere if I’m not going to study the whole Bible. So this is my chance to get closer to the Word and really understand the book that I occasionally quote from. 

Originally, I was going to start with the New Testament as a friend has advised me to do, since when I started on the Old Testament I kept getting hung up on what I saw at the time were contradictions, and baseless wickedness and corruption. It repelled me from the Bible. She mentioned that that is exactly why Jesus Christ came. To do away with the “old” ways and bring about a new, better way of living. Which is to love and care about one another. The reason the Old Testament is so important is so that we know the conditions of how the world used to be, before Jesus Christ arrived to show us a more peaceful and loving way to be. 

Now that I feel I may have a better understanding of this, I am compelled to start from “The Beginning“, both literally and figuratively. After having attempted Matthew 3, I realize that I am constantly having the urge to go back through the Bible to check references and names, etc. Since my desire is to take this one step at a time and build upon the knowledge based upon the timeline laid out before us in the Bible, I have decided to revisit the time I tried to read the Bible front to back, and see if my old views still stand. 

Make no mistake, I will still have questions and ponderings about why God decided to do the things He’s done (and of course more questions on top of that), but I have learned not to condemn or judge such actions since I do feel some things are beyond our understandings and it is not my place to judge. I will try my best to look at it from an unbiased and simply curious, thoughtful mind. 

To lay it out in a way that I can manage, I have highlighted the texts of verses that I either don’t understand or have a comment or question about in yellow. And the comments I’ve left beneath it will be of a smaller font and using brown text.

I would love it if you’d join me in this journey and if you have any insights and/or knowledge of these chapters/verses etc., please feel free to share with me and the other readers. Any chance to get a clearer understanding of the Bible and Jesus Christ would be welcomed with open arms.

All verses used are from biblestudytools.com (NIV) Genesis 2
1 Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array.
2 By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work.
3 Then God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.

I find it interesting that in the Christianity beliefs, this Holy Day is Sunday (which some scholars attribute to being from a pagan tradition – as in worshipping the sun). Yet in other religions, they observe the day as being on Saturday (also has its roots in paganism – the worship of Saturn) and even on Friday. When one chooses to attempt to look into these details about what day the true holy day is, it is met with a ton of references to pagan practices and mythology as well. Some hypothesize that the Bible is merely a retelling of ancient myths (Sumerian, Greek, Roman, Egyptian, etc.) with some alterations/additions.
To dig deep into the similarities and differences between all of these religious cultures would send you down a rabbit hole and, at least for me, leave me with more questions than answers. The only thing I can say for myself is to have faith and keep a good heart and to keep a relationship with God. I think as long as people are doing their best, God knows what’s in our hearts, and He is loving and forgiving. He knows that there is a lot of misleading and misinformation going on, but the key is to not give up and to keep searching and praying and work on our soul development. (at least in my beliefs)

Adam and Eve

4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, when the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.
5 Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth and no plant had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground,
6 but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground.
7 Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

There are also interesting myths and re-tellings of the creation of man. It ranges from anywhere between the Blackfoot (Old Man) legend – which states that the first people were a woman and her son, created out of clay, to Norse mythology – the first man (Ask(r)) and woman (Embla) were created from tree trunks, and of course to the account that we have in the Christian doctrine, that man was first created out of the dust of the ground (or also clay) and that wo-man came from the “womb” of Adam, to many more different accounts. Some of which allege that we were born out of literal blood, sweat and tears from various beings.
8 Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed.
It’s interesting that the debate over where Eden could possibly be, even with all the hints and directions from the Bible, is one where so many people disagree upon. As we can see in versus 10-14, we are given the specific names of the four rivers that were sprouted from the river in Eden. Now, this is not taking into account that throughout history, there has possibly been (and this is just me speculating and theorizing…) a very specific agenda in order to rename these rivers in order to throw people off as to the real location of where Eden is. Not only that, but there are also historically proven documentation that lends credence to different empires’ goals to try and change or even eliminate the Christian doctrine altogether. (I propose that this is still happening in today’s time, but I won’t get into that on this particular post.)
Supposing that nothing was changed and everything was legitimately named the same as it always was (very unlikely), then determining the location of Eden would be quite easy, I would assume. As it is, and with some speculating that the biblical flood wiped out and/or covered this location, one could surmise that this was God’s doing in order to protect this location from suspicious individuals, or one could come to the conclusion that the location was and has been known by a select few, and they are still guarding the secrets for either their own benefit, and/or to deprive others from finding it in order to discredit the Bible. Or a handful of other interesting theories.
Researchers are still looking for the location, and I have to send out a warning again to not just blindly believe what we are being told. I have mentioned in my last post (Blue Beam Project) that there is a possible agenda to “unearth” (literally) various “proof” that will undermine the words of the Bible. So please be discerning with any and all material set forth by scholars, experts, scientists, researchers, etc., etc. 

9 The LORD God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
From this verse I’ve come to the conclusion that both the tree of life and the tree of knowledge were practically right next to each other. Do we get a physical description of each tree? Other than that they were “pleasing to the eye”? I guess I’ll just have to keep reading to find out. I am not sure at this point. Although I do know that God specifically tells Adam not to eat from the tree of knowledge, but he does so willingly. So even if the trees were identical, Adam and Eve knew the difference anyway from knowingly taking it from the serpent.
10 A river watering the garden flowed from Eden; from there it was separated into four headwaters.
I could be way off base, but maybe this verse is alluding to these separated “headwaters” as being much larger than I originally anticipated. Perhaps it’s not the size of the rivers as we know it today, but much, much larger and covering a huge expanse that escapes most of us simply determining these bodies of waters as small rivers. And if the flood was as destructive as we are led to believe, perhaps the old rivers were also covered up by the floodwaters, making them even larger than we realized. I’m sure others have already come to this hypothesis, but it’s the first time I actually thought about it in detail as being a possibility.
11 The name of the first is the Pishon; it winds through the entire land of Havilah, where there is gold.
12 (The gold of that land is good; aromatic resin and onyx are also there.)
13 The name of the second river is the Gihon; it winds through the entire land of Cush.
14 The name of the third river is the Tigris; it runs along the east side of Ashur. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.

These are all oddly specific verses that definitely seem to be giving the reader a greater understanding of where this Garden is, so why is it still a mystery today unless it was specifically designed to be so? Am I speculating that the location of this Garden has already been known and suppressed by those in the know? Why, yes. Yes I am. I have other theories, of course, that I’m not sure the readers are quite ready for yet, so I will just keep encouraging people to please look into these things themselves and keep an open mind and heart. Again, whatever you find, even if you have doubts, I truly believe that if you trust and faith in doing what’s right and good, then you are on the right path.
15 The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it.

God formed Adam from the dust of the Earth and then made the Garden of Eden, separate from where Adam was at the time, and then He put Adam into the Garden.
This begs the question, at least for me, how big was the Garden of Eden? How big was the space in which Adam occupied outside of the Garden? What timeframe from when God created Adam did God then decide to create this apparent paradise for Adam to live in?

16 And the LORD God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden;
17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”

There is a lot I can say here about God’s omniscience and humankind’s free will, but I will wait until later verses before I expand upon all of that. I also want to mention that some people have alluded to this “eat from the tree” as being a metaphor for simply choosing the “right path” vs. choosing the “wrong path”. It’s just fascinating to me that God presents all these wonderful, glorious trees – and then specifically two important trees right in the middle of the Garden, and gives Adam (and Eve) a choice. Again, I’m not going to get into free will vs. predetermination just yet, but it’s a guarantee that I will.
18 The LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”
19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.

I want to mention an interesting correlation between some people’s beliefs of a golem being created out of clay and coming to life. The Judeo-Christian belief that God Himself created the first golem out of clay, being Adam, of course. And some gnostic texts (that are widely excluded from the Bible) even reference Jesus Christ as a young boy, who created sparrows, for instance, out of clay and brought them to life. You can also read about the legend of Rabbi Löew, who, allegedly in 1580, created a golem in order “to spy on the Jews’ foes and shield them from persecution.”
20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals. But for Adam no suitable helper was found.
21 So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and then closed up the place with flesh.
22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

So before God made woman, He made all different types of animals and land and sea creatures to accompany the man, and when He saw that this was not sufficient enough, is when He made woman. My thought is, God himself wanted to create mankind in His own image – would He not expect man to want a companion of the same?
23 The man said, “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called ‘woman,’ for she was taken out of man.”
24 That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.

I’m going to say this flat out, this verse confuses me. There was no “father” and “mother” as far as Adam and Eve is concerned, so why would this allude to being the reason why a mean leaves his parents? There were no such thing as children, no such thing as parents, no such thing as “family” whereas the first two human beings are concerned.
And if I’m going to be semantic about it, since Adam (man) was created first, and then woman from man, wouldn’t it make more sense for this verse to indicate that it is the woman who leaves her father and mother to be united with man? Woman, at least according to the Bible, is created for the sole purpose of being man’s companion. Not the other way around. I’m not saying I agree with this. Just that the context we’re presented with in these verses seem to allude to this. Do I just have this significantly backwards? Am I not understanding this correctly? Please someone point me in the right direction if this is grievously off course.

25 Adam and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.

I think most of us are aware of in today’s society, the idea of nakedness is automatically conditioned within us to be associated with sex and/or the vulnerable state of being exposed. No longer are the thoughts simply pure and innocent, but by their eating of the tree of knowledge, somehow, this sense of naivete and virtue is lost and now they see the impurity and the embarrassment of exposing their body.

I want to reiterate that some of my thoughts and theories may be way off base, and I also research some other things on the side as well to try and get a broader understanding of what I’m reading, so please bear with me, or, even better, if you have insights that bring more light to these verses, please let me know.

I enjoy bouncing off theories and theology off of each other and love to hear other people’s perspectives on things. Thank you for reading and I look forward to hearing from you!

Fact checking is extremely important. I want to reiterate not to take everything at face value; no matter what you read, where you read it from, or who you hear it from. And to be clear, do not rely on “fact checking” websites to give you accurate information either. These are just as likely, (if not even more likely…), to feed false information and false debunking accounts to manipulate the reader. Please take everything into consideration before adhering to a certain narrative – and always keep your mind open to other possibilities.

Fair use disclaimer: Some of the links from this article are provided from different sources/sites to give the reader extra information and cite the sources, but does not necessarily mean that I endorse the contents of the site itself. Additionally, I have tried to provide links to the contents that I used from other sites as an educational and/or entertainment means only; if you feel that any information deserves further citation or request to be clarified, please let me know through the contact page.