An hour you'll never get back if you watch. But after a year of lockdowns, what's another hour? For a juicy bit, skip to 6:15 and listen for about fifteen seconds. Next consider Yeadon's assertion about "top up" vaccines. Now do the math. Consider a vaccine which is 78% effective. That's not great, given that such a vaccine leaves 22% unprotected. However, if the 22% who are unprotected are given a second, (i.e. a top up,) vaccination, then would not one expect that only 22% of the original unprotected 22%, (or 4.84%,) to remain unprotected? Now we are looking at about five percent unprotected, which means that 95% are protected by the double vaccination. What is required to accept the contents of the previous paragraph: 1) Test a large group of people for CoVID-19 antibodies about a week after their first dose of the vaccine. 2a) Test a much larger group of people for CoVID-19 antibodies about a week after their second dose of the vaccine. 2b) Skip step 2a and instead extrapolate from the results of step 1. Step 2a is what we call science. Step 2b is the math trick used to blow up the Challenger Space Shuttle. Given that it is not known why 22% were left unprotected by the first dose of vaccine, how can it be assumed that a second dose would protect 78% of the original 22%. Additionally, how sick will a second dose of the vaccine make people who are already immune? Would it not be ethically obvious to perform antibody testing so that only the unprotected will be given a second dose?