It is increasingly difficult to retrieve a copy of Dr Mike Yeadon’s, (ex VP of Pfkizer), open letter to Matt Hancock regarding the new SARS-COV-2 vaccine, so, along with his Bio, I am posting it on my blog. In it, he explicitly states that he is not against vaccinations in general – his concern is with the lack of data regarding the long-term effects of any vaccination developed in less than a year. Imperative reading.
Dr. Michael Yeadon is an Allergy & Respiratory Therapeutic Area expert with 23 years in the pharmaceutical industry. He trained as a biochemist and pharmacologist, obtaining his PhD from the University of Surrey (UK) in 1988.
Dr. Yeadon then worked at the Wellcome Research Labs with Salvador Moncada 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.
Joining Pfizer in 1995, he was responsible for the growth and portfolio delivery of the Allergy & Respiratory pipeline within the company. He was responsible for target selection and the progress into humans of new molecules, leading teams of up to 200 staff across all disciplines and won an Achievement Award for productivity in 2008.
Under his leadership the research unit invented oral and inhaled NCEs which delivered multiple positive clinical proofs of concept in asthma, allergic rhinitis and COPD. He led productive collaborations such as with Rigel Pharmaceuticals (SYK inhibitors) and was involved in the licensing of Spiriva and acquisition of the Meridica (inhaler device) company.
Dr. Yeadon has published over 40 original research articles and now consults and partners with a number of biotechnology companies. Before working with Apellis, Dr. Yeadon was VP and Chief Scientific Officer (Allergy & Respiratory Research) with Pfizer.
Dear Mr Hancock,
I have a degree in Biochemistry & Toxicology & a research based PhD in pharmacology. I have spent 32years working in pharmaceutical R&D, mostly in new medicines for disorders of lung & skin. I was a VP at Pfizer & CEO of a biotech I founded (Ziarco – acquired by Novartis). I’m knowledgeable about new medicine R&D. I have read the consultation document. I’ve rarely been as shocked & upset.
All vaccines against the SARS-COV-2 virus are by definition novel. No candidate vaccine has been in development for more than a few months. If any such vaccine is approved for use under any circumstances that are not EXPLICITLY experimental, I believe that recipients are being misled to a criminal extent. This is because there are precisely zero human volunteers for whom there could possibly be more than a few months past-dose safety information. My concern does not arise because I have negative views about vaccines (I don’t). Instead, it’s the very principle that politicians seem ready to waive that new medical interventions at this, incomplete state of development- should not be made available to subjects on anything other than an explicitly experimental basis. That’s my concern. And the reason for that concern is that it is not known what the safety profile will be, six months or a year or longer after dosing. You have literally no data on this & neither does anyone else. It isn’t that I’m saying that unacceptable adverse effects will emerge after longer intervals after dosing. No: it is that you have no idea what will happen yet, despite this, you’ll be creating the impression that you do. Several of the vaccine candidates utilise novel technology which have not previously been used to create vaccines.
There is therefore no long term safety data which can be pointed to in support of the notion that it’s reasonable to expedite development & to waive absent safety information on this occasion. I am suspicious of the motives of those proposing expedited use in the wider human population. We now understand who is at particularly elevated risk of morbidity & mortality from acquiring this virus. Volunteers from these groups only should be provided detailed information about risk / benefit, including the sole point I make here.
Only if informed consent is given should any EXPERIMENTAL vaccine be used. I don’t trust you. You’ve not been straightforward & have behaved appallingly throughout this crisis. You’re still doing it now, misleading about infection risk from young children. Why should I believe you in relation to experimental vaccines?
Dr Michael Yeadon