Yes indeed, Matt Le Tissier made a clear choice and he knew the cost.
Very very few "influencers" spoke out.
The state medical profession, the media, the politicians and the stars all promoted or, at best, complied with the narrative. It is to sports shame that no others stood beside Le Tissier or Djorkovic
Mike Yeadon is a a former Chief Scientific Officer at Pfizer. ]
TRANSCRIPT OF EXCERPT
(12:40)
MATT LE TISSIER: [Taking questions from the viewers and listeners]. I'm going to start with this one. And Banty Gits asks, is it possible to produce that many doses of a new vaccine in the time period after it was given approval and the start of the new rollout? Or do you think millions of doses of the vaccines were produced prior to approval?
DR. MIKE YEADON: Yeah, so it's a simple, straightforward question and I regret that the answer is simple and straightforward and it's no. It's not possible. It's not possible.
But it's worse than that. It's worse than that because just producing the number of filled glass vials, they have a robot, a tea can or something like that, it's a robot that dispenses fixed amounts of liquid from a big vessel into little vessel on a production line. So yes it would take, I'm not sure you could actually make, fill, and pack all of those doses in the time available.
But it's kind of worse than that. You can't just go from approval, you know, thumbs up, and it's like, OK, let's start the pump going! You need to do what's called, it's called manufacturing R & D. So, not having decided what to make and making it and testing it in tox and in clinic, then you have to actually research how to make it on scale. Because in a clinical trial they've just made like a couple of wine bottles of it now they need to make, you know, an olympic swimming-pool's worth. I can assure you, I don't think there are any cases in history where the method used to make the research and clinical quantities, stock, is the same method you use for commercial manufacture. It's always different and the reasons is, are, amongst that, it'll be too expensive. Often drugs that are in early clinical trials are literally worth more than gold, you've got a sort of price per ounce what gold is worth and what early drugs are worth, and they don't worry about it because they're only making a kilogram initially, just enough to dose some rats, and if it's OK, then make dose 50 people or something like that. But when you get to launch, if you've got a drug that might be successful you're going to need billions of doses. Well, you can't make billions of doses kind of in the way you made an experimental quantity and so you do things like, if it's a small molecule they do something called root optimization. How can we make this most efficiently?
With a complex biological product you also have to research, what are the ways in which we can make this so that the final product is reproducibly the same stuff, plus minus a tiny bit, you know, technical term, plus minus a tadge. It's got to be really, really tight. If you don't do that—and I spoke recently to someone who's as experienced in that field as I am in the research field, a guy called Dr Hedley Rees, like 35 years in manufacturing R & D on the regulatory side, and he said that the whole thing was so laughable, that he said it would have taken between one and two years even to have gained demonstrable control of the steps required for manufacturing. Two years to get the steps for manufacturing. Then you might start manufacturing. And then you have to do testing. So he says, I have no idea what's in the bottles but it was not what they told you. Cannot be. Not enough time.
MATT LE TISSIER: No. Makes sense.
DR. MIKE YEADON: Long answer. It's a long answer, but a very important one. It means people have been jabbed with any old stuff. Even the people giving it to you have no idea what's in the bottle.
A deserved encomium which I hope Matt sees. (Incidentally, respectfully responding to CE, I do not think it over-written, but, rather, properly developed and eloquently expressed.)
Concur with the central idea that nearly all our erstwhile heroes and celebrities (sporting, cultural or otherwise) are traitors, slaves and cowards. That they are now forever dead to me has made my entertainment options simpler. So, something to be thankful for!
Paraphrasing Solzhenitsyn: "The lie may come into the world, but not through me. "
So easy to say, so hard to do; hence the courage of Matt Le Tissier.
I suppose. But the point was to give the man his due in the context in which he took action. Also, it's supposed to be enjoyable and not perfunctory, which you may or may not agree with or believe has been achieved. I am appreciative of the feedback nonetheless.
Yes indeed, Matt Le Tissier made a clear choice and he knew the cost.
Very very few "influencers" spoke out.
The state medical profession, the media, the politicians and the stars all promoted or, at best, complied with the narrative. It is to sports shame that no others stood beside Le Tissier or Djorkovic
Absolutely. Few left to admire after this.
To depart this world knowingly having lived with moral strength and integrity, is the closest to eternal grace we can achieve.
Thanks for telling the story of a man heading toward this destiny. Few are.
Matt le Tissier a sportsman of the highest integrity 👏. There's very few of his calibre these days
Well done big fellah
Thank you for this. He will be remembered as a hero for freedom and for mankind.
Relatedly:
Matt Le Tissier Interviews Dr. Mike Yeadon
July 25, 2022
Recorded live. About 1:20:00. Gets started at 3:42.
https://gettr.com/streaming/p1jqaup318b
[ TRANSCRIBER'S NOTES:
Matt Le Tissier is a football pundit and former star football player based in the UK. His webpage is https://memmo.me/global/en/profile/matt-le-tissier .
Mike Yeadon is a a former Chief Scientific Officer at Pfizer. ]
TRANSCRIPT OF EXCERPT
(12:40)
MATT LE TISSIER: [Taking questions from the viewers and listeners]. I'm going to start with this one. And Banty Gits asks, is it possible to produce that many doses of a new vaccine in the time period after it was given approval and the start of the new rollout? Or do you think millions of doses of the vaccines were produced prior to approval?
DR. MIKE YEADON: Yeah, so it's a simple, straightforward question and I regret that the answer is simple and straightforward and it's no. It's not possible. It's not possible.
But it's worse than that. It's worse than that because just producing the number of filled glass vials, they have a robot, a tea can or something like that, it's a robot that dispenses fixed amounts of liquid from a big vessel into little vessel on a production line. So yes it would take, I'm not sure you could actually make, fill, and pack all of those doses in the time available.
But it's kind of worse than that. You can't just go from approval, you know, thumbs up, and it's like, OK, let's start the pump going! You need to do what's called, it's called manufacturing R & D. So, not having decided what to make and making it and testing it in tox and in clinic, then you have to actually research how to make it on scale. Because in a clinical trial they've just made like a couple of wine bottles of it now they need to make, you know, an olympic swimming-pool's worth. I can assure you, I don't think there are any cases in history where the method used to make the research and clinical quantities, stock, is the same method you use for commercial manufacture. It's always different and the reasons is, are, amongst that, it'll be too expensive. Often drugs that are in early clinical trials are literally worth more than gold, you've got a sort of price per ounce what gold is worth and what early drugs are worth, and they don't worry about it because they're only making a kilogram initially, just enough to dose some rats, and if it's OK, then make dose 50 people or something like that. But when you get to launch, if you've got a drug that might be successful you're going to need billions of doses. Well, you can't make billions of doses kind of in the way you made an experimental quantity and so you do things like, if it's a small molecule they do something called root optimization. How can we make this most efficiently?
With a complex biological product you also have to research, what are the ways in which we can make this so that the final product is reproducibly the same stuff, plus minus a tiny bit, you know, technical term, plus minus a tadge. It's got to be really, really tight. If you don't do that—and I spoke recently to someone who's as experienced in that field as I am in the research field, a guy called Dr Hedley Rees, like 35 years in manufacturing R & D on the regulatory side, and he said that the whole thing was so laughable, that he said it would have taken between one and two years even to have gained demonstrable control of the steps required for manufacturing. Two years to get the steps for manufacturing. Then you might start manufacturing. And then you have to do testing. So he says, I have no idea what's in the bottles but it was not what they told you. Cannot be. Not enough time.
MATT LE TISSIER: No. Makes sense.
DR. MIKE YEADON: Long answer. It's a long answer, but a very important one. It means people have been jabbed with any old stuff. Even the people giving it to you have no idea what's in the bottle.
16:12
[END OF TRANSCRIPT OF EXCERPT]
A deserved encomium which I hope Matt sees. (Incidentally, respectfully responding to CE, I do not think it over-written, but, rather, properly developed and eloquently expressed.)
Concur with the central idea that nearly all our erstwhile heroes and celebrities (sporting, cultural or otherwise) are traitors, slaves and cowards. That they are now forever dead to me has made my entertainment options simpler. So, something to be thankful for!
Paraphrasing Solzhenitsyn: "The lie may come into the world, but not through me. "
So easy to say, so hard to do; hence the courage of Matt Le Tissier.
Good work, MW.
Thanks Glenn. As more comes out, and we know how many people knew or suspected, our public figures become much less in our eyes.
could have made the point i many less words in my view. Words for words sake.
I suppose. But the point was to give the man his due in the context in which he took action. Also, it's supposed to be enjoyable and not perfunctory, which you may or may not agree with or believe has been achieved. I am appreciative of the feedback nonetheless.