The Arguments for “NO VIRUS”- PART 44. The Research Funding.
Written by Dr. Mike Yeadon
“Anyone pursuing a line of research likely to conflict with the interests of the stakeholders behind these three extraordinarily important granting bodies were not getting grants.”
Those who do not appear to have realised that the entire concept behind vaccination is fraudulent and condemned to splashing around in the shallows, trying to interpret papers such as this oncology journal article. Having lots of dense and confusing articles like this swimming around makes it harder to think clearly about fundamentals.
Best wishes
Mike
Part 2 of the statement : Dr. Mike Yeadon, January 11, 2026 :
This is very interesting. As far as the unaware public is concerned, this story, if they should stumble upon it mentioned in a tabloid, is just another example of the confusion that arises in overly complex scientific research. They will not be able to interpret it or place it in any context. Is this the smoking gun that “covid19” “vaccines” are dangerous? I don’t know, either. Maybe it is. Note that I knew they were bad more than five years ago.
I’m aware that I’m now hypersensitive to the possibility of PsyOp-ery. I consider it always & never ignore the possibility that we’re being played. It’s not a nice feeling. It makes me sad.
I know nothing about the lead author. Perhaps he is standing tall in a sea of potential corruption. That he appears to have been contacted by a Pfizer headhunter and has publicly rebuffed the approach seems to reinforce that impression.
However, one has to wonder whether this public response is entirely organic. I know that one important axis in influencing academia is to modulate the ability of a tenured faculty member to secure grant funding. I was fortunate inside the citadel of pharma of never having to scrabble for grants. I learned in the 1990s from friends who had got on tenure track that half of a young academics time was consumed by grant application writing and research, the goal of which was to obtain results that rendered such applications more likely to be successful.
I recall reacting that it felt like it was verging on corrupt. Who were these shadowy people who regulated what research got funded and what got blocked? I now know that Anthony Fauci of NIAID (part of Francis Collins’ NIH), Jeremy Farrar of the Wellcome Trust and Christopher Elias of the Gates Foundation, for a substantial period of time, between them controlled the majority of the non-commercial biomedical research across the world, such is the wall of capital which they control. Anyone pursuing a line of research likely to conflict with the interests of the stakeholders behind these three extraordinarily important granting bodies were not getting grants. Their Dean of faculty would want to know why & might try to steer the young academic towards “more fundable proposals”. An academic who courteously declined such advice, citing “academic freedom” (cue hollow laugh) would find that their reduced ability to attract grant funding meant that their publication output was poor, relative to the competing peers and that they’d never make a full professor, on which the viability of a career as a researcher depended.
I’m mentioning this, because no academic would publicly rebuff a headhunter’s approach from such a prominent stakeholder like Pfizer, without first seeking guidance from his head of department. It’s standard practice that academics are guided by faculty to be very vigilant about their public pronouncements, because of the possibility of adverse publicity, which could hurt the reputation of their institution. I can’t know the dynamics in this case, but I do know some of the normal procedures.
As I said, I know nothing of the lead author on this recent paper, but he too has had to sink or swim in grant seeking waters such as these. There simply isn’t a lump of cash, available to researchers following their own noses, whether the funding is supplied by the taxpayer, a wealthy charitable endowment or a family foundation.
A person named Geoff Pain left a comment below Aussie17’s Substack piece, pointing to the lead author’s prior publications, which he thought was relevant to the cancer causation mechanism at hand, and yet which has not been mentioned in this recent article.
I don’t know what to make of it, but I can’t help hearing faint warning bells. Hyperawareness of the possibility of undue influence does not mean every such warning bell is real.
Oh and by the way, it’s not necessary to get anywhere close to the arcane complications of molecular biology of cancer in order to be certain you should decline the injections.
Shocking Twist: As mRNA Vaccine-Cancer Paper Explodes Worldwide, Pfizer Headhunter Contacts Critic Dr. Wafik El-Deiry
Let me use this opportunity to expose the pharma playbook!
Jan 11, 2026
Full article : https://www.aussie17.com/p/shocking-twist-as-mrna-vaccine-cancer
No Virus, No Proof: How Virology Weaponizes the Global Ethics Control System With Jon Rappaport
Jul 25, 2025
In the late 20th century, virology emerged as a cornerstone of modern medicine, anchoring diseases like AIDS, Ebola, and SARS-CoV-2 to invisible, disease-causing entities termed viruses. This paradigm, solidified through decades of laboratory practices, relies on methods such as cell culturing and genomic sequencing, which researchers claim irrefutably prove viral existence.
Yet, as Jon Rappoport’s dialogue with ChatGPT (below) reveals, these methods fail the classical scientific standard of isolation—defined as the complete separation of a substance from all other material for unambiguous study. Instead, virologists redefine “isolation” as culturing patient samples in toxic mixtures of antibiotics and fetal bovine serum, observing cell death (cytopathic effects), and attributing it to an unpurified, assumed viral presence.
Works like Virus Isolation and 11 Layers of Unproven Claims expose this foundational flaw: no virus, from HIV to SARS-CoV-2, has been physically isolated or proven to cause disease through controlled experiments. This critique suggests that what society accepts as scientific truth is a carefully constructed illusion, akin to a magician’s trick where particles are observed but never causally linked to illness.
Full article : https://unbekoming.substack.com/p/no-virus-no-proof-decoding-the-fallacy
Written by Dr. Mike Yeadon
There’s a lot more to this than what’s covered here. If you’d like to keep going, head over to Mikes original post where you can read the rest and check out some videos that go along with it.
Some words from Dr Yeadon.
DEAR FRIENDS,
The two Substacks, Dr. Yeadon’s and Suavek’s, have merged into a single, highly informative entity. The Fraud Prevention Hotline is now officially Dr. Yeadon’s Substack No. 2. You can find his statement on this at the following link : https://drmikeyeadon.substack.com/p/my-other-substack
We urge you, if possible, to add both Substacks to your recommended list in your Substack. Thank you very much in advance,
Mike & Suavek
The possible support goes to Suavek. Any support is especially welcome at this time, and is VERY appreciated, but of course is not mandatory, as this Substack is free. I extend my sincere thanks to those who have supported me so far.
You can either do something against or for something :
Leave a Reply