Did Michael Yeadon release Pfizer statement

1. Former Pfizer scientist, not company spokesperson

Michael Yeadon’s résumé gives him visibility: he was vice‑president and chief scientist in Pfizer’s allergy and respiratory research unit until about 2011, but he left the company well before the COVID‑19 vaccine programs and is not a current Pfizer employee or spokesman; multiple outlets note his former role while stressing he does not speak for Pfizer now ^{[1] [2]}.

2. Media and fact‑checkers flag his claims as separate from Pfizer’s messaging

News organizations repeatedly make two distinctions: Yeadon’s controversial op‑eds, interviews and petitions circulated widely on social media, but Pfizer has declined to endorse or attribute those positions to the company; outlets explicitly state he “doesn’t speak for the company now” and that current Pfizer spokespeople have distanced the firm from his assertions ^[2].

3. Specific claims and how reporting assessed them

Yeadon asserted the pandemic was “fundamentally over” in the U.K. and later said there was “absolutely no need for vaccines to extinguish the pandemic”; fact‑checkers showed those claims contradicted epidemic data and labeled them false ^{[4] [2]}. He also promoted ideas about vaccine harms — for example, allegations about infertility and exaggerated risks to children — and Reuters and other fact‑checks found no evidence supporting those assertions ^{[3] [5]}.

4. On whether Yeadon “released a Pfizer statement”

Available reporting shows Yeadon issued op‑eds, petitions and interviews under his own name or with co‑authors and that social and partisan outlets have sometimes framed his words as if they carried Pfizer authority. But the sources provided do not show Pfizer issuing or republishing any statement authored by Yeadon or endorsing his claims; in fact, outlets emphasize Pfizer did not employ him at the time of COVID vaccine development and did not adopt his positions ^{[2] [6]}.

5. Why his background amplifies misinformation

Reporters and researchers note that Yeadon’s former title gives his statements outsized credibility among audiences who see “ex‑Pfizer scientist” as a proxy for insider knowledge; organizations tracking disinformation warn this lends false authority to claims that have been debunked ^{[6] [7]}.

6. Competing narratives in available sources

Some fringe and activist outlets republish or sensationalize Yeadon’s statements as evidence of large conspiracies; mainstream fact‑checkers (Reuters, AP, Snopes, Health Feedback) treated his technical claims skeptically and found many to be false or unproven. The sources here show a clear split: partisan amplification (example: Infowars reposting sensational headlines) versus mainstream verification that finds his scientific claims unsupported ^{[8] [3] [2]}.

7. Limitations and what we cannot confirm from these sources

The provided search results do not include any primary Pfizer press release that adopts Yeadon’s views, nor do they include a contemporaneous Pfizer statement authored by Yeadon. If you are asking whether Pfizer formally “released [a] statement” written by him, available sources do not mention such a document ^{[2] [1]}.

8. Bottom line for readers

Yeadon publicly released op‑eds, petitions and interviews that criticize pandemic policy and vaccine safety; those were his personal communications and have been widely debunked or disputed by fact‑checkers and public‑health bodies. Pfizer did not endorse his claims and is repeatedly identified in reporting as separate from Yeadon’s post‑2011 public activities ^{[2] [3] [1]}.