Pfizer’s CEO Dr. Albert Bourla has had his knuckles smacked, but only barely, by the UK’s pharmaceutical watchdog for making “misleading” statements about children’s vaccines.
In a December 2, 2021 BBC interview Bourla claimed that “there is no doubt in my mind that the benefits, completely, are in favor of” vaccinating children age five to 11 years of age. Two months earlier, in October, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the Pfizer shots for five to 11-year-olds.
“Covid in schools is thriving,” said Bourla during the BBC interview. “This is disturbing, significantly, the educational system, and there are kids that will have severe symptoms.”
This interview aired before the vaccine had been approved by Britain’s medical regulator for five to 11 years of age children.
Watch the full BBC interview here.
Subsequently, USForThem, a parent’s group, filed a complaint with the UK’s Prescription Medicines Code of Practice Authority (PMCPA), the Brit’s pharmaceutical watchdog, alleging that Bourla’s statement was “extremely promotional in nature” and “disgracefully misleading” in violating of the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry’s (ABP) code of practice.
“There is simply no evidence that health schoolchildren in the UK are at significant risk from the SARS COV-2 virus and to imply that they are is disgracefully misleading,” stated the complaint.
In September 2021, the UK’s Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI), had advised against a mass roll for children 12 -15, saying the “margin of benefit” was “considered too small” and citing the low risk to healthy children from the virus.
Less than two weeks later, the ministers gave the green light for youngsters to be given a single dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech jab to keep the schools open.
It was not until February 2022 that the JCVI ruled that children 5-11 could be offered the vaccination, but clearly emphasized that the parents have the right to decide – no one else.
As a result of the complaint, a UK PMCPA ethics panel found that Pfizer had breached the code of practice (ethics) by misleading the public in making unsubstantiated claims and failing to present information in a factual and balanced way.
Pfizer appealed the ruling and argued, which is the norm when challenging PHARMA and government pro-vaccination narratives, that Bourla’s remarks were based on “up-to-date scientific evidence” and “publicly available independent benefit-risk assessments”.
Earlier this month, an appeal board met to rule on Pfizer’s appeal.
The appeal board found that the ethics panel’s initial findings that Bourla/Pfizer misled the public, made unsubstantiated claims and there was no lack of balance in the public statements were upheld.
Alternatively, the appeal board overturned the initial rulings that Pfizer had brought discredit to the industry, had encouraged irrational use of a medicine and had failed to maintain high standards.
The full report on the case will be published within the month,
“Pfizer is committed to the highest levels of integrity in any interaction with the public,” said a Pfizer spokesperson. “We will review the case report in detail when we receive it, to inform future activity.”
This follows in the footsteps of Pfizer admitting before the EU Parliament that when the first vaccinations were rolled out Pfizer had never tested for efficacy on the question of transmission.
