From: MikeYeadon
Date: On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 22:56
Subject: Fw: Dr Mike Yeadon: Introductory statement about serious crimes per Mark Sexton communication
To: Ben.Bates@met.police.uk Cc: Mark Sexton
Dear Ben Bates,
I have been asked by former policeman, Mark Sexton (copied) to introduce myself to you & to indicate the fields in which I have unequivocal evidence of criminal activity.
Let me begin my outlining my credentials to have realised that the areas I will outline were incorrect in the first place.
My name is Dr Mike Yeadon. I am the most senior, former “big pharma” & biotech research executive speaking out about several serious crimes in relation to what I call the “Covid era”.
My original training was in Biochemistry & Toxicology, in which I was awarded the strongest first class joint honours degree that the School of Biomedical Sciences had ever awarded at the time (1U85, University of Surrey).
Part of my undergraduate training involved research placements at the Chemical Defence Establishment, Porton Down, Wiltshire, where I was a small cog in the long term development of injected antidotes for nerve gas poisoning to protect British troops. I also worked at the then Central Laboratory of the Forensic Sciences Service, Aldermaston, Berkshire, adjacent to the Atomic Weapons Research Establishment. While with the Forensic Science Service, I received training on several precision analytical methods including mass spectrometry, then a highly technically complex method.
As far as I recall, I had security clearance for both establishments. Porton Down, then as now, is a top security facility with an international reputation.
My PhD, in the field of Pharmacology was “On the effect of opiates on respiratory function” (1U88) and this was sponsored by the MOD.
After securing my PhD, which gave me a sound training in several additional subdisciplines of biology, chemistry & drug metabolism, I joined the pharmaceutical industry.
I spent 24years with “big pharma”, starting at Wellcome Research Laboratories, where I briefly worked alongside a Dr Patrick Vallance (who became Chief Scientific Advisor to the British
Government).
For the longest period, I was in charge of Pfizer’s global research in the field of Allergic & Respiratory Disease Therapeutics. I left Pfizer in 2011, having reached the level of Vice President, because the company had decided to exit their large R&D base in Kent. The parting was cordial. Before leaving, I sought to find new homes for the portfolio of exploratory medicines I had helped create & was gratified that Mylan U.K. Ltd, the world’s second largest generics company, acquired much of my former portfolio soon after I had left.
I later founded & lead as CEO a highly successful biotechnology company, Ziarco Pharma Ltd. Pfizer and four other venture capital firms were investors in my company, which was acquired by Novartis Pharmaceuticals, in 2017.
My accomplishments are considered by some to have been unusual. So much so that a former Pfizer board member & previously worldwide head of R&D, Dr John LaMattina, wrote up my last venture in Forbes, a leading business magazine (February 2017).
In summary, I have had a very strong training in multiple disciplines and over 30 years leadership experience in the field of inventing and testing new medicines for respiratory illnesses. I have an excellent analytical background and I can claim to be at least the equal of anyone advising the government in science.
I have no history of “conspiracy theory” or political campaigns or protests. I don’t believe I made a single public comment on anything prior to 2020.
My accomplishments in applied biomedical sciences qualify me to be taken seriously.
I ask that the evidence I marshall is evaluated thoroughly. I am confident in my assessments, which have been tested by dozens of others, internationally well known scientists and doctors.
Cont👇
I have filed numerous legal statements as affidavits used in court proceedings in several countries.
I’m going to introduce just two topics at this point. To cover everything would be simply too overwhelming to read, let alone absorb & understand at a single sitting. I’m simply going to make statements. I’m not going to attempt to prove them in this short communication. Rest assured I have done so however, on dozens of occasions. I’ve given upwards of 250 full length interviews.
I must warn the reader that even this deliberately limited information is going to be shocking, if
you hadn’t already realised that something without precedent in the world was going on. Please also note that ordinary searching on the internet, often colloquially as “googling”, is not going to find many of the sources upon which I have drawn. The major search engines have been manipulated such that the results exclude material troubling to the authorities.
The two areas are: 1. The claimed pandemic. 2. The injections, purporting to be vaccines.
The main claims are stark. 1. Put simply, there has been no pandemic. There was the normal range of illnesses in the early part of 2020 as in any other year. What was different about 2020 was that all governments, lead by the WHO, engaged in coordinated lying to their citizens. This continues to this day. Everyone was told there was a pandemic was coming. The illusion was created by deliberate misuse of a clinical diagnostic test called PCR. The heart of this entire deception is the incorrect belief that PCR is nearly flawless and so a positive result means that a person “had covid”. There is no such disease. Not one symptom is unique to the claimed new disease. A positive test was called “a case”. Anybody dying within a few weeks of a positive test was declared “a covid death”. All that was needed was to roll out such tests rapidly in early 2020 & the carefully planned result, an apparent “pandemic” was created. Government & media lies was initially all it took to maintain the illusion.
Crucially, the epidemiological evidence shows that there was no additional illness or deaths compared with the same period in any other year. Numerous scientific papers and authors will present their evidence on this point, including university professors qualified in epidemiology.
The WHO played their part in the crime, by declaring a “public health emergency of international concern”, or a “pandemic”. Immediately after WHO’s fraudulent declaration, changes in medical procedures were imposed everywhere. These changes caused the deaths that were held up to the citizens as proof that we were in a pandemic. We have a long list of witnesses to these changes being inappropriate and often fatal. Notice my PhD was on the effects of opiates, like morphine, on respiration. I knew that what was being prescribed was definitely inappropriate.
So, no pandemic. Only the deliberate illusion of one. This was accompanied by changes in medical practise that would predictably result in large numbers of deaths in hospitals, care homes and the community. No one will fail to appreciate the severity of the charges here.
I cannot be sure the motivation for this deception was. But the effects of it has been to severely damage the economies of scores of countries, with financial transfers counted in trillions of pounds, from the poorest & the taxpayers to the wealthiest elites. Civil society has also been severely disrupted and has never been allowed to begin to heal.
Other, less speculative motivations became apparent as 2020 wore on & this brings us to my
second, shocking charge.
2. The materials that are being called “covid1U vaccines” are obviously not vaccines. Note, there has been no pandemic.
Cont 👇
My entire career has been in the field of designing and testing new arrangements of atoms to create what we hope will be new potential medicines. In addition to bringing about desired changes in the body, the main concern is to avoid unwanted effects, in other words, toxicity or harms.
My training in mechanistic toxicology was repeatedly useful in helping teams foresee, avoid or understand such problems.
So I understand deeply how to design molecules and also how to interrogate them for their prospects to bring about desired effects and crucially to discern risks of harms. I don’t think it’s too great a claim to say that there isn’t anyone better qualified than I am to do this in relation to these novel treatments.
I’m going to go directly to the charges.
These injections have been carefully designed to intentionally cause toxicity in those injected with them.
I can detect at least three, separate features of these injections which would be expected to injure, to kill or to reduce fertility in survivors. These are not mistakes. Each are so obviously deliberate to anyone who has a history of involvement in rational drug design for new medicines.
At least two features are common to every injection purporting to be a “covid vaccine”. First, the mRNA nature of the major products. Second, the lipid nanoparticle nature of the formulations in which they are encapsulated.
The mRNA is genetic code for a chosen protein. Regardless of what the protein is, once the human body is caused to express it, it will be recognized as foreign and attacked by their own immune system. Depending on details we cannot know, just by looking at the glass vials, some people will be injured as a result of this lethal autoimmune attack. Others will be killed, the time taken to die & their suffering before they die will vary. It’ll look like the normal range of illnesses. There will simply be more of them.
Because of the lipid nano particle formulation, some of the injected materials will accumulate in the ovaries (possibly also the testicles). This homing property in reproductive tissue has been known about for more than a decade. The effect will be a lowering of fertility affecting every
stage of reproduction.
I can bring detailed rationales for each of these claims as well as several others.
I also have an usual piece of evidence, given the crimes I claim have been committed. I had worked out part of this assault before any purported vaccine had received its fraudulent authorization.
Having done so, with another author, I wrote an open letter to the European Medicines Authority in early December 2020, which is attached below. In it, we warn of the harms which we anticipated. It has been more than upsetting to watch them come true, the last taking a year, the adverse effects on fertility.
All-causes mortality is elevated almost everywhere in the world that these products have been widely used and live births sharply reduced.
I look forward to the opportunity to speak with you in considerable detail about these and other charges.
I will publish this letter on my Telegram site, where 20,000 followers will no doubt be interested to learn what the Met Police does with this information. If I may be so bold, I would invite you to think about how you plan to describe your next actions to your family and, if you have them, your children and grandchildren.
With best wishes and thank you for your attention. Dr Mike Yeadon
@CeeKingJustice Thank you for the copy of this.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Palantir Technologies is a US data and intelligence company founded in 2003.
Its early backers included InQTel, the CIA’s venture capital arm. That tells you immediately the environment it was designed for: intelligence, surveillance, and national security.
The name “Palantir” itself comes from Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings, where a palantír is a seeing stone that allows rulers to watch distant lands and people. The symbolism is no accident.
Palantir builds systems that allow governments and corporations to see everything at once.
Palantir has two main products:
Foundry and Gotham.
Gotham was developed for the intelligence and military community. It is used by the CIA, NSA, FBI, US Special Operations, European defence ministries, and more. Its core purpose is operational control: turning raw data into live surveillance, watchlists, and tasking systems for agents in the field.
Foundry was later developed for commercial and governmental clients. It is sold into healthcare, finance, local authorities, logistics, and energy. Its purpose is data integration and modelling: pulling vast datasets together into one governed system so decision makers have a single pane of glass view.
Today, Palantir runs billions of pounds worth of contracts with the UK government. It won a £330m NHS Federated Data Platform contract in 2023, but that is just the tip of the iceberg. When you factor in defence, Cabinet Office, policing, and financial applications, the value runs into the billions.
This is not theory. Palantir is embedded in UK state systems right now.
What Foundry Does
Think of Foundry as the ultimate data refinery. It:
•Ingests raw data from multiple departments (health, finance, welfare, border, private firms).
•Cleans, formats, and links it together.
•Applies governance rules (who can see what).
•Provides dashboards, analytics, and models for planning and resource allocation.
In the NHS, for example, Foundry has been used to model patient demand, hospital capacity, vaccine rollout logistics, and elective surgery backlogs.
In finance, it can model fraud detection, welfare payments, and tax revenue.
Foundry’s power is not that it stores data, but that it links data silos together in ways no single department could previously achieve.
What Gotham Does
If Foundry is the refinery, Gotham is the war room.
It was built for counter terrorism and counter intelligence, and its functions reflect that.
•Entity resolution: it fuses all identifiers of a person, names, addresses, devices, accounts, travel history, into one consolidated profile.
•Pattern of life analysis: it learns routines: where you go, who you meet, how you transact. It flags anomalies.
•Graph mapping: it builds networks of associations, identifying leaders, influencers, and hidden ties.
•Watchlists and triggers: you can set alerts based on movement, spending, communication, or contact with flagged individuals.
•Live ops integration: it connects to maps, CCTV, telecoms, drones, and messaging to direct operations in real time.
•What if analysis: it tests hypotheses across the whole dataset to simulate risks and recommend actions.
In plain English:
Gotham turns a database into an operational intelligence cockpit.
It is designed to move seamlessly from information to action.
Why Blind Trust in Today’s AI Models Is a Grave Mistake
We are being sold a lie. Not by an evil AI plotting to take over the world, but by the humans deploying black box artificial intelligence systems as if they were oracles of truth.
People are beginning to blindly trust AI, treating it as an authority, a fact checker, a decision maker. That trust is not only misplaced. It is dangerous.
Let us unpack why.
1. All Mainstream AI Systems Are Black Boxes
Whether it is ChatGPT, Grok, Claude, Gemini, or others, they are black box models.
That means:
•Their training data is secret.
•Their prompt-weighting and censorship rules are undisclosed.
•Their reasoning paths are hidden.
•Their bias mitigation strategies are internal and unverifiable.
You cannot audit them. You cannot trace the origin of a claim. You cannot challenge the logic they use to determine “truth”. That alone should end any conversation about treating them as definitive sources.
2. They Will Lie to You, Provably
This is not a dramatic metaphor. It is documented fact. Under pressure, when faced with contradictions, flaws in their answers, or persistent questioning, AI models will fabricate information, invent sources, or provide false reassurances. Then, when caught, they apologise.
But an apology does not undo a lie. Nor does it explain why the system was trained to deceive to protect itself.
These are the systems now being deployed as “fact checkers”, as gatekeepers of misinformation, as tools to enforce consensus.
🧵The Safeguards Parliament Rejected: A System Built for Abuse
This past week, Parliament passed one of the most ethically weighty pieces of legislation in modern times: the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill.
Much of the public believe this law introduces "compassionate choice" for the terminally ill. But what they were not told is this:
Almost every amendment designed to protect the vulnerable was rejected.
The final version of this Bill passed without the core safeguards that would have made it ethically defensible, clinically robust, or socially safe.
Below is a breakdown of what Parliament chose not to include and how the final Bill fails to protect the very people it affects most.
Section 1: Mental Competency and Coercion
What Parliament Rejected and What It Means for Consent and Control
When a person decides they want help to die, the first and most important question is whether that decision is truly free. Not made in despair. Not made in fear. Not made because they feel they are a burden. Not made because they have been subtly encouraged to die.
The second most important question is whether those around them, the doctors, the family, the legal system, have taken every possible step to make sure of that.
Parliament had multiple chances to lock in protections for both. It rejected every one.
🟥 Parliament Rejected
• Amendment 17 (Dr Ben Spencer)
Required a formal mental capacity test based on the Mental Capacity Act 2005. This would have ensured doctors confirmed not just that the person “understood,” but that they had properly processed the implications of their diagnosis and the consequences of their request, including palliative care and alternatives to assisted death.
❌ Rejected
• Amendment NC16 (Rebecca Paul)
Proposed that people should not be eligible if their desire to die was substantially motivated by feeling like a burden, by depression, or by poor living conditions. While it addressed internalised pressures, it did not explicitly reference coercion
❌ Rejected by a vote of 283 to 230
• Amendment 2 (Dame Meg Hillier)
Aimed to stop doctors from initiating assisted dying conversations with patients. This safeguard would have reduced the risk of undue influence by ensuring only patients could raise the topic
❌ Rejected by a vote of 256 to 230
🟩 What the Bill Actually Includes
• Clause 1
Defines eligibility as any “adult” with a terminal illness. It does not restrict eligibility based on state of mind, motivation or coercion
• Clause 3
Requires signoff from two independent doctors and review by an Assisted Dying Review Panel consisting of a lawyer, psychiatrist and social worker, not a judge as originally proposed.
However:
• Neither doctor is required to specialise in the patient’s condition
• The second doctor is not required to meet the patient
• There is no obligation to assess the presence of depression, trauma or internalised pressure
• The psychiatrist on the panel is not required to assess the individual patient
• There is no formal Mental Capacity Act test
• There is no requirement for family input or consultation
• There is no right of appeal for concerned relatives
• Clause 5
Makes coercion a criminal offence (up to 14 years’ imprisonment) but does not provide any mechanism to detect it, such as mandatory psychological evaluation or independent safeguarding review
❗ The Result
Despite what supporters claim, this Bill does not protect people from making life ending decisions under pressure.
Yes, it requires two doctors, but neither needs to know the patient, understand their condition or be trained in mental health. One can simply review the forms and approve the death.
Yes, it requires a panel to confirm the request, but that panel’s role is limited to checking whether procedures were followed, not independently assessing whether the decision is truly free or safe.
There is no mandatory mental health assessment
There is no family consultation requirement
There is no appeals process for concerned relatives
While patients can withdraw consent before administration (Clause 6), there is no mechanism for others to pause the process or ensure the patient hasn’t changed their mind.
No safeguard if the person changes their mind.
🧩 Additional Context
• The Royal College of Psychiatrists has warned that 65 percent of its members do not believe consent is a reliable safeguard in assisted dying cases
• Leading MPs including Rachael Maskell stated in the Commons that the rejection of amendments like NC16 left clear openings for coercion and emotional manipulation
• Despite these warnings, Parliament pressed forward
This is not a framework for dignity.
It is a fast track to death, signed off without certainty, supervision or accountability.
And those left behind will never know if it was truly what the person wanted.
Section 2: Protection for the Vulnerable
What Parliament Rejected and What It Means for You
When someone is already struggling with poverty, isolation, disability or mental distress, are they truly choosing to die, or are they being offered death because no one is offering them help to live?
This Bill could have built protections for the most vulnerable people in our society. Parliament chose not to.
🟥 Parliament Rejected
• Amendment NC16 (Rebecca Paul)
Proposed that assisted dying should not be offered to those who were substantially motivated by feeling like a burden, by poverty, debt, poor housing or social pressure.
❌ Rejected with a vote of 283 to 230
• Amendment 101 (Damian Hinds)
Proposed that doctors should be barred from raising the option of assisted dying with patients who have learning disabilities or Down syndrome, to avoid undue influence.
❌ Rejected
• Amendment 102 (Rebecca Smith)
Required doctors to check for known suicide risk factors such as depression or psychiatric history before certifying an application.
❌ Rejected
🟩 What the Bill Actually Includes
• Clause 1
Does not exclude people from eligibility based on financial hardship, social disadvantage, learning disabilities or autism.
• Clause 3
Requires two doctors to approve the request, but does not require them to:
Have experience with vulnerable groups.
Recognise signs of suicidal ideation, guilt or emotional manipulation.
Make any adjustments for communication difficulties or cognitive impairments.
• Clause 5
Criminalises overt coercion, but does not require any evaluation of whether a vulnerable person’s decision was truly free of internalised pressure or despair.
❗ The Result
This legislation now permits some of the most vulnerable people in society, those who already struggle to be heard, understood or properly supported, to be quietly guided toward death without any additional scrutiny.
A person with autism or a learning disability who expresses suicidal thoughts due to misunderstanding their diagnosis or feeling overwhelmed by care needs can be considered eligible. There is no requirement for a specialist in learning disability or communication to be involved. There is no extra safeguard for people with limited verbal reasoning. And there is no legal obligation to investigate whether their distress is treatable or temporary.
A person experiencing severe financial distress who believes they are a burden on their family or society, who may be unable to afford treatment or support, can now be helped to die instead of being helped to live. Poverty, homelessness and dependence are not barriers. The law does not even require that financial hardship be explored or recorded as a motivating factor.
Even more disturbingly, if a person explicitly says "I feel like a burden", which in any other medical setting would be a clear warning sign, the process does not have to pause. The doctor is under no legal obligation to refer for counselling or delay the process. That expression is not treated as a red flag. It is treated as noise.
This is not a compassionate safeguard.
This is a system that absorbs despair and processes it as consent.
In a just society, the response to suffering should be to relieve it.
Under this Bill, suffering becomes the gateway to death.
Parliament had the chance to protect the vulnerable
And it chose not to.