You get 1000 Internet points if you find a definition for “criminal” that Bourla doesn’t fit.
this is huge and I thought it will blow up without my help, but it has actually kind of sank under the many smoke grenades launched lately, and even I forgot about it, luckily for social media, where no crime goes forgotten or forgiven.
So it’s my duty to stir this some more, I hope you will share my feeling.
On December 2nd 2021, the BBC published on its website, its popular news app and in the BBC News at One programme 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 U.K.’s national public service broadcaster, the BBC is usually prohibited from carrying commercial advertising or product placement.
Pfizer CEO Bourla commented on “vaccinating” British children under 12:
- “There is no doubt in my mind that the benefits, completely are in favor of doing it [vaccinating 5-to-11-year-olds in the UK and Europe].”
- “Immunizing that age group [children under the age of 11] in the UK and Europe would be a very good idea.”
- “Covid in schools was thriving.”
- “So, there was no doubt in my mind that the benefits completely were in favor of doing it.”
The interview was conducted before the vaccine was approved for children between the ages of five and 11 in the UK.
After the interview was published, parent campaign group UsForThem filed a complaint with the Prescription Medicines Code of Practice Authority (PMCPA). The complaint accused Dr. Bourla of making “disgracefully misleading” comments about vaccinating children and that the comments were “extremely promotional in nature,” and that he violated several clauses of the code of practice by the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry (ABPI).
“There is simply no evidence that healthy schoolchildren in the UK are at significant risk from the SARS COV-2 virus and to imply that they are is disgracefully misleading,” the complaint said.
PMCPA convened a code of practice panel that found that Dr. Bourla had indeed violated the code of practice in a few ways, including failure to present information to the public in a factual and balanced manner, misleading the public, and making claims that cannot be substantiated.
The rulings finding violations were:
The Appeal Board considered that the subsequent strong opinion statements, including ‘So, there was no doubt in my mind that the benefits completely [completely] were in favour of doing it [vaccinating children against Covid-19]’ and ‘I believe it’s a very good idea’ might infer to the ultimate audience, including members of the public, that there was no need to be concerned about potential side-effects of vaccination in healthy children aged 5-11 which was not so. The Appeal Board considered that this implication was misleading and incapable of substantiation. The Appeal Board therefore upheld the Panel’s rulings of breaches of the Code.
The Appeal Board considered that the CEO’s opinion statements, including ‘So there is no doubt in my mind about the benefits completely are in favour of doing it’ might infer to the ultimate audience, including members of the public, that the benefits outweighed the risks when the UK regulatory authorities had not yet made any conclusions in relation to the vaccination of 5 to 11 year olds; no Covid-19 vaccine was licensed in the UK in that age group when the article at issue was published and the Appeal Board therefore upheld the Panel’s rulings of breaches of the Code.
The process took a year to complete. The group published its story here.
The Telegraph reported Pfizer appealed against the findings of the panel and strongly disagreed with UsForThem’s claims that the CEO violated the code of practice. The company argued that Dr. Bourla’s remarks were based on “up-to-date scientific evidence” and they could be proven through “publicly available independent benefit-risk assessments.”
An appeal board upheld that Dr. Bourla misled the public, made claims that were unbalanced, and made unsubstantiated claims.
However, it ruled against claims that Pfizer discredited the industry, encouraged reckless use of a treatment, and did not maintain high standards.
Now, I would also like to bring to your attention this expose that’s too massive to copy/paste here and I don’t even want to deprive independent citizen journalist Anthony Colpo of his well deserved website hits, so please follow these links:
Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla is, By His Own Definition, a Criminal: Part 1
Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla is, By His Own Definition, a Criminal: Part 2
Also these, from myself:
I rest my case.
Other sources I used:
Global Research
CovidLawCast.Com
The Daily Sceptic
To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production.
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!
! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them
SILVIEW.media 