Excellent post Jon.Whilst I remain reasonably convinced by the mainstream views about COVID I think it is a huge, huge mistake to censor views that do not square with the mainstream, particularly as no-one can be absolutely certain when it comes to this new kid on the block. . .
Feel free to rebutt the new kid on the block!
The central plank to Yeadon's hypothesis is that the mainstream approach to the virus is almost entirely predicated around the PCR test. Given its significance, I think it is not just reasonable - but absolutely vital - that everyone is completely convinced of its effacacy. That the government acknowledge that it has a false positive rate, and everyone can see that it's not administered in laboratory conditions by expererienced professionals (I have personal experience of this), and it's sensitivity/magnification levels enable it to detect 'dead' RNA that are not harmful or infectious, I think it's of paramount importance that the government, PHE and the NHS etc. establish the limitations of the test so that these can then be factored into the decision making process. As it is, all three seem completely disinterested in doing this, even after the new flow test recently rolled out by the army in Liverpool produced massively different results to the PCR test. Clearly, at least one of the two tests is very, very wrong! Why aren't mainstream media questioning the anomoly and demanding that government provide answers to what are really very basic questions? As you rightly say, it's because of this bizarre approach by the media and the powers that be, combined with the censorship of people like Yeadon, that I and I suspect many other moderate, sensible(ish!) people are starting to entertain alternative explainations as to what's really going on offered by members like David (Knight).