Dr. Michael Yeadon Former Pfizer VP - Costa Rica’s Admission Is ‘THE Smoking Gun’ That Proves They Knew
Dr. Mike Yeadon’s expert analysis of Costa Rica’s testimony reveals how governments worldwide used contradictory legal frameworks to deploy military countermeasures while claiming they were approved
There are moments in litigation when validation comes from unexpected sources. When expert witnesses with unimpeachable credentials review your evidence and confirm that what you’ve documented isn’t just legally significant—it’s definitive proof of coordinated fraud at a scale most people can’t comprehend.
Yesterday we published evidence that Costa Rica’s government testified under oath they imported COVID products under Article 117—a statute designed exclusively for investigational biomedical research, not mass public health campaigns. We documented how they admitted using this framework because these products couldn’t be approved through normal channels, how they acknowledged these were being used “for the first time in humans,” and how they mandated experimental compounds on entire populations without proper informed consent.
Within hours, Dr. Mike Yeadon, former Vice President and Chief Science Officer at Pfizer with 32 years of pharmaceutical industry experience, reviewed the article and provided analysis that connects our Costa Rica evidence to the broader global framework in ways that are absolutely devastating for anyone who participated in this fraud.
His opening statement: “This admission by the Costa Rican ‘health’ minister, that the country used a statute allowing import of experimental agents for properly regulated clinical investigation, because they couldn’t import the injectables under any other statutes applicable to fully approved medical products, is THE smoking gun.”
When someone with three decades at the highest levels of pharmaceutical development calls your evidence “THE smoking gun,” you pay attention. When that person then provides detailed analysis explaining exactly why this admission exposes “a crime of monumental proportions” used worldwide, you realize the legal foundation you’ve built is even more powerful than you knew.
Dr. Yeadon is not just another expert. His credentials are unassailable in ways that matter profoundly when building legal cases. Former Vice President and Chief Science Officer of Pfizer’s Allergy & Respiratory Research division. Decades of experience in drug development and regulatory approval processes. Founded his own biotech company that was acquired by Novartis. Published peer-reviewed research throughout his career. This is someone who knows exactly how pharmaceutical development works, exactly what proper safety testing requires, and exactly when regulatory standards are being violated.
More importantly for humanity’s sake, he knows how to testify. He understands legal proceedings. He can explain complex pharmaceutical science in ways judges and juries understand. And he’s willing to put his reputation on the line by providing expert testimony that establishes fraud, regulatory violations, and Nuremberg Code breaches.
That’s why we brought him to testify at our November 9, 2023 Nuremberg Hearing. Not for publicity. Not for content. For documented expert testimony that could be used in actual court proceedings to establish facts that defense attorneys and government lawyers can’t dismiss as conspiracy theory or amateur analysis.
And it’s worked. Five Supreme Court victories. Multiple judicial confessions. Government officials caught lying under oath. Constitutional rights violations established. WHO sued for contempt. Each victory built on evidence that included Dr. Yeadon’s expert testimony providing scientific foundation for our legal arguments.
His analysis of the Article 117 admission goes far beyond what we documented yesterday. Here’s his full statement, which deserves to be read carefully because it connects pieces most people—including most lawyers—haven’t understood:
“This admission by the Costa Rican ‘health’ minister, that the country used a statute allowing import of experimental agents for properly regulated, clinical investigation, because they couldn’t import the injectables under any other statutes applicable to fully approved medical products, is THE smoking gun.
The use of the laws permitting human experimentation tells us THEY KNEW FOR SURE that what was to be injected into everyone duped into rolling up their sleeves weren’t ‘safe & effective’. They had no relevant & reliable information at all about the potential for harm, especially to vulnerable populations. They lied to the trusting public, and then assaulted them, repeatedly, knowingly, without remorse.
Here’s something that very few know or, if they did hear this at some point in the past, they’ve apparently forgotten it. Sasha Latypova exposed that the ‘Emergency Use Authorisation’ (EUA) pathway which, it was claimed was used with the FDA, the US medicines regulatory agency, EXPLICITLY EXCLUDED USE IN CLINICAL INVESTIGATION.
It says, in the deployment of agents under EUA that ‘administration of these agents to humans shall not constitute clinical investigation’. They’re telling us in plain language that they’re neither medical regulator-approved medicinal compounds nor are they research materials.
They are ‘countermeasures’ deployed in the event that there has been, or might be, the deployment on the civilian population, CBRN (chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear) attacks. This is MILITARY LANGUAGE saying, essentially, that the nation is under attack and we, the Department of Defense, is entitled to use whatever is to hand in our efforts to counter these attacks. There are no regulations which apply to these countermeasures. They are not required to have been proven to be safe or effective. All that needs to be said is that, in the sole discretion of the Health and Human Services Secretary, that the countermeasures ‘may be effective’. There is no yardstick by which the question needs to be answered. No standards to meet. No Congressional oversight. In fact, there is no mechanism whatsoever even for judicial review of any aspect of these countermeasures because, it was anticipated, when these laws were put in place, that they would apply solely during an emergency, such as represented by war.
So, the use by the Costa Rican government of a legal provision to import products that weren’t approved anywhere else as medicinal agents, explicitly and only for the purposes of properly controlled, clinical experimentation under the Nuremberg Code, opened the floodgates to military countermeasures, which were explicitly NOT for use in clinical trials.
We know that judicial procedures everywhere have been carefully corrupted so that, almost five years since the first, innocent victims of this insidious crime were injected, not a single case has reached the stage of a legal challenge, based on properly understood facts and evidence. Any lawyer reading this now knows that a clear path to doing so exists and has done for some time. What cracks this wide open is the admission by the Costa Rican government that they knowingly used a completely inappropriate law to import and deploy military countermeasures on their own people. One side of their mouths said these are approved medicines, while the other side said they’re purely experimental. Yet at the same time, stocks of materials for injection were never for clinical investigation nor were they ever approved as safe & effective products by FDA. This duplicitous pathway, or one with the same legal effect, has been used everywhere in the world. It is a crime of monumental proportions.”
Let that analysis sink in. A former Pfizer Vice President with 32 years of pharmaceutical expertise just confirmed that the evidence we extracted in Costa Rica exposes the entire global framework used to deploy these products.
The contradiction Dr. Yeadon identifies is absolutely crushing for anyone who participated in this fraud. Costa Rica used Article 117 statutes meant for clinical investigation of experimental products. But the FDA’s Emergency Use Authorization pathway explicitly states that administration under EUA “shall not constitute clinical investigation.”
One framework says it’s research. The other framework says it’s not research. Both frameworks were used simultaneously. And both governments told the public these were fully approved, safe and effective vaccines.
That’s not bureaucratic confusion. That’s coordinated fraud using contradictory legal pathways to avoid accountability under either framework.
If these were legitimate medical products, they should have gone through normal approval processes with completed safety studies, proper oversight, and full regulatory review. They didn’t qualify under those standards—which is why Costa Rica had to use Article 117 research provisions.
If these were legitimate clinical investigations, they should have followed Nuremberg Code requirements, voluntary informed consent, full disclosure of risks, freedom to withdraw, independent oversight, and explicit acknowledgment of the experimental nature. They didn’t follow those requirements—which is why the EUA pathway explicitly excludes classification as clinical investigation.
So what were they actually? Dr. Yeadon explains! Military countermeasures deployed under Department of Defense authority with no regulatory oversight, no requirement to prove safety or efficacy, no mechanism for judicial review, and no standards to meet beyond the Health and Human Services Secretary’s sole discretion that they “may be effective.”
Not medicine. Not research. Countermeasures deployed as if the nation were under military attack, using legal frameworks designed for warfare, not public health.
Pharmaceutical regulatory expert Sasha Latypova documented this framework extensively. She found the Department of Defense contracts with manufacturers showing these products were classified as “countermeasures” under military procurement authority. She exposed how this classification exempts them from normal FDA oversight and Good Manufacturing Practice requirements. She revealed why adverse event reporting was inconsistent and why lot testing wasn’t conducted properly—because these were never actually regulated as pharmaceutical products.
Dr. Yeadon’s testimony and Sasha’s documentary evidence, combined with the judicial confessions we’ve extracted in Costa Rica, create an unassailable evidentiary record. Each piece validates the others. Each expert confirms what the court documents prove. Each legal victory establishes precedent that makes the next challenge stronger.
We documented this at our November 2023 Nuremberg Hearing specifically to create permanent legal record that could be used in court proceedings. Dr. Yeadon’s scientific testimony. Sasha Latypova’s regulatory evidence. Dr. Janci Lindsay’s reproductive harm analysis. All documented. All available for use in legal challenges. All validated now by the judicial confessions we’ve forced through strategic litigation.
Dr. Yeadon’s statement that this confession “opened the floodgates to military countermeasures, which were explicitly NOT for use in clinical trials” explains why Costa Rica’s government testimony is so legally devastating. They admitted using research laws. The products they imported were authorized under frameworks that explicitly excluded research classification. The contradiction proves both governments knew these weren’t what they claimed.
When Costa Rican officials testified these products were being used “for the first time in humans”—classic Phase I clinical trial language—they confirmed the experimental nature. When they admitted Phase III studies were continuing after authorization, they proved safety data was incomplete. When they acknowledged they did zero independent verification and simply trusted WHO authorizations, they revealed the circular responsibility game that let everyone escape oversight.
And when WHO refused to answer court orders demanding explanation of their authorizations, then we sued them for contempt—the first time in history an international organization has been held in contempt of court for refusing to comply with national judicial proceedings.
Each piece of evidence supports the framework Dr. Yeadon describes. The countermeasures classification explains why normal regulations didn’t apply. The EUA exclusion of clinical investigation status explains why informed consent requirements were ignored. The research law importation in Costa Rica explains why they couldn’t use normal approval pathways. The contradictions between frameworks prove the fraud was coordinated and intentional.
Dr. Yeadon writes that “judicial procedures everywhere have been carefully corrupted so that, almost five years since the first innocent victims of this insidious crime were injected, not a single case has reached the stage of a legal challenge based on properly understood facts and evidence.”
That’s not quite accurate anymore—because we’ve won five times in Costa Rica’s Supreme Court system with exactly this evidence. Constitutional rights violations established. Government held in contempt for refusing to provide safety data. Indigenous population targeting documented with 23.6% infant mortality spike during convenient data blackouts. National Children’s Welfare Agency refusing to defend the vaccines when ordered by the court to state their position. Pfizer and AstraZeneca ordered to defend their contracts in judicial proceedings.
We’re not just documenting the fraud. We’re winning legal challenges based on properly understood facts and evidence. And now Dr. Yeadon’s analysis confirms that what we’ve extracted in Costa Rica “cracks this wide open” for legal challenges everywhere.
His conclusion is unambiguous: “What cracks this wide open is the admission by the Costa Rican government that they knowingly used a completely inappropriate law to import and deploy military countermeasures on their own people. One side of their mouths said these are approved medicines, while the other side said they’re purely experimental. Yet at the same time, stocks of materials for injection were never for clinical investigation nor were they ever approved as safe & effective products by FDA. This duplicitous pathway, or one with the same legal effect, has been used everywhere in the world. It is a crime of monumental proportions.”
That statement from a former Pfizer Vice President validates everything we’ve been documenting through strategic litigation. The Article 117 confession isn’t just a Costa Rica problem. It’s evidence of the “duplicitous pathway” used worldwide. The contradiction between research laws and non-research countermeasures isn’t a bureaucratic oversight. It’s proof of intentional fraud. The deployment on populations without proper informed consent isn’t negligence. It’s a “crime of monumental proportions.”
And now we have expert testimony from someone with unimpeachable credentials saying exactly that. Not speculation. Not activist rhetoric. Professional expert analysis from someone who spent 32 years at the highest levels of pharmaceutical development.
This is why expert testimony matters profoundly in legal proceedings. When we present evidence that Costa Rica used Article 117 research provisions, defense attorneys might argue that’s just how emergency importation works. But when Dr. Yeadon testifies that his three decades of pharmaceutical experience tell him this proves they knew the products weren’t safe and effective, suddenly the evidence becomes much harder to dismiss.
When we document that products were authorized under EUA while being imported under research laws, courts might struggle with the legal significance. But when experts explain that this contradiction proves both frameworks were being manipulated to avoid accountability under either set of standards, judges understand the fraud much more clearly.
When we show that indigenous populations experienced mortality spikes during vaccine campaigns, governments might claim coincidence. But when reproductive health specialists like Dr. Janci Lindsay testify that these products were never properly tested for reproductive harm and that concentration in ovarian tissue was documented in biodistribution studies, suddenly the “coincidence” explanation collapses.
Expert testimony transforms documentary evidence into proof that courts can’t ignore. That’s why we structured our November 2023 Nuremberg Hearing specifically to document expert analysis that could be used in legal proceedings. Not for publicity. Not for social media content. For evidentiary foundation in actual court cases.
And it’s working. The judge who heard our appeal told us we had solid evidence and directed us to file properly in administrative contentious court with full jurisdiction to stop the experimental program entirely. We’ve won five Supreme Court cases using evidence that includes expert testimony establishing what the government’s own confessions prove.
Dr. Yeadon’s analysis also addresses something crucial….!
“Any lawyer reading this now knows that a clear path to doing so exists and has done for some time.”
He’s not just validating what we’ve done. He’s telling other legal advocates that the pathway exists, the evidence is documented, and the framework for challenges is established.
That matters because scaling from Costa Rica victories to global accountability requires legal advocates in multiple jurisdictions using similar strategies. The Article 117 confession provides portable evidence—every country that relied on WHO Emergency Use Listings faces the same questions about what legal frameworks they used for importation and whether those frameworks contradict the authorization basis.
The EUA countermeasures framework Sasha documented applies everywhere the same products were deployed. The expert testimony about incomplete safety testing and Nuremberg Code violations applies wherever populations were subjected to experimental products without proper informed consent. The evidence we’ve extracted and the precedents we’ve set create pathways for legal challenges in any jurisdiction where this fraud occurred.
Dr. Yeadon’s statement that this “has been used everywhere in the world” confirms what we’ve documented: this wasn’t isolated misconduct by a few bad actors in Costa Rica. This was coordinated deployment of a global framework designed to avoid accountability while experimenting on populations under emergency authorities that bypassed normal oversight.
The work ahead requires resources to execute properly. Dr. Yeadon’s expert testimony doesn’t present itself in court—it requires attorney time to prepare witnesses, legal research to frame testimony within applicable law, court fees to file motions and briefs, and translation services when proceedings involve international evidence. Sasha Latypova’s documentary evidence about DOD contracts requires procurement, analysis, and expert explanation. Dr. Lindsay’s reproductive harm testimony requires preparation and coordination with legal strategy.
We’ve proven we can win with limited resources—five Supreme Court victories, multiple judicial confessions, WHO sued for contempt, all accomplished on budgets that wouldn’t fund a week at major law firms. But Dr. Yeadon’s analysis reveals the full scope of what we’re challenging: a global framework of coordinated fraud involving military countermeasures deployed as public health interventions through contradictory legal pathways designed to evade oversight.
Challenging that at the scale it demands—coordinated legal actions across multiple jurisdictions, international proceedings where crimes against humanity can be properly adjudicated, strategic challenges to authorization frameworks in countries worldwide—requires proper funding for sophisticated legal work.
Not promises about someday fighting back. Not newsletters and podcasts discussing the problem. Actual legal victories in actual courts with actual judges issuing actual rulings, supported by expert testimony from witnesses whose credentials can’t be challenged.
When a former Pfizer Vice President reviews your evidence and calls it “THE smoking gun” that proves “a crime of monumental proportions,” you’ve built something powerful. When that expert’s analysis connects your judicial confessions to the broader countermeasures framework and validates your legal strategy, you know the foundation is solid.
When that same expert tells other lawyers “a clear path to doing so exists and has done for some time,” you understand the work you’ve done creates pathways for accountability beyond what you can accomplish alone.
Dr. Yeadon’s statement concludes… “This duplicitous pathway, or one with the same legal effect, has been used everywhere in the world.” That’s not just validation of what we’ve documented in Costa Rica. That’s confirmation that the evidence we’ve extracted and the legal strategies we’ve developed apply globally.
The Article 117 confession proves they knew. The EUA countermeasures framework proves how they did it. The expert testimony proves why it’s criminal. The five Supreme Court victories prove courts can hold them accountable when presented with properly understood facts and evidence.
What happens next depends on whether we have resources to execute legal strategy at the scale this fraud demands. The evidence exists. The experts are documented. The legal pathways are mapped. The precedents are set.
DONATE TO FUND EXPERT TESTIMONY AND LEGAL STRATEGY
Dr. Yeadon calls this “THE smoking gun.” Help us use it to prosecute the case he describes as “a crime of monumental proportions.”
When Pfizer’s former VP validates your evidence, you’re not just onto something—you’re proving something that can hold them accountable. Support the legal work that’s actually winning with expert testimony courts can’t dismiss.
Related Articles:
Thank you for all you do. It is beyond horrifying what has happened. Thoughts and prayers are with all those who have been affected and their families.
Something many of us were aware of, what we are waiting for with bated breath is some accountability and consequences. This must not be allowed to ever happen again, and that requires some heads on a pike. Someone to make restitution and be charged and faced with serious retribution for the parts trusted public servants and supposed "representatives" of the people played in this, as well as high so called "government" officials.