Dr. Michael Yeadon, a former Pfizer vice president and chief scientist in allergy and respiratory research, has publicly claimed that COVID-19 injections were intentionally “designed to cause injury.”
Yeadon, who led therapeutic research at Pfizer until 2011 and later co-founded biotech company Ziarco, cited decades of experience in pharmacology and toxicology to explain why he believes the vaccines pose serious risks.
He has over 30 years of experience in drug development and has conducted extensive research in respiratory pharmacology, immunology and toxicology, providing the basis for his professional assessment.
In a video released Monday, Yeadon outlined three areas of concern regarding the COVID-19 injections.
He first criticized the immune system’s natural mechanism of tissue recognition, which allows the body to differentiate between self and foreign cells.
According to Yeadon, the vaccines introduce a foreign gene sequence that instructs cells to produce spike proteins, prompting the immune system to attack its own tissues.
He suggested this process could trigger autoimmune reactions and neurological conditions, drawing parallels to harmful proteins he studied over his career.
Yeadon argued that these outcomes were not accidental but were foreseeable consequences of the vaccine’s design.
Yeadon also raised concerns about the lipid nanoparticle delivery system used by Pfizer and Moderna. These nanoparticles encapsulate the mRNA and protect it until it enters human cells, according to LifeSite News.
Yeadon claimed that these compounds concentrate in organs including the liver and reproductive organs, increasing the potential for organ-specific toxicity and reduced fertility.
He argued that the combination of spike protein production and targeted nanoparticle distribution implies that the injections were formulated in a manner that could intentionally harm certain organs over time, particularly in women of reproductive age.
A third concern highlighted by Yeadon involved regulatory oversight.
In December 2020, he and Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg submitted a petition to the European Medicines Agency (EMA) requesting an immediate halt to vaccine trials due to safety concerns.
The petition outlined potential risks associated with immune reactions and organ-specific toxicity. The EMA reviewed the petition but maintained authorization, citing ongoing post-marketing surveillance to monitor adverse events and vaccine safety.
The agency emphasized that vaccines approved in the European Union undergo continuous review to detect rare or unexpected reactions.
Beyond vaccine design, Yeadon criticized pandemic treatment protocols and public health messaging.
He claimed that widespread use of ventilators and drugs like Remdesivir contributed to preventable fatalities, especially among elderly patients, and that many COVID-19 diagnoses were misattributed to normal seasonal illnesses.
Yeadon argued that top-down medical directives prioritized unproven interventions over individualized care, leading to unnecessary deaths.
Despite Yeadon’s claims, health authorities emphasize that authorized COVID-19 vaccines underwent rigorous clinical trials and continuous safety monitoring.
Independent groups, including the Brighton Collaboration, have developed standardized methods to track adverse events systematically.
Regulators maintain that vaccines continue to demonstrate a favorable safety profile and efficacy in preventing severe illness.
In closing, Yeadon urged viewers to share his findings as a moral duty.
“If I’m wrong, the worst that’s going to happen is you get laughed at,” he said. “But if I’m right, and you don’t say anything, you’re going to lose your freedom, and then you’re going to lose your life.”
Yeadon’s statements have sparked debate, drawing both attention and criticism.
While mainstream authorities reject his conclusions, the discussion highlights ongoing questions about transparency, pharmaceutical oversight and the long-term safety of COVID-19 interventions.
The controversy underscores the tension between individual risk assessment and public health measures, a topic that continues to shape discussions in medical and political circles.
WATCH:
