Has michael yeadon presented scientific studies to support his claims about pfizer and have those studies been peer-reviewed?
Executive summary
Michael (Mike) Yeadon has repeatedly pointed to scientific studies and peer‑reviewed papers when making claims about COVID‑19 and Pfizer’s vaccines, and he has a prior track record of peer‑reviewed work in his pharmaceutical career (as asserted by some outlets) [1] [2]. However, reporting and fact‑checking show his COVID‑era claims have been widely described as false or unfounded, and the specific studies he cites to support anti‑vaccine conclusions have been contested, selectively quoted, or invoked in contexts that outside reviewers and fact‑checkers say do not substantiate his claims [3] [4] [5].
1. Yeadon’s scientific background and publication record
Yeadon is a trained pharmacologist who rose to senior research roles at Pfizer and later co‑founded a biotech company, and several summaries of his career note that he published peer‑reviewed research earlier in his career [3] [2] [1]. Public research listings attribute a small number of works to him, including commentary and an addendum to the Corman‑Drosten PCR review, which appears among the limited publications indexed under his name on platforms like ResearchGate [6].
2. Public claims about Pfizer and vaccines and where he points for support
During 2020–2022 Yeadon made public assertions that COVID‑19 vaccines were unsafe or part of a larger malicious design, and he frequently invoked scientific studies or monitoring systems (for example VAERS/Yellow Card) to justify those positions in interviews, blogs and videos hosted on various platforms [7] [8] [9]. Reporting that catalogues his statements shows he and allied outlets have repeatedly presented what they describe as peer‑reviewed evidence supporting arguments such as minimal asymptomatic transmission or vaccine harms, sometimes citing a “terrific peer‑reviewed journal article” as central proof [5].
3. How independent reviewers and fact‑checkers treated those citations
Independent fact‑checking organizations and scientific reviewers have pushed back: mainstream synopsis of Yeadon’s COVID claims describe them as false or unfounded and note that his use of cited studies often misrepresents the findings or relies on fringe interpretations [3] [4]. Science Feedback and other rebuttals document instances where Yeadon’s COVID assertions were assessed and found inconsistent with the preponderance of scientific evidence and the original studies’ conclusions [4]. Reuters and other outlets’ fact checks responded directly to claims he and others made about asymptomatic spread and vaccine safety, underscoring disagreements over the interpretation and relevance of the papers invoked [5].
4. Peer review status of the studies Yeadon cites — evidence and limits
Some of the individual studies and reports Yeadon cites are indeed formally peer‑reviewed, and Yeadon has pointed to peer‑reviewed literature to buttress specific statements [5]. At the same time, critical reporting indicates that key papers he relies on either do not support his broad conclusions when read in full or are methodological outliers; other invoked documents are preprints, commentaries, or contested reviews rather than clear, reproducible evidence overturning vaccine safety conclusions [4] [6]. The available sources do not provide a comprehensive, sourced bibliography of every study Yeadon has ever used, so assessment of each citation’s peer‑review status requires case‑by‑case checking beyond this dataset [6].
5. Bottom line for the reader seeking a verdict
It is accurate to say Yeadon has presented scientific studies and sometimes labeled them as peer‑reviewed to support his claims about Pfizer and COVID vaccines [5]. It is also accurate — based on multiple summaries and fact‑checks — that his pandemic‑era claims have been widely characterized as false or unfounded and that experts and fact‑checkers dispute that the studies he cites substantiate the sweeping assertions he makes [3] [4] [5]. The materials provided here do not offer a complete, source‑by‑source inventory of every study Yeadon cited or the editorial histories of each paper, so definitive determination of peer‑review status for every invoked study is not possible from these sources alone [6].