ET and SA, you both treated Yeadon’s arguments as if they were science

As there was a lot of discussion about Mike Yeadon on a different thread I took the time to summarise the argument he presented in that particular interview in this post.

He has the academic credentials to make comment. From listening I get the feeling that he is genuine and sincere in his argument and not trying to be controversial for the sake of being so
That is what I said at the time. I think he has subsequently been shown by events to have been mistaken. There is an ongoing second wave. Here is a link to a good summary of the arguments against his:
https://unherd.com/2020/11/the-trouble-with-covid-denialism/

Subsequently Clark, he and 21 others with similar academic backgrounds have submitted a paper to https://www.eurosurveillance.org/ Europe’s journal on infectious disease surveillance, epidemiology, prevention and control. I have no idea how credible this journal is. The paper is titled “External peer review of the RTPCR test to detect SARS-CoV-2 reveals 10 major scientific flaws at the molecular and methodological level: consequences for false positive results”

I also believe he and others have petitioned the EMA ( European Medicine Agency responsible for approving drugs across the EU) for the immediate suspension of all SARS CoV 2 vaccine studies, in particular the BioNtech/Pfizer study on BNT162b (EudraCT number 2020-002641-42).

@Mods It would be nice to have the ability to preview posts to see if I have messed up