Former Pfizer VP Mike Yeadon: “Everything you have been told about covid-19 is a lie.”

Excellent. Must watch. About 46 minute video interview by Del Bigtree on The Highwire.

About budbromley

Bud is a retired life sciences executive. Bud's entrepreneurial leadership exceeded three decades. He was the senior business development, marketing and sales executive at four public corporations, each company a supplier of analytical and life sciences instrumentation, software, consumables and service. Prior to those positions, his 19 year career in Hewlett-Packard Company's Analytical Products Group included worldwide sales and marketing responsibility for Bioscience Products, Global Accounts and the International Olympic Committee, as well as international management assignments based in Japan and Latin America. Bud has visited and worked in more than 65 countries and lived and worked in 3 countries.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to Former Pfizer VP Mike Yeadon: “Everything you have been told about covid-19 is a lie.”

  1. Pingback: Dr. David Martin details the illegal plandemic and the criminals | budbromley

  2. Sunface says:

    I am still of the view that in the real world there is no such virus called SARS-CoV-2. It is nothing more than digital construct created to induce fear and when people or in a state of fear they do not act rationally, they go into a panic mode and look for someone to rescue them.
    FEAR is the most contagious and deadly virus of all.


    • budbromley says:

      SARS Co-V2 virus has now been isolated, cultured and sequenced. That was not true when this plandemic began. The virus is man-made, and patented. The RNA sequence in the furin cleavage zone that attaches the S or spike protein to the surface of the virus particle has been modified. The sequence has been modified in a way that could not have happened naturally. These changes enabled it to jump from one species (bats) that is its normal repository, to humans, so called “gain of function” experiments. U.S. DOD funded this research in a DARPA grant. When it was notice as too dangerous in research in U.S. DOD-funded labs, the work was banned. But Fauci and Collins allowed the work to be transferred through a third party to a lab in Wuhan, China controlled by the CCP “People’s” Army biowarfare. Fauci and Collins and the third party are treasonous. There is plausible deniability to conduct the research in DOD labs, to prepare and hopefully prevent mass infaction of U.S. troops by a bioweapon. This deniability is lost in the transfer and funding of the project to the Wuhan lab.


      • Sunface says:

        You are mistaken Bud. You won’t like this, but you are welcome to try and argue it.


        • budbromley says:

          With all due respect, sorry to inform you that I am not mistaken. Nevertheless, I did watch the interview of Stefan Lanka by Tom Cowan. However, very many viruses have been isolated, visualized and identified by electron microscopes and their RNA has been sequenced. SARS CO-V1 was sequenced on a Megabace sequencer. I was SVP of Molecular Dynamics, (MDYN on NASDAQ) the company that developed, manufactured, sold and serviced Megabace sequencers. MDYN was acquired by Amersham which was acquired by General Electric (US).

          Here are two references and both of these papers include long lists of references, both full papers are available in full length at the links below.
          The Role of Electron Microscopy in the Rapid Diagnosis of Viral Infections – review
          National Institute of Public Health, 100 42 Prague, Czech Republic
          Received 8 June 2009
          Revised version 11 November 2009

          ABSTRACT. Electron microscopy (EM) allows fast visualization of viruses in a wide range of clinical specimens. Viruses are grouped into families based on their morphology. Viruses from various families look distinctly and these morphological variances are the basis for identification of viruses by EM. The identification to the family level is often sufficient for the clinician or recognition of an unknown infectious agent. Diagnostic EM has two advantages over enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and nucleic acid amplification tests. After a simple and fast negative staining, EM allows fast morphological identification and differential diagnosis of infectious agents contained in the specimen without the need for special considerations and/or reagents. Nevertheless, EM has the disadvantage of being unsuitable as a screening method.

          Virus isolations from patients in general practice, 1961-71
          P G Higgins
          PMID: 4362413 PMCID: PMC2130502 DOI: 10.1017/s0022172400023469
          Free PMC article
          During the period 1961-71 of 1785 viruses isolated from patients in the general population 503 (28%) were rhinoviruses, 465 (26%) influenza viruses, 248 (14%) enteroviruses, 234 (13%) herpes simplex virus, 132 (7%) parainfluenza viruses, 129 (7%) adenoviruses and 49 (3%) respiratory syncytial virus. Also isolated were 18 strains of mumps virus, 7 coronaviruses and 295 streptococci of groups A, C or G.Fluctuations were observed in the frequency with which respiratory syncytial virus, parainfluenza virus type 2, and the adenoviruses were isolated over the 10-year period. Influenza viruses types A and B, parainfluenza viruses types 1 and 2, respiratory syncytial virus, adenoviruses types 3, 4, 6, 7 and 21, and many enteroviruses were all associated with outbreaks. Infections with influenza viruses A and B and parainfluenza viruses types 1 and 2 came during the winter, whereas those with parainfluenza virus type 3, enteroviruses, and rhinoviruses were more frequently seen in the summer and early autumn.


        • Sunface says:

          With complete respect and I have no intent to impugn your voracity. The idea of EM to identify viruses is a belief system. The simple fact that EM is simply scanning an artifact which is claimed to be a virus. You may have heard of Harold Hillman also a scientist who also showed that EM was a quite ridiculous claim to say that is proof of the existence.
          I now point you to the simple fact that as a scientist you would be aware that control experiments are part of the scientific process. You most probably skipped that fact.
          However there are many other scientists that have exposed the BS of SARS for one and the only way of supporting the existence is a PCR test. That too is full of holes.
          Here sir is some further reading on the Issue of EM


        • budbromley says:

          Sunface, I am sorry you have been influenced by misinformation and conspiracy theory. You and the authors you referenced are mixing up many different subjects and never getting to the facts.

          Viruses were isolated many decades before PCR existed using standard cause and effect and isolation protocols even before they could be seen. Virions are too small to be seen by optical microscopes due to the diffraction limit of light. When electron microscopy was invented, finally virions (viral particles) could be seen. Now we can see molecules, which are much smaller than virons. Electron microscopy enabled speciation of viruses by standard biological taxonomy, which added to identification and diagnosis by cause and effect. When nucleic acid sequencing was invented and developed, this enabled the different species of virus to be differentiated by their individual nucleic acid sequences, just as you and I can be differentiated by our DNA. Today, even the variations and single base mutations in sequence, and the rate of change vs time of the mutations, and evolution of a viral population can be measured. There is no question that viruses exist. You can put that question to bed.

          Early on in this plandemic, I did a literature search. As far as I could find at the time, neither Koch’s postulates nor Rivers postulates (1), the standards for confirmation of cause (etiology) of infectious diseases, had been completed or published for SARS CoV-2. There were many papers claiming to have fulfilled all or part of these protocols, but then make excuses for a change in one part or another of the protocols, such as no animal models were available.

          At the time, SARS CoV-2 was merely “associated” with the deaths and disease in this so-called pandemic. Everyone should know that “associated with” implies a statistical correlation, but a correlation is not confirmation of a direct cause and effect relationship. I wrote all this here on my blog at that time.

          But today, SARS corona virus 2 has been confirmed by Rivers postulates, isolated, grown, re-infecting hosts animals, imaged by electronic microscope, sequenced. For example, But, this was not true for Co-V2 at the beginning of the epidemic in 2019 and to March 2020. On the other hand, SARS CO-V1 was confirmed by Koch’s postulates, visualized and sequenced years ago, 2003 reference below.

          Koch’s Postulates consist of the following four rules:
          1. The microorganism must be identified in all individuals affected by the disease, but not in
          healthy individuals.
          2. The microorganism can be isolated from the diseased individual and grown in culture.
          3. When introduced into a healthy individual, the cultured microorganism should cause
          4. The microorganism must then be re-isolated from the experimental host, and found to
          be identical to the original microorganism.

          There are some limitations to Koch’s postulates. The postulates were updated for viruses in a protocol known as Rivers Postulates. The Fredricks and Relman postulates use PCR.

          PCR is not necessary to Koch and Rivers postulates nor necessary to detection and identification of a virus. PCR has been and is being used incorrectly as a diagnostic. But this is a different question.

          Yes, there is a massive, deadly scam/fraud underway now and for the last 3 years regarding Covid-19 and the responses to it. But, that is a different question entirely from whether or not viruses are real and whether or not SARS corona virus-2 is real.

          For a review of Virology in the 21st Century, as published in the American Society for Microbiology’s Journal of Virology, see

          For electron microscopy, see: Hazelton, P. R., and Gelderblom, H. R. (2003). Electron microscopy for rapid diagnosis of emerging infectious agents. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 9:294. doi: 10.3201/eid0903.020327

          For virus taxonomy, see the textbook: Virus taxonomy, classification and nomenclature of viruses: ninth report of the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 2012.,+classification+and+nomenclature+of+viruses:+ninth+report+of+the+International+Committee+on+Taxonomy+of+Viruses.+San+Diego,+CA:+Academic+Press,+2012.&pg=PA1&printsec=frontcover

          The Genome Sequence of the SARS-Associated Coronavirus
          SCIENCE, 30 May 2003, Vol 300, Issue 5624, pp. 1399-1404
          DOI: 10.1126/science.1085953


        • Sunface says:

          No, in fact you again are mistaken. Rivers postulates too were unfulfilled. Dr Andrew Kaufman pointed that out out in his research.

          The most important were simply ignored. The essence being isolation. Then from that
          The viral agent obtained from the infected host must –
          • Produce the specific disease in a suitable healthy host,
          • Provide evidence of infection by inducing the formation of antibodies specific to that agent.
          ⇒ Similar material (viral particle) from the newly infected host (test organism) must be isolated and capable of transmitting the specific disease to other healthy hosts.
          It has not been proven to REPLICATE and there are ZERO controls.

          There of course is the problem of anti-bodies which are clearly non specific.
          I am afraid, it is you that has fallen for the neo-belief in virology.
          The scientific method is ignored. The scientific process is based on the rules of (i) empirical evidence, (ii) objectivity, (iii) control, (iv) predictability, (v) hypotheses derived from theory and (vi) replication or falsifiability.

          I would not call Dr Andrew Kaufman, Dr Thomas Cowan or Sally Morell conspiracy theorists. Then of course nor is Dr Mark Baily or Dr Stefan Lanka.

          Stefan Lanka pointed out the failings of Prof. Christian Drosten as well as the Corman-Drosten paper that was heavily critisised by a number of scientists. I quote

          “the establishment and validation of a diagnostic workflow for 2019-nCoV screening and specific confirmation, designed in absence of available virus isolates or original patient specimens. Design and validation were enabled by the close genetic relatedness to the 2003 SARS-CoV, and aided by the use of synthetic nucleic acid technology.”

          So then in fact you belief is a computer software system called PCR is laughable.
          For one you will know that only living cells contain ATP and therefor it is not possible to use this as a test to determine viral load, as something that is devoid of life , has no nucleus, cannot replicate and does not contain ATP.
          The very inventor Kary B. Mullis, is quoted as stating: “PCR tests cannot detect free infectious viruses at all” (1). They can detect genetic sequences of viruses, but not viruses themselves. They are simply replication tools for making copies of sequences. If you have not determined where the sample was obtained, and not isolated then how can you claim the sequence is that of a virus.

          I suppose Dr David Rasnick and Dr. Eleni Papadopulos were also wrong too.

          BTW DNA and RNA are constructs. So, in closing I would say you references and elucidation is circular reasoning. There are many anomalies in your posit.
          Best you stick to CO2.


        • budbromley says:

          Let me repeat again. PCR is not needed to confirm viruses. It is mistakenly or intentionally used in diagnostics, and you can read my blog post on that as early as March 2020, and also in and

          Drosten probably will go to jail along with Fauci and others.

          Viruses were confirmed decades before PCR was invented. I personally knew Kary Mullis. Try reading the papers and a text book on microbiology and molecular biology before you reply again.


        • Sunface says:

          Bud, I can see you don’t like anyone refuting your claims.

          However, before you start trying to be condescending you may not be aware that the EM’s have been questioned and shown to be misinterpreted.

          Without proper isolation, the whole Genome sequencing itself is questionable. EM’s cannot determine anything except give you a picture that is a deposition of metals. All that EM’s do is microscopy confirms the nature or purity of a mixture, not an isolate of anything. The rest is an assumption.

          This is a construct created by an industry. We are fed the biggest lot of complete rubbish by media and paid industry professionals including medical journals who are funded by the industry to create this scam so that they can live off society like the Government does. My opinion is that the virus BS is no different to climate change BS. Same doll different dress.

          The whole idea of sequencing is laughable. Read this below as many times as you need to.

          It has never been properly purified and isolated so that it could be sequenced from end-to-end once derived from living tissue; instead, it’s just digitally assembled from a computer viral database.
          The CDC scientists state they took just 37 base pairs from a genome of 30,000 base pairs!
          That means that about 0.001% of the viral sequence is derived from actual living samples or real bodily tissue, the rest is a stitched together construction and called a sequence. Here is the quote:
          “Whole-Genome Sequencing”
          We designed 37 pairs of nested PCRs spanning the genome on the basis of the coronavirus reference sequence (GenBank accession no. NC045512). We extracted nucleic acid from isolates and amplified by using the 37 individual nested PCRs.”

          Sequences are digital constructs, note the word ‘designed’ above.
          The entry point in the Virus case is the creation of a concept called DNA that was a digital concept that was also prone to manipulation using computer trickery using software like DNA shearing with PCR in Virology CRISPR, TALEN and Sequence generation software BLAST. A thing called a cleavage is the entry point for the manipulation and addition of “nodes.”

          DNA doesn’t really exist but nucleic acids do exist and so do chromosomes. The concept is that there is a thing called RNA a single strand and that there is something called protein folding that creates DNA and creates a double stranded Helix.
          DNA is not a product of nature, it is a characteristic, it’s a model of human manipulation.
          What we are provided with are computer generated graphics images to make us believe in the phantom, the same has been done with the so-called corona virus for example.
          In essence we have nothing other than a belief, that makes a computer-generated solution in which it is automatically accepted as true and correct ignoring contradictory information.
          That first image, 1952, Raymond Gosling and Rosalind Franklin, the first people who actually characterized the double helix called deoxyribonucleic acid, they were the first ones to discover that there was an interesting orientation of the molecule deoxyribonucleic acid.
          And it was then a year later that Watson and Crick were celebrated for actually coming up with the “invention” of DNA.

          They can now demonstrate this using computer-generated imagery Graphics which is graphical representation (digital artistic impression). This can be visualised and manipulated at will using various computer software techniques like BLAST that use a digitally constructed Virtual Genome repository which is simply numbers and letters in manipulated sequences that ostensibly are real and instead of a VR headset a screen is used to trick people into the belief of a spook a Phantom. As I said previously an abstract.

          Back to the claims of Viruses. We know that the measles virus was never Isolated either. This was exposed when Enders experiments could not be replicated. This was the basis of exitance of “Viruses, before there were EM’s. Stefan Lanka proved this in his case.

          EM’s were the supposed proof. So how can EM determine or confirm pathogenicity? All that EM’s do is microscopy and confirms the nature or purity of a mixture, not an isolate of anything.

          It means that for microbiologists and virologists, taking a swab sample, which separates virus from the host, is considered as “virus isolation.”
          This interpretation does not reflect the correct meaning and understanding of the subject of isolation. But they imply and promote the true meaning of the process of isolation, i.e., to obtain something by extraction, purification, and identification, reflected by well-known pretty pictures of the DNA/RNA, proteins, and viruses such as a spherical body with spikes.

          Now, Since viruses cannot be grown in a lab dish (that is because viruses can only replicate inside a living cell), they cannot be cultured and multiplied like a bacteria sample.

          “If they [viruses] are not isolated … they don’t exist as independent entities. These is simply no way they can cause disease, there’s no way we can characterize them, there’s no way we can take a segment and say ‘that’s unique to this’, so there’s no way we can do a PCR test.”- Dr Andrew Kaufman.

          I’ll answer your comments here:

          ” It is more like a contaminant than a living thing, like a prion in the infamous “mad cow disease.”
          Pseudo-science simply put.
          Well, yes, and Purdy showed it to be BS and it was related to poisoning and not “prions” Prions are simply another red herring another name for a phantom. Purdey M. Elevated silver, barium and strontium in antlers, vegetation and soils sourced from CWD cluster areas: do Ag/Ba/Sr piezoelectric crystals represent the transmissible pathogenic agent in TSEs? Med Hypotheses. 2004;63(2):211-25. doi: 10.1016/j.mehy.2004.02.041. PMID: 15236778.

          “Viruses were confirmed decades before PCR was invented.”

          Yes, I am aware of the claim of the existence of viruses and it goes as far back as Enders and measles, however the claims were falsifiable and have been refuted.
          And I am also aware of those viruses created, that were engineered and patented ones too, Post PCR United States Provisional [Patent] Application No. 63/196,489 entitled. ENGINEERED NEWCASTLE DISEASE VIRUS VECTOR AND USES THEREOF as an example which was filed June 3, 2021.

          Secondly when you start asking question like when were viruses proven to exist?
          This is a when you get to the point of knowing and understanding exactly what a so-called “virus” is.
          The redefinition was established by those who cunningly crafted the concept, i.e., a “non-living particle” up to “500 times smaller than bacteria” that can only be seen “under a scanning electron microscope.”
          Ask when viruses were discovered and you are told: “1895.”
          Ask what you need to see viruses and you are told: “Electron microscope.”
          Ask when the electron microscope was invented, and you are told: “1931.”
          So, now suddenly, because you can only see it under an electron microscope. It becomes a fact even though it is an image with an arrow pointing to it.

          It’s the perfect spook or phantom, old trick of the unknown and FEAR, the bogeyman. You can’t see it but it exists and only “real” “experts” can identify and see it. You need to be “qualified ya know “and wear a white coat.
          I repeat what has been stated. “What we do know is that ‘Electron microscopists have ignored the dictates of solid geometry and most of the apparent structures they have detected are artefacts of their preparation procedures” (Hillman and Sartory, 1980). June Almeida Tyrell et al as an example.

          After being told viruses are “non-living particles” you are told in one sentence: “Viruses can do NOTHING until they move over to a cell and attack it by latching onto it, “a special cleavage site or receptor” penetrating into it and mass replicating itself inside of the cell.” It needs a Host like a parasite does we are told. Whaat!! parasites are alive and have cells with a nucleus. These viruses have morphed into intelligent beings too, astounding.

          My views have changed when I consider who is behind this and is backing the VIC (vaccine Industrial Complex) run by Big Pharma. Remember too that Gates was involved and that is when viruses were introduced in computers and designed access loopholes or “Clevages” (Think DNA shearing in Virology CRISPR, TALEN and Sequence generation software) were created in the software.
          This spawned a completely new industry for hackers and Anti-Virus (Vaccine) software suppliers.
          It is the exact same MO used in Virology to create viruses and the solution is vaccination with continuous booster and annual variants needing these boosters. Call me a conspiracy theorist, please do.

          “I personally knew Kary Mullis.”
          Ok I’m impressed, so, what does that mean in this context?

          “Try reading the papers and a text book on microbiology and molecular biology before you reply again.”
          Wow about being condescending. Is this why you mentioned you personally knew Mullis and I must accept your argument?
          You may not know, that I have read many papers and even my high school biology told me it is a load of crock. I had an excellent teacher in 1974. Experiments without controls…. really?? Replication and reinfection ignored cough cough, Kochs postulates, and postulates reimagined to support a scam i.e., Rivers and I am also aware of Farr’s Law which is fundamental to virology.

          Thank goodness to have a highly qualified scientist like Dr Stefan Lanka expose it, why should I bother with reading papers which are fraudulent in most cases in any event. Is this not exactly what John P. A. Ioannidis said?

          I am convinced by Lanka. He is a qualified microbiologist, molecular biologist, and a qualified virologist who proves that virology is a lie. He has also done the required CPE experiments that should have been done in the first instance and weren’t and proven that virology is a complete fraudulent pseudo-science.

          “Let me repeat again. PCR is not needed to confirm viruses.”
          I never said you must have a PCR to confirm viruses. However, that is what modern virologists claim is the “Gold Standard” for virus testing. NB without a calibration standard. Laughable really.

          You should read- The Tyranny of Dogma. And then maybe if you have time to find out more read what Dr Lanka has proven and what others have too like Dr Mark Bailey.

          Here, I leave you with this and let’s agree to disagree.



        • budbromley says:

          You do not need my approval to carry on with your uniformed conspiracy theories. I am a born skeptic, meaning that I am always happy to learn when I am wrong. But, you and your references do not even raise serious questions.

          An electron microscope is not necessary to confirm a virus. PCR is not necessary to confirm a virus or to sequence of oligonucleotide. Sequencing of DNA was done by standard chemistry and gel electrophoresis before PCR was invented. Viruses are grown/replicated in living media where they can be differentiated based on their response to various chemicals. Virus pathogens were confirmed by usual isolation, purification, replication of pathogens prior to invention of electron microscopes, and prior to DNA sequencing, and prior even to being named a virus. It was just a very small pathogen.

          Sensitivity has improved significantly over the years. The DNA from a single cell can be sequenced. Gene expression can be observed in single cells. DNA and RNA hybridization and de-hybridization is routinely observed by confocal fluorescent microscopes. Molecular Dynamics, where I was SVP, developed, manufactured, sold and serviced confocal microscopes, DNA sequencers, gene expression microarray systems, a fluorescent cell plate reader, a densitometer, and other systems to measure DNA, RNA, and cells. Nanogen, where I was SVP, made a system where we could observed repeated, highly reproducible and accurate, hybridization and de-hybridization of DNA oligos and discriminate single nucleotide polymorphisms (or mutations) of single bases in oligonucleotide sequence.

          Sequencing can be done by multiple different methods, to cross confirm results. Assembly of sequence can be done manually or by computer. Commonly these days with massively parallel sequencing systems, assembly is done by computer algorithms, but these sequences are easily confirmed by manual assembly and traditional gel electrophoresis, as it has been done long before automated systems were invested. DNA and RNA sequence experiments are replicated by scientists is different labs around the world. There is no tyranny of dogma in that area.

          I mentioned Mullis because you commented about Mullis. Mullis and I discussed (one-on-one in person) the use of PCR for molecular diagnostics at a conference in Lorne, Australia. I was SVP of a molecular diagnostic company at the time. Yes, some mis-trained virologists claim PCR is the “gold standard” for viral diagnostics. But they are mistaken, as I have pointed out in my writings posted on my blog and republished elsewhere as mentioned in my last comment. But, in no way does this mean or imply that viruses do not exist.


        • Sunface says:

          “I was SVP of a molecular diagnostic company at the time” Of course you were, so you will never stop towing the line. But I do respect and most of your posts.

          I too was also involved for many years with Companies like Thorn EMI, Siemens and many others selling diagnostic devices and bioscientific instruments like bioluminescence devices including chromatographs both liquid and gas. So I am familiar with diagnostic devices assays etc. Of course I don’t claim to be an expert.

          BTW I did not question your bona fides.

          You cannot claim the existence of something without evidence. Burden of proof is yours.

          There are people like the late David Crowe and Rosemary Frei who has an MSc in molecular biology from the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Calgary, exposes the rot.

          Here are many FOIA’s for you to read.

          As I said you fail to convince, so lets agree to disagree.


        • budbromley says:

          You deny evidence that I have seen first hand in person, for example repeated hybridization and de-hybridization of DNA and RNA oligonucleotides. And I already gave you multiple references where Koch’s or Rivers’ postulates were completed. It was true in the first months of 2020 that isolation, purification and reinfection were not yet done. I wrote about that on this blog and elsewhere, as I already pointed out to you. It appears you expect me condone your arguments that an apple does not fall from the tree.

          The assertion that “none have provided or cited any record describing actual “SARS-COV-2” isolation/purification” may be a fact, but it is a fact that illustrates the author’s incomplete thought processes. The failure of an author to provide that evidence in response to requests is NOT evidence – much less proof – that the postulates have not been completed. That is a logical fallacy. The request may not have been received. The request or requestor may appear incompetent (would be my assessment.) Scientists publish their data. My data search found publications. Fluoridefreepeel needs to keep looking, and studying. There is no obligation to supply anything in response to apparent incompetent requests or to those who have not done their own diligence. To do so would be equivalent to replying to spammers.

          The plandemic is a terrible and deadly fraud by some really bad people. On the other hand, there are many good people who know how to use these diagnostic and molecular biology tools even though you and fluoridefreepeel do not understand them.


        • Sunface says:

          Bud you’re a nice person. That is said with my utmost sincerity.

          We won’t agree for a simple reason is that you were taught according to dogma of the medical industry or the scientific industry you were a participant of. So, your belief is that and is very strong and to change that belief is very difficult. I understand that.

          “It is difficult to get a man / woman to understand something, when their salary is dependent on them not understanding it” – Upton Sinclair

          I know you have retired, and most probably and most probably no longer dependent on a salary. However, there is something that is a lot deeper and that is you have garnered respect from many others who most probably your mentors or peers. You would have difficulty in considering anything that may jeopardize that, of that I am sure.

          You are not the first person that uses that argument of your training and knowledge. The same could have been said by Harold Hillman to your posit.

          You say this “The assertion that “none have provided or cited any record describing actual “SARS-COV-2” isolation/purification” may be a fact, but it is a fact that illustrates the author’s incomplete thought processes, Yet, others have said the same. Like your late friend and Dr Mullis, Stephan Lanka and many others like David Rasnick, Mike Donio, oh dear, why do I bother?

          I never asked you to condone anything, as I also never questioned your Bona Fides. As, I said I don’t impugn your voracity.
          Yet, your response is condescending “You deny evidence that I have seen first hand in person… because you say so?

          Exactly what is that evidence, the belief in an algorithm that assembles what you desire to see? A computer with graphics. Your VR headset needs recalibration Bud, so sorry I must be rude about it.

          I have a different view to you.
          It is obvious that I may have triggered something for you to respond only now. So be it.


        • budbromley says:

          I am sorry you are misinformed. As I already explained, sequencing of DNA was being done manually before PCR, before algorithms, no computers. I have done the entire process myself. Old style bench chemistry with slab gels. Reference:
          Proc.Nati.Acad.Sci.USAVol.74,No.12,pp.5463-5467,December1977. F.SANGER,S.NICKLEN,ANDA.R.COULSON Medical Research Council Laboratory of Molecular Biology,CambridgeCB22QH,England Contributed by F. Sanger, October 3,1977.

          By the way, I only saw your comment last night for the first time, then I responded.

          Yes, you deny evidence that I have seen and done myself. That is not condescending. That is fact. I was not taught by any dogma, that is your false assumption. I was skeptical, as usual, and I investigated and studied, as usual. If you do the same, I am certain you will learn and agree.


        • budbromley says:

          Sunface, another comment regarding Hillman’s post. Viruses are not alive in any way we would consider a living entity. There is no respiration, no metabolism, no energy generated. It is not a cell, or even a bacterium. It cannot reproduce itself without infecting a living cell. Analyzing virus is like analyzing a chemical molecule. There is nothing there to kill, in the way that Hillman refers to it, by electron microscopy. The nucleic acids can be analyzed by protein sequencing, electron microscopy, mass spectrometry, microarrays, gels. The glycoproteins can be analyzed by protein sequencing, mass spectrometry, microarrays and gels, and antibodies, the glycans can be analyzed for 3D epitopes and the sugar’s molecular structure. The virus particle is chemical RNA surrounded by other chemicals. It is alive only in so far as it is able to infect a cell. It is more like a contaminant than a living thing, like a prion in the infamous “mad cow disease.”


  3. Pingback: “Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) recommends against routine universal use of asymptomatic screening for SARS-CoV-2 in healthcare facilities.” | budbromley

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.