This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Science and Academia This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles This article is supported by the science and academia work group (assessed as Low-importance). United Kingdom Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. COVID-19 Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject COVID-19, a project to coordinate efforts to improve all COVID-19-related articles. If you would like to help, you are invited to join and to participate in project discussions.COVID-19Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19Template:WikiProject COVID-19COVID-19 articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Skepticism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to COVID-19, broadly construed, which is a contentious topic. Please consult the prodedures and edit carefully.

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: Carballo-Carbajal, Iria, ed. (7 May 2022). "Multiple studies show that COVID-19 vaccines don't cause pregnancy or fertility problems, despite widespread claims on social media". Health Feedback. Turnnidge, Sarah (19 November 2021). "Radio 4 programme featured Covid vaccine misinformation". Full Fact.

Today, Mike Yeadon is better known as a conspiracy theorist rather than a scientist, so this article really needs to cover that if it wants to be relevant. 2604:2D80:6986:4000:0:0:0:2793 (talk) 01:44, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could allow him to speak rather than censoring his views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.116.177.20 (talk) 00:58, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a free-speech platform or a venue for fringe viewpoints. That means we have certain sourcing requirements for material to be included in articles. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:06, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia offers exactly ~0~ source material to refute Yeadon's claims. Yeadon in fact, warns of the style of censorship Wikipedia is currently engaged in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MikkallB (talk • contribs) 07:48, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the purpose of Wikipedia to refute anything. We sumarrize what is already published in reliable, independent sources. Several such sources say Yeadon's claims are false. Note that we don't say his claim that vaccines are a tool of "mass depopulation" is false, which it undoubtedly is, because no reliable source has yet done so. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:21, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a copyvio from ukexposed . That source is dated April 30, 2021. Our article is dated April 27, 2021. And if you lok at their article, it has phrasing which is typical of WP, not the other way round . DGG ( talk ) 00:50, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What was the point in creating this article? He's not a notable biography, except he had a high position in a major pharma company. It seems to me the article exists for propaganda purposes, a smear piece, so Wikipedia can say to anybody looking for info on him he is putting out misinformation and is wrong because the media say so.† Encyclopædius 10:41, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that he was right when he said that the COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom was "effectively over" in October 2020 and that there was no "second wave" of infections? All those infections since then are fairy tales invented by "the media"? In that case, I don't think you will be happy editing Wikipedia, because it is based on reliable sources and not on wacky paranoid fantasies.

It's not propaganda if it's obviously true. He does spread misinformation. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:11, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've been here 15 years... What I think about it is irrelevant, but no I don't agree with what he said on the second wave. I think he raises a few valid points which should at least be discussed given the way hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin were ignored in favour of the vaccine and the way they're trying to enforce vaccines and passports despite not even knowing if they're fully safe. But he's not a notable subject and doesn't have extensive coverage of his career/biography which would warrant an article.† Encyclopædius 09:07, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article says he "attracted media attention for making false or unfounded claims about the COVID-19 pandemic". That is true and makes him notable, since we have 20 sources. If there are reliable sources that agree with him on specific items, we can add those. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:48, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

This entire profile is defamatory towards an individual. Horrified 95.146.53.136 (talk) 11:01, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:05, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Defamatory" implies the material is untrue. However, all the important statements in the article are supported by a reliable source. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:29, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You say that all the important statements in the article are supported by reliable sources. There does not appear to be any evidence that any of these sources can be deemed to be reliable. Mike Yeadon was Chief Medical Officer for Pfizer and head of respiratory for Pfizer. I therefore rather think he knows what he's talking about! 89.243.238.230 (talk) 12:51, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOURCE defines what a reliable source is. Users' personal beliefs don't count, sorry. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:51, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The last paragraph uses synthesis to try to debunk his claims. It uses academic sources that do not mention Michael Yeadon. This is a violation of both WP:SYN and WP:BLP. The only sources used that criticize him directly are news agencies, which I understand are not supposed to be used in science articles in Wikipedia. Admins, please fix the issue and topic ban the editor(s) who violated WP's policies. 96.255.69.229 (talk) 21:53, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the ((edit semi-protected)) template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:21, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Please specify which sources you believe to be used in violation of these policies. I believe all statements about Yeadon are sourced to publications that mention him directly. This is not primarily a science article, and if we banned news sources the subject would no longer be considered notable enough for a Wikipedia biography. Nor does the article seek to "debunk" anything; it merely summarizes the available reliable sources. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:35, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's no basis for this claim. The sources are clearly referring to the subject of this article. --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:52, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged video of him saying everybody will be dead in 2 years does not exist(trust me I searched). Same for depopulation claims. Either link to video(s) or remove that part. Please do not tell me Snoopes would not lie about somebody. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.248.85.29 (talk • contribs) 19:53, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, we will not trust you. We trust reliable sources instead, such as Snopes. Sometimes stuff is removed from the internet. See WP:RS.

Also, learn how to WP:SIGN and where to put your new contributions on Talk pages (at the bottom). --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:10, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The claim about dying in 2 years is not from a video, but from a social media post based on an interview with Yeadon (as far as I can tell). The depopulation claims can be found here at the 36 minute mark. (snopes links to an archive which doesn't work). 2404:4408:4739:1C00:2918:4F2B:7393:5CE8 (talk) 01:59, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We don't say whether the claim was from a video, interview, or whatever, so I'm not seeing the problem. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:18, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This page says "and that healthy people could not spread the SARS-CoV-2 virus." while the source it lists says "In his speech, Yeadon says his 'favourite lie' is that people can transmit the virus without any symptoms, adding: 'I would say it’s somewhere between rare and doesn’t happen.'". These are clearly contradictory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quadrivial (talk • contribs) 14:15, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a "lie", then it doesn't happen. Which is untrue. Not seeing any contradiction. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:25, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See also AAP FactCheck: "Michael Yeadon’s claim that asymptomatic cases and transmission of respiratory viruses were 'invented in 2020' is contradicted by numerous studies and research articles predating the COVID-19 pandemic, as is the implication that such viral spread is impossible." --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:38, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeadon's claims that the COVID-19 pandemic was "effectively over" in the UK in October 2020 and that vaccines are unnecessary and harmful are rated "false" by the Associated Press, not to mention the vast body of observational evidence. Both AP articles state, "This is part of The Associated Press’ ongoing effort to fact-check misinformation that is shared widely online". Reuters explicitly calls Yeadon's statements "misinformation", and the paper by Sajjadi et al. strongly implies it. What is the rationale for removing this information? --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:11, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTAFORUM. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:52, 2 October 2021 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. Most claims on misinformation is unfounded and/or misinformation itself. There has also been absolutely no factual evidence that lock downs help stop the spread and in-fact quite the contrary. Lock downs have gotten worse and more widespread, yet the numbers of covid continue to spike and rise. Are these lock downs working? Seems to me to be misinformation. 70.171.168.14 (talk) 00:38, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:46, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprised to see that it is not possible to modify the article. That means it is not a wiki. Can you explain the reasons why is it so? Aguacristalina (talk) 17:50, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&logid=119659987 Vexations (talk) 22:09, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First it is inflammatory to call somebody an "Anti-Vaxxer". Let's avoid potential dog whistle allegations, particularly if unsubstantiated. There are two provided sources for the claims: the first article referenced only talks about Covid-19 injections. But even more incongruous is the article which explicity states that Yeadon is not against all vaccines, his criticism and warnings only about the Covid vaccines. For example, it's outrageous to claim that someone who kneels at a Football Game is "Anti-Football". Maybe the person has a reason to kneel at a particular time for a given game, or a particular vaccine.

Politely suggest rephrasing the intro to correctly reflect the references provided, specifically limiting the distrust by Yeadon only to the Covid vax. Of course, if someone has a reliable source that says a man who made millions in Big Pharma is now against ALL of their vaccines, please provide it. That would genuinely be super significant. --Knowsetfree (talk) 23:45, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First, the article does not use the term "anti-vaxxer". Second, Yeadon's anti-vaccine activism is well documented, Reuters calls him an "anti-vax proponent", The Japan Times calls him a "vaccine opponent", and The Times calls him "a key figure in the antivax movement". Third, as for Yeadon saying "he personally doesn’t oppose the use of all vaccines", he would say that, wouldn't he? On Wikipedia, we favor descriptions given by independent, reliable sources. Fourth, not that it matters, but his work at Pfizer was in the area of allergy and respiratory biology, not vaccines. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:25, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What The Times says, or what Reuters says, or what The Japan Times says, about Yeadon being an anti-vaxxer is of no value and these are not what you'd call reliable sources. I've personally watched a number of Mike Yeadon videos and although he appears to be against the COVID vaccines (and ONLY the COVID vaccines), for what is in my opinion good reason, he has clearly stated that he's in favour of vaccines generally and therefore not an antivaxxer. This whole Wikipedia article looks very much to me like an attempt to discredit and perhaps even defame a highly accomplished and expert individual. I'm wondering what is the motive for this. 89.243.238.230 (talk) 13:04, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOURCE defines what a reliable source is. Users' personal interpretations of Yeadon's videos and accomplishments don't count, sorry. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:51, 21 May 2022 (UTC) edited 21:01, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"First it is inflammatory to call somebody an "Anti-Vaxxer"". Even if they are an Anti-Vaxxer? What if somebody is American and I call them "an American", am I being "inflammatory"? CatNip48 (talk) 20:38, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Skeptic Magazine has awarded Yeadon the 2021 Rusty Razor for his work as an antivax campaigner. [1] Salimfadhley (talk) 09:28, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Added to § Further reading. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:42, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thread retitled from "Mike Yeadon is not an anti-vaxxer. I will no longer contribute to Wikipedia as Wikipedia is not independent as claimed".

Please remove the claim that Mike yeadon is an anti vaccination activist as it is a false claim. 82.23.24.130 (talk) 06:36, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, Wikipedia will continue to base articles on reliable sources and not on the ideas of someone who tries to bribe it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:23, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think extortion is more like it ;-) Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:36, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure all of Wikipedia will mourn the cessation of your contribution. You will be greatly missed.

Wikipedia articles are supposed to be summaries of what reliable sources say about a subject. In this case, as @Hob Gadling says, we have many reliable sources that show that Yeadon is an anti-vaxxer. We do not have any reliable sources that state the contrary. Being an antivaxxer is literally what he is most famous for. Salimfadhley (talk) 10:23, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How can Wikipedia allow one persons opinions to discredit an individual, I have read Dr Mike Yeadons page prior to covid all very positive now it’s clearly one persons biased opinion with no representation of the good he has done as a Dr in his life or the direct knowledge/ experience he has as a Dr. 2A02:1388:2083:D529:59F4:D615:773C:6093 (talk) 00:41, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Who is that "one person"? The COVID misinformation section has heaps of sources. Are you claiming that they were all written by the same person?

Even if your opinion counted for anything (articles are based on reliable sources, not on editors' deductions, see WP:RS and WP:OR), you cannot cancel bad things you do later by doing good things earlier, and academic grades do not confer infallibility. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:31, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen nothing untrue in what Michael Yeadon has stated ! Only vilification by the media or outside agencies with their own agenda to discredit him. 86.21.85.251 (talk) 15:52, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And if you haven't seen it, it doesn't exist. Right?

This does not contribute to article improvement, which is what this page is for. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:14, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Calling Mike Yeadon an "anti-vaxxer" is slander. It is also opinion, not fact, and therefore has no place in Wikipedia. It is also childish name-calling since that term has no well-defined meaning.

Mike Yeadon has been very clear that he makes a distinction between "traditional" vaccines (using an inert form of the pathogen) and the mRNA injections. He is also very clear that he believes traditional vaccinations to be extremely safe and effective, and that he and his own children have had vaccines.

His opinions, as described above, are clearly and unambiguously stated early in the video linked below: https://rumble.com/vrhe87-dr.-mike-yeadon-on-covid-vaccine-and-lies.html ^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.174.205.153 (talk) 20:55, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He would say that, wouldn't he? On Wikipedia we summarize independent, reliable sources. The article does not use the phrase "anti-vaxxer". --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:31, 31 December 2021 (UTC) edited 21:39, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

all references to michael yeardon claiming 'falsely' must be removed .... this man has more qualifications and experience than most readers here. how DARE the writer of the entry make THEIR claims that michael is talking nonsense? Fran Blakes (talk) 14:25, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The writers here make no claims, they merely summarize reliable sources. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:31, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

It says that he gave false information about children being more at risk of death from the vaccine than the virus itself which is true (NOT Misinformation) (W.H.O chief confirmed this publicly) 95.147.208.215 (talk) 09:51, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 10:18, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thread retitled from "What planet are you on Wikipedia?".

Mike Yeadon is an honourable scientist with over 32 years of experience with what looks like more qualifications than the person who wrote this rubbish. How can you call him an anti vaccine activist for goodness sake. 82.25.76.119 (talk) 17:37, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The planet with people on it who use valid scientific reasoning to judge ideas instead of beating their chest and shouting, "I am honourable! I have experience! I have more qualifications than you!"

Go read WP:TALK to find out what Talk pages are for, go read WP:RS to find out where article content comes from, and go read WP:OR to find where it does not come from. -Hob Gadling (talk) 18:43, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe an apology and changes are in order since we now have direct evidence that vaccinations in pregnant women have caused stillborn children. 140.254.77.241 (talk) 17:32, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We summarize what reliable sources say. If they retract their articles, we follow. If better sources exist, point them out. Vexations (talk) 18:02, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is just more misinformation.

"Dr. Daniel Nagase, a Canadian family physician, has falsely claimed that the vaccines are the cause of an 'increase in stillbirths' across Canada, with one birthing center in Vancouver having '13 stillbirths in a 24-hour period.' Conservative outlets are spreading Nagase’s unfounded claim."^[1] "Some posts have highlighted miscarriages reported to vaccine-monitoring schemes, including the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) Yellow Card scheme in the UK and the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) in the US ... There were indeed miscarriages reported in these databases - they are unfortunately common events - but this does not mean the jab caused them. A study has found data showing the miscarriage rate among vaccinated people was in line with the rate expected in the general population - 12.5%."^[2]

--Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:11, 22 January 2022

Pfizer certainly doesn't seem to agree. https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/horrifying-hidden-pfizer-data-show-unborn-babies-newborns-dying/. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:0:1A10:7826:846C:7433:A78B:9626 (talk) 20:40, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Literal fake news there; see WP:RS/P#LifeSiteNews. And nothing to do with the subject of the article. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:09, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter whether or not you like the source. They have a direct link to Pfizer's turned over documents that show the problems that arose when pregnant women recieved the vaccine. Please stop being disingenuous. 140.254.77.241 (talk) 20:53, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the Pfizer document you will see that it says, "The data do not reveal any novel safety concerns or risks requiring label changes and support a favorable benefit risk profile [of] the BNT162b2 vaccine." LSN is obviously misrepresenting the facts. We have multiple quality sources labeling Yeadon's statements on vaccines and fertility as misinformation, and zero that say otherwise. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:48, 24 January 2022 (UTC) edited 02:41, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The page has made a false claim in which the citation/reference does not prove/take you somewhere to show the claim is real. “ He has alleged that the vaccines cause recipients to become magnetic.[14]”

The reference just takes you to a page talking about human magnetism rather than proof of the claim Kiedog1996 (talk) 09:27, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From the source: Like Malone, Yeadon distanced himself from Telegram and has refused to confirm that an account on the platform under his name does belong to him. An account with his name and profile picture has shared the unscientific ideas that vaccination is dangerous because it causes magnetism, citing a 'study' done by a business student in Luxembourg who walked up to random people on the street and tried to stick magnets to them. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:28, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked at this article today because someone sent me a copy of the article at beforeitsnews.com/strange/2021/10/mike-yeadon-timetable-to-tyranny-2478350.html (I can't wikilink that here because it is on a blacklisted site) bylined Mike Yeadon on Before It's News (which redirects to List of fake news websites, where it is listed). OK. I get it. Still, I'm amazed at the solid POV and the profligate use of the words misinformation and false in wikivoice here. To focus on one bit, the initial sentence in the Michael Yeadon#COVID-19 misinformation section reading "Yeadon falsely claimed that the COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom was "effectively over" in October 2020,[1][2]" could, IMO, be better stated saying incorrectly instead of falsely, and falsely might be a bit WP:POV and WP:OR. (for that matter is incorrectly universally supported? Are there no RSs asserting contrary views? If there are, perhaps WP:DUE should come into play here.) I have not done more than glance at the sources cited in support there, but I'm not sure that the support in the cited sources for falsely is solid. Don't take that as an endorsement from me of anything Yeardon has asserted, but do take the gist of all of that and apply it to the entire article as my off-the-cuff POV. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:50, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have not done more than glance at your comment, but I'm not sure that your argument is solid. Feel free to contribute when you have more than an off-the-cuff POV. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:53, 29 January 2022 (UTC) edited 22:17, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving aside the controversial nature of the subject's views for a moment, I think the article would benefit from more of the usual biographical material such as age, date and place of birth, early life, fuller educational credentials, family and career etc. Also a full list of scientific publications, if any, other than the single one listed would be helpful.

There seems some biographical information scattered in this link: https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/health-coronavirus-vaccines-skeptic/ FurnaldHall (talk) 06:55, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOFIXIT. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:11, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Facts should be posted. Not personal opinions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.161.194.38 (talk) 00:37, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article is based on published, reliable sources. It does not contain "personal opinions". --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:15, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thread retitled from "Dr Michael Yeadon vindicated in US Supreme Court".

It would be a good idea to update wiki regarding latest US Supreme Court decision regarding the Covid 19 vaccine 61.69.174.202 (talk) 00:20, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific questions are not decided by fundamentalist right-wing kangaroo courts in random countries. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:08, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You aren’t citing primary sources. If you want to say something is unfounded, you don’t point to a news article. You go to the news article, you find the statement of fact within it, and cite that as the primary source. Carpedm333 (talk) 08:16, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles are based on secondary sources, not primary sources. In particular we don't interpret primary sources for ourselves. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:34, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is not appropriate to say “falsely claims.” The word “claim” implies uncertainty. Furthermore, it is inappropriate to similarly say “claims without evidence.” Take this article: Yeadon makes several controversial claims and presents evidence to back those claims. The evidence may be thin our flatly incorrect, but to say he makes claims “without evidence” is nonsense. Carpedm333 (talk) 08:21, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Former Pfizer VP spreads false claim about COVID-19 vaccines and child deaths". "No evidence to support claim by ex-Pfizer scientist on COVID-19 vaccine safety in children". "No evidence that COVID-19 vaccine results in sterilization". "No evidence vaccines impact fertility". Wikipedia summarizes reliable sources like these, not armchair logical analyses. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:46, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I notice a trend in Wikipedia articles overusing the word "falsely." I strongly suspect it's bias to ensure ideas are discredited, unfortunately. I'm a novice on on NPOV, so I defer to the community. In this case, it doesn't seem to make sense, by definition, since a suggestion is putting forth an idea as a possibility. I'd offer it be changed "falsely claiming" or "suggested." Ryratt (talk) 19:08, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is biased against hoaxes, misinformation, and fringe theories according to mainstream, reliable sources. There are only so many ways to say something is "false", and Wikipedia articles should not sugarcoat facts. Hope this helps. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:40, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is unhelpful unless the implication is that a bias against the fringe justifies oxymoronic grammar. Ryratt (talk) 16:48, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"falsely suggesting" is a normal usage. There is nothing 'oxymoronic' or ungrammatical about it. MrOllie (talk) 17:02, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It appears this is a common expression. I stand corrected. Ryratt (talk) 18:57, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can see this is an emotionally charged article in a sense. I have the CDC article that states that masks are not effective as claimed by some sources. I printed it out at the time and kept the downloaded file. I believe this item is not accurately presented in the article. If I were to do an edit and cite this article (assuming this article is not ‘protected’) will it remain in the article? I’d rather not spend time doing so for naught. Thanks! THX1136 (talk) 01:01, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have the CDC article When was that written? Early 2020, when the CDC was under the thumb of Drumb? --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:47, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The CDC's website curerently states, "Masks and respirators are effective at reducing transmission of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, when worn consistently and correctly." In any case, the place to specify the effectiveness of masks is Face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic, not a biography of Yeadon. See also WP:SYNTH. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:03, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, WP:SYNTH is the actual Wikipedia-rule reason for not doing that. Unless the article mentions Yeadon, we cannot use it here. There are other things wrong with what you want to do, for example cherrypicking: of everything published about masks by reliable sources, to print out and save the one article that agrees with you is not how one finds out what is true. If you add it to Face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic, you will very likely be reverted. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:35, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Michael Yeadon is a British anti-mrna-vaccine activist[1][2][3] 2A00:6020:B3B5:7A00:2543:5E28:D777:DF5D (talk) 12:12, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 12:52, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Dr Mike Yeadon. is the most senior, former “big pharma” & biotech research executive speaking out about several serious crimes in relation to what Dr Mike Yeadon calls the “Covid era”.

Dr Mike Yeadon's original training was in Biochemistry & Toxicology, in which he was awarded the strongest first class joint honours degree that the School of Biomedical Sciences had ever awarded at the time (1U85, University of Surrey).

Part of Dr Mike Yeadon undergraduate training involved research placements at the Chemical Defence Establishment, Porton Down^[1], Wiltshire^[2], where he was a small cog in the long term development of injected antidotes for nerve gas poisoning to protect British troops. He also worked at the then Central Laboratory of the Forensic Sciences Service^[3], Aldermaston^[4], Berkshire^[5], adjacent to the Atomic Weapons Research Establishment^[6].

While with the Forensic Science Service^[7], he received training on several precision analytical methods including mass spectrometry^[8], then a highly technically complex method.

Dr Mike Yeadon had security clearance for both establishments. Porton Down^[9], then as now, is a top security facility with an international reputation.

Dr Mike Yeadon PhD, in the field of Pharmacology was “On the effect of opiates on respiratory function”^[10],^[11] (1U88) and this was sponsored by the MOD.

After securing his PhD, that gave him a sound training in several additional subdisciplines of biology, chemistry & drug metabolism, and Dr Mike Yeadon then joined the pharmaceutical industry^[12].

He spent 24 years with “big pharma”, starting at Wellcome Research Laboratories^[13], Dr. Yeadon worked with Salvador Moncada^[14] with a research focus on airway hyper-responsiveness and effects of pollutants including ozone and working in drug discovery of 5-LO, COX, PAF, NO and lung inflammation. With colleagues, he was the first to detect exhaled NO in animals and later to induce NOS in lung via allergic triggers. Dr Mike Yeadon PhD also briefly worked alongside a Dr Patrick Vallance^[15] (who became Chief Scientific Advisor to the British Government).

For the longest period, Dr Mike Yeadon was in charge of Pfizer’s global research in the field of Allergic & Respiratory Disease Therapeutics.

Dr Mike Yeadon left Pfizer in 2011, having reached the level of Vice President, because the company had decided to exit their large R&D base in Kent.

Dr Mike Yeadon sought to find new homes for the portfolio of exploratory medicines Dr Mike Yeadon had helped create & was gratified that Mylan U.K. Ltd^[16], the world’s second largest generics company, acquired much of my former portfolio soon after Dr Mike Yeadon had left.

Dr Mike Yeadon later founded & led as CEO a highly successful biotechnology company, Ziarco Pharma Ltd^[17]. Pfizer and four other venture capital firms were investors in his company, which was acquired by Novartis Pharmaceuticals^[18], in 2017.

Dr Mike Yeadon accomplishments are considered by some to have been unusual. So much so that a former Pfizer board member & previously worldwide head of R&D, Dr John LaMattina^[19], wrote up my last venture in Forbes, a leading business magazine (February 2017).^[20]

To summarize Dr Mike Yeadon, acquired a very strong training in multiple disciplines and over 30 years leadership experience in the field of inventing and testing new medicines for respiratory illnesses. Dr Mike Yeadon has an excellent analytical background equal of anyone advising the government in science.

Dr Mike Yeadon has no history of “conspiracy theory” or political campaigns or protests. He states he is not aware of making a single public comment on anything prior to 2020.

It is irrefutable Dr Mike Yeadon accomplishments in applied biomedical sciences qualify him to be taken seriously. 2001:8003:9111:4600:6185:EDA7:D3DC:C9A9 (talk) 02:51, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 04:31, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]