Uncategorized
UK regulators find Pfizer CEO guilty of misleading public
From the Brownstone Institute
BY
This is the inside story of how UsForThem, a UK children’s welfare campaigning group, held Pfizer to account for misleading parents about Covid vaccine safety.
On 2 December 2021, the UK’s national public broadcaster, the BBC, published on its website, its popular news app, and in a flagship news program, a video interview and an accompanying article under the headline ‘Pfizer boss: Annual Covid jabs for years to come.’
The interview by the BBC’s medical editor, Fergus Walsh, conducted as a friendly fireside chat, gave Dr Albert Bourla, the Chairman and CEO of Pfizer, a free pass promotional opportunity that money cannot buy — as the UK’s public service broadcaster, the BBC is usually prohibited from carrying commercial advertising or product placement.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, Pfizer made the most of that astonishing opportunity to promote the uptake of its vaccine product. As the BBC’s strapline suggests, the key message relayed by Dr Bourla, responding to an obediently leading question from Mr Walsh, was that many more vaccine shots would need to be bought and jabbed to maintain high levels of protection in the UK. He was speaking shortly before the UK Government bought another 54 million doses of Pfizer vaccines.
Misleading statements about safety
Among his explicit and implicit encouragements for the UK to order more of his company’s shots, Dr Bourla commented emphatically about the merits of vaccinating children under 12 years of age, saying “[So] there is no doubt in my mind that the benefits, completely are in favour of doing it [vaccinating 5 to 11 year-olds in the UK and Europe]”.
No mention of risks or potential adverse events, nor indeed the weighing of any factors other than apparent benefits: Dr Bourla was straightforwardly convinced that the UK and Europe should be immunising millions of children.
In fact, it later emerged that the BBC’s article had misquoted Dr Bourla, who in the full video interview recording had ventured the benefits to be “completely completely” in favour of vaccinating young children.
Despite the strength of Dr Bourla’s unconditional and superlative pitch for vaccinating under-12s, the UK regulatory authorities would not authorise the vaccine for use with those children until the very end of 2021; and indeed this came just a few months after the JCVI — the expert body which advises the UK Government on whether and when to deploy vaccines — had already declined to advise the Government to roll out a mass vaccination programme for healthy 12 to 15 year-olds on the basis that “the margin of benefit, based primarily on a health perspective, is considered too small to support advice on a universal programme of vaccination of otherwise healthy 12 to 15-year old children…”.
In response, soon after the interview aired, UsForThem submitted a complaint to the UK’s Prescription Medicines Code of Practice Authority (PMCPA) — the regulator responsible for policing promotions of prescription medicines in the UK. The complaint cited the overtly promotional nature of the BBC’s reports and challenged the compliance of Dr Bourla’s comments about children with the apparently strict rules governing the promotion of medicines in the UK.
A year-long, painful process
More than a year later, following a lengthy assessment process and an equally lengthy appeal by Pfizer of the PMCPA’s initial damning findings, the complaint and all of the PMCPA’s findings have been made public in a case report published on the regulator’s website.**
Though some aspects of that complaint ultimately were not upheld on appeal, importantly an industry-appointed appeal board affirmed the PMCPA’s original findings that Dr Bourla’s comments on using the Covid vaccine for 5 to 11 year-olds were promotional, and were both misleading and incapable of substantiation in relation to the safety of vaccinating that age group.
Even after UsForThem involved a number of prominent UK parliamentarians, including Sir Graham Brady MP, to help accelerate the complaint, the process was dragged on — or perhaps ‘out’ — while the rollout of Pfizer’s vaccine to UK under-12s proceeded, and the BBC’s interview and article stayed online. Even now the interview remains available on the BBC’s website, despite the PMCPA in effect having characterised it as ‘misinformation’ as far as vaccinating children is concerned.
When news of the appeal outcome was first revealed in November 2022 by a reporter at The Daily Telegraph newspaper, Pfizer issued a comment to the effect that it takes compliance seriously and was pleased that the “most serious” of the PMCPA’s initial findings — that Pfizer had failed to maintain high standards and had brought discredit upon and lowered confidence in the pharmaceutical industry — had been overturned on appeal.
It must be an insular and self-regarding world that Pfizer inhabits, that discrediting the pharmaceutical industry is considered a more serious matter than making misleading and unsubstantiated claims about the safety of their products for use with children. This surely speaks volumes about the mindset and priorities of the senior executives at companies such as Pfizer.
And if misleading parents about the safety of a vaccine product for use with children does not discredit or reduce confidence in the pharmaceutical industry, it is hard to imagine what standard can have been applied by the appeal board which overturned that initial finding.
Perhaps this reflects the industry’s assessment of its own current reputation: that misinformation promulgated by one of its most senior executives is not discrediting. According to the case report, the appeal board had regard to the “unique circumstances” of the pandemic: so perhaps the view was that Pfizer can’t always be expected to observe the rules when it gets busy.
Multiple breaches. No meaningful penalty
Indeed, a brief look at the PMCPA’s complaints log confirms that Pfizer has been found to have broken the UK medicines advertising rules in relation to its Covid vaccine a further four times since 2020. Astonishingly, though, for their breaches in this most recent case, and in each of the other cases decided against it, neither Pfizer nor Dr Bourla will suffer any meaningful penalty (the PMCPA will have levied a small administrative charge to cover the cost of administering each complaint). So in practice neither has any incentive to regret the breach, or to avoid repeating it if it remains commercially expedient to do so.
And this is perhaps the crux of the issue: the PMCPA, the key UK regulator in this area, operates as a division of the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry, the UK industry’s trade body. It is therefore a regulator funded by, and which exists only by the will of, the companies whose behaviour it is charged with overseeing.
Despite Pharma being one of the most lucrative and well-funded sectors of the business world, the largely self-regulatory system on which the industry has now for decades had the privilege to rely has been under-resourced and has become slow, meek and powerless.
The UK Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), a governmental agency, in principle has jurisdiction to hold the BBC accountable for what seems likely to have been mirroring breaches of the medicines advertising rules when it broadcast and promoted Dr Bourla’s comments, but no action has yet been taken.
This case, and the apparent impunity that companies such as Pfizer appear to enjoy, serve as evidence that the system of oversight for Pharma in the UK is hopelessly outdated and that the regulatory authorities are risibly ill-equipped to keep powerful, hugely well-resourced corporate groups in check. The regulatory system for Big Pharma is not fit for purpose; so it is time for a rethink.
Children deserve better, and we should all demand it.
** Endnote: an undisclosed briefing document
As part of its defence of UsForThem’s complaint, Pfizer relied on the content of an internal briefing document that had been prepared for the CEO by Pfizer’s UK compliance team before the BBC interview took place. Pfizer initially asked for that document to be withheld from UsForThem on the grounds that it was confidential. When UsForThem later demanded sight of the document (on the basis that it was not possible to respond fully to Pfizer’s appeal without it), UsForThem was offered a partially redacted version, and only then under terms of a perpetual and blanket confidentiality undertaking.
Without knowing the content of that document, or the scope of the redactions, UsForThem was unwilling to give an unconditional perpetual blanket confidentiality undertaking, but reluctantly agreed that it would accept the redacted document and keep it confidential subject to one limited exception: if UsForThem reasonably believed the redacted document revealed evidence of serious negligence or wrongdoing by Pfizer or any other person, including evidence of reckless or wilful damage to the public health of children, UsForThem would be permitted to share the document, on a confidential basis, with members of the UK Parliament.
This limited exception to confidentiality was not accepted. Consequently UsForThem never saw the briefing document, and instead drew the inference that it contained content which Pfizer regarded as compromising and which it therefore did not wish to risk ever becoming public.
Uncategorized
UK Government And Media Spread Disinformation About Southport Killer, Evidence Suggests
Britain’s Prime Minister Keir Starmer answers questions during a press conference following clashes after the Southport stabbing on August 1, 2024. (Photo by HENRY NICHOLLS/AFP via Getty Images)
This is a preview of a breaking story. Click below for the full report
|
|
UK police now say that the alleged killer possessed an al-Qaeda training manual and a deadly biological toxin
The riots in England this summer were motivated by far-right Islamophobia and driven by disinformation online, argued the UK media and government at the time. In July and August, social media posts claimed that a Muslim migrant was responsible for a mass stabbing in the seaside town of Southport. Those claims were false, according to officials and fact-checkers.
The riots began after a 17-year-old named Axel Rudakubana allegedly stabbed to death three young girls at a Taylor Swift-themed dance workshop. Rudakubana was born in the UK and raised Christian, the media reported. The rioters, said Prime Minister Keir Starmer, were “far-right thugs” seeking to exploit the tragedy and “target people because of the color of their skin.”
But it now appears that the UK government may have deliberately spread disinformation and used it to justify censorship and repression. Police yesterday issued new charges under the Terrorism Act against Rudakubana, now 18, for allegedly producing ricin, a biological toxin, and possessing an al-Qaeda training manual titled “Military Studies in the Jihad Against the Tyrants.” Since police arrested Rudakubana at the scene of the stabbings, it’s likely they searched his home shortly after, and thus may have discovered the ricin and manual within hours of the attack.
Ricin is a protein toxin derived from the castor bean plant and has no known antidotes. The terrorism charges identify the al-Qaeda training manual as “of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism.” Although the police stated that the case is not yet classified as a “terrorist incident,” these new charges suggest that radical Islamism motivated the attack, contradicting authorities’ previous narrative.
“It is not plausible for the police, Home Secretary, Prime Minister not to have known about the suspect’s background until this week,” said conservative Member of Parliament and former Home Secretary, Dame Priti Patel, in a statement to The Telegraph. “This detail would have materialized within 2-3 days of such a devastating and serious incident with the entire security apparatus focusing on finding answers to key questions.
Mourners gather for the funeral of a nine-year-old victim of a knife attack in Southport on August 11, 2024 (left); Axel Rudakubana, Southport stabbing suspect (center); Britain’s Prime Minister Keir Starmer at 10 Downing Street on August 1, 2024 (right). [Getty Images and Liverpool Crown Court drawing]…
Continue reading this post for free in the Substack app
Uncategorized
Canadian man euthanized after COVID shot injuries
From LifeSiteNews
An Ontario man in his late 40s has been euthanized after doctors diagnosed him with ‘post COVID-19 vaccination syndrome’ following three COVID jabs, which caused him to suffer ‘severe functional decline.’
An Ontario man has been granted euthanasia for “post COVID-19 vaccination syndrome.”
According to an October report by the National Post, an anonymous Ontario man in his late 40s has been euthanized after doctors determined his COVID shot injuries qualified him for assisted suicide or “Medical Assistance in Dying” (MAiD) under Canada’s euthanasia regime.
“Amongst his multiple specialists, no unifying diagnosis was confirmed,” the reports issued by a 16-member MAiD death review committee found.
Nevertheless, the doctors “opined that the most reasonable diagnosis for Mr. A’s clinical presentation (severe functional decline) was a post-vaccine syndrome, in keeping with chronic fatigue syndrome.”
The man experienced “suffering and functional decline” following three doses of the experimental COVID shots.
He also suffered from a slew of mental illnesses, including depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety and personality disorders. He was admitted to the hospital twice “while navigating his physical symptoms” with thoughts of suicide.
He was eventually diagnosed “post COVID-19 vaccination syndrome,” which is not currently include in Canada’s current vaccine reporting system. Notably, Canada’s program to compensate those injured by the so-called “safe and effective” COVID shots has now spent $14 million, but the vast majority of claims remain unpaid.
His death is further complicated by the fact that multiple specialists failed to agree on his diagnosis, with many questioning if his condition met the criteria for an “irremediable” condition, which is required to seek euthanasia in Canada. Many also questioned if his mental health disqualified him from undergoing assisted suicide.
The man’s death is considered “Track 2,” part of a group who are not “terminally ill” and whose natural deaths are not reasonably foreseeable.
Dr. Sonu Gaind, a psychiatrist and professor of medicine at the University of Toronto, revealed that he is troubled “by almost everything in this report.”
“I think we have gone so far over the line with Track 2 that people cannot even see the line that we’ve crossed,” said Gaind.
“It’s pretty clear that some providers are going up to that line, and maybe beyond it,” Gaind said.
As LifeSiteNews previously reported, internal information has revealed that Canadian doctors are questioning the morality of euthanizing vulnerable and impoverished patients who are choosing death because of poverty and loneliness.
During his time in office, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his government have worked to expand assisted suicide 13-fold since it was legalized, making Canada’s euthanasia program the fastest growing in the world.
Currently, wait times to receive actual health care in Canada have increased to an average of 27.7 weeks, leading some Canadians to despair and opt for euthanasia instead of waiting for genuine assistance. At the same time, sick and elderly Canadians who have refused to end their lives via “MAiD” have reported being called “selfish” by their providers.
The most recent reports show that euthanasia is the sixth highest cause of death in Canada. However, it was not listed as such in Statistics Canada’s top 10 leading causes of death from 2019 to 2022.
When asked why it was left off the list, the agency said that it records the illnesses that led Canadians to choose to end their lives via euthanasia, not the actual cause of death, as the primary cause of death.
According to Health Canada, in 2022, 13,241 Canadians died by MAiD lethal injections. This accounts for 4.1 percent of all deaths in the country for that year, a 31.2 percent increase from 2021.
-
Alberta2 days ago
Heavy-duty truckers welcome new ‘natural gas highway’ in Alberta
-
Business1 day ago
Premiers fight to lower gas taxes as Trudeau hikes pump costs
-
Economy2 days ago
Gas prices plummet in BC thanks to TMX pipeline expansion
-
Business2 days ago
Trudeau government spends millions producing podcasts
-
Bruce Dowbiggin2 days ago
Why Canada’s Elites Are Captives To The Kamala Narrative
-
Addictions1 day ago
‘Our Liberal Government Is Acting Like A Drug Lord’: A Mother’s Testimony
-
Crime1 day ago
RCMP Bust B.C. Fentanyl Superlab Linked to Mexico and Transnational Exports
-
Health24 hours ago
Canadian Health Organizations Unite to Demand Truth on Vaccine Safety