Posted on 11/28/2022 9:43:56 PM PST by SeekAndFind
You might think an official rebuke of Pfizer's CEO for misleading the public on the benefits of its COVID vaccine would be big news, especially given the full-court press by vaccine absolutists to compel people to receive the shots, but even with a Google search, I have not yet seen any U.S. media coverage of a startling rebuke delivered to Pfizer CEO Dr. Albert Bourla by a panel convened by the U.K. Prescription Medicines Code of Practice Authority (PMCPA). The criticism followed remarks he made in a December 2021 interview with the BBC. The following account is derived from an article in the Melbourne, Australia Herald-Sun by Frank Chung.
In early December 2021, Dr Bourla used an interview with BBC Breakfast to claim that the virus was "thriving" in schools and "there is no doubt in my mind that the benefits, completely, are in favour of" giving five-year-olds the vaccine.
"This is disturbing, significantly, the educational system, and there are kids that will have severe symptoms," he said. (snip)
By March 2022, some data were showing the effectiveness of the children's vaccine plummeted to just 12 per cent within weeks of inoculation.
Dr Bourla said in the BBC interview that the main benefit of immunising children was "the indirect protection of adults".
"The extent to which we can do that and protect adults by avoiding them being infected by children with the current vaccines is still quite uncertain," he said.
"So, that's the balance — we clearly want to protect children as much as possible and we've got good evidence now that this vaccine, even at a low dose, produces a really good protective immune response in children and produces many fewer side effects because of the lower dose.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Shortly after the interview was published, parent lobby group UsForThem lodged a formal complaint with the Prescription Medicines Code of Practice Authority (PMCPA).
The complaint alleged Dr Bourla's remarks were "disgracefully misleading" and "extremely promotional in nature", breaching several clauses of the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry's (ABPI) code of practice, The Telegraph reported. (snip)
A code of practice panel convened by the PMCPA found Pfizer had breached the code in a number of different ways, including by misleading the public, making unsubstantiated claims, and by failing to present information in a factual and balanced way, according to The Telegraph.
Pfizer appealed the findings, arguing Dr Bourla’s remarks were based on “up-to-date scientific evidence” and could be substantiated by the “publicly available independent benefit-risk assessments”.
An appeal board panel met in November, where the breaches relating to misleading the public, making unsubstantiated claims and the lack of balance were upheld.
The more serious findings, including that Pfizer had brought discredit to the industry, had encouraged irrational use of a medicine and had failed to maintain high standards, were overturned.
The full case report will be published in coming weeks.
SEE HERE:
PING
>> I have not yet seen any U.S. media coverage of a startling rebuke
from Comcast & Disney?
First line of defense for Pfizer lawyers to use?
“All three main manufacterers of COVID Vaxes make prudent use of what may appear to be ‘misleading’ statements when taken out of context. Everyone knows this.
So then, why are we the only one’s being accused of crimes and virtually dragged through the mud? Frightening our stockholders. Why have we been chosen as the noble Scapegoat?
Some may chose to call it a “Deficit of Fairness!”
I was rather thinking that myself.
Where’s the fat Pfizer gal running away?
Thank you
That was what I was going to post myself
Where was the suit case owner when this reprobate walked off with her suitcase?
QQ2.. What was worth $2300 in a suitcase? how did this creep know which suitcase the grab? was it a Gucci? Coach? louis Vitton?
never mind...
A polite society can be...humorous...sometimes.
Calling these lies nothing more than "disgracefully misleading" is a lie in itself.
What wonderful control you must have of your bodily waste elimination ability.
Once you experience that gurgling sensation in your bowels there's no holding back.
Cheech and Chong's Up in Smoke
Come on, cheeks, stay together. Let's stay together.
The cries from the mRNA advocates over these last couple of years has been all couched in terms of "misinformation." As the worm turns, the label is coming back and pointing in the correct direction.
The "Covid" part of the worldwide con us cracking into pieces, and in a variety of ways. "Misleading" as a bit of vocabulary in this use specifically details the mRNA advocates' attempt to point (lead) "away" from the foundation of the con itself.
Fear as sales tactic has been partner to politics as a control tactic.
I'm thinking the victim was targeted by this reprobate and saw her load her luggage and drooled over the opportunity to steal the bag.
POS .. then again stealing the public blind is par for a democrat government official.
Good for you! You're special.
I'm thinking the victim was targeted by this reprobate and saw her load her luggage and drooled over the opportunity to steal the bag.
I won't dissuade you from that. Yet, for just the bag?
More like for the thrill.
In the News/Activism forum, on a thread titled Pfizer CEO rebuked by UK watchdog for 'misleading' statements on COVID vaccine, lee martell wrote: First line of defense for Pfizer lawyers to use?
“All three main manufacterers of COVID Vaxes make prudent use of what may appear to be ‘misleading’ statements when taken out of context. Everyone knows this.So then, why are we the only one’s being accused of crimes and virtually dragged through the mud? Frightening our stockholders. Why have we been chosen as the noble Scapegoat?
Some may chose to call it a “Deficit of Fairness!”Pfizer made factually false statements and withheld information which taken together denied patients their right to informed consent. This was not prudent and it wasn't just a difference of perspective. For example, most pregnant women in the trial had miscarriages and Pfizer withheld this information and did not warn patients, this means no informed consent was possible for those pregnant women or their babies. Context really doesn't open an escape hatch here.
This is only one of the lies and omissions Pfizer intentionally committed and tried to conceal for 75 years.
Your argument about "why are we the only ones being accused..." is truely repulsive in that it says, 'We should be able to get away with killing billions because our peers haven't been caught/convicted yet.' 'WHy can't we kill like they do and skip responsibility?'
In fact, some may choose to call your argument a "Deficit of Humanity" or perhaps a "Deficit of Conscience."
Good analysis of this lament of The Devil’s Advocate.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.