“A bun in the toaster oven,” a woman exclaims off-camera, handing an ultrasound image to family members who erupt into tearful emotion over the news. “Oh my God!”
The touching baby announcement video then gets down to business as text appears on the screen amidst the ongoing celebration, suggesting the best way to stay alive for this joyous birth is by becoming vaccinated against COVID-19. “Why will you get vaccinated? … Because some people you just want to meet in person.”
It closes with the tagline: “Science can make this possible. Only you can make it real.”
The evocative 2021 television spot was funded by Pfizer just as the pharmaceutical giant was rolling out its COVID-19 vaccine. The spot may have seemed, for Americans, like any other pharmaceutical advertisement. But there was something missing. The ad, and many others like it financed by vaccine manufacturers, did not include any of the typical disclaimers about risks associated with vaccines, nor any disclosures that they had not yet received Food and Drug Administration approval.
Although Pfizer and other pharmaceutical companies were operating under a special Emergency Use Authorisation (EUA) that allowed them to sell their Covid vaccines without going through the traditional testing and approval process, that authorisation explicitly required vaccine ads to include a prominent warning that the medicines had not been fully tested for potential risks.
A RealClearInvestigations review of ads that ran tens of thousands of times during the pandemic found that the major vaccine companies routinely exploited a regulatory loophole to skirt those marketing rules while embarking on massive paid media campaigns to sell the COVID-19 vaccines. By casting their spots as public service announcements – promoting the idea that people should get vaccinated, rather than a company’s specific product – drug companies claimed the disclosure requirements did not apply.
As a result, the required disclosure about the vaccine operating under emergency approval rarely appeared in any of the ads, even as many employers, including the federal Government, required tens of millions of Americans to get vaccinated.
“It’s an advertising laundering operation,” said Aaron Kheriaty, a bioethicist and fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Centre. The ads “violate the spirit of the EUA, if not the letter of the law”.
The ad blitz was plastered across television and social media and later celebrated by drug industry insiders as one of the most effective pharmaceutical outreach campaigns of all time. The flood of ads not only promoted Pfizer and Moderna’s products but helped influence public opinion, transforming an industry once viewed as driven by greed into altruistic heroes stepping up to solve a health crisis with no ulterior motives.
WPP, the advertising conglomerate that crafted Pfizer’s “Science Will Win” ad campaign during the pandemic, was clear about the motivation when speaking to a trade outlet. “‘Science Will Win’ campaign was about changing the perception that pharmaceutical companies profited from health and from sickness,” Claire Gillis, the International Chief Executive Officer of WPP Health Practice, boasted to the Drum, a marketing industry outlet.
Yet the role of the COVID-19 vaccine ads, which widely shaped public opinion and galvanised support for the drug industry, remains largely unexplored. Critics say it is another example of rules for pharmaceutical companies that were tossed to the wayside as maximalist policies swept through society. Online censorship, vaccination mandates, school closings, general lockdowns and other draconian restrictions were imposed on citizens, while drug companies poised to reap unprecedented multi-billion dollar profits were given unusual and largely unscrutinised leeway.
The attorneys general of Texas and Kansas have accused Pfizer of widely misleading the public on the effectiveness of its vaccine. Both states contend that the company violated rules that bar pharmaceutical firms from deceptive messaging, though their lawsuits largely focus on statements by company officials. Pfizer has denied that it misrepresented the vaccine and said in court documents that it is “immune” from claims since the company was acting under authorisation from the federal Government.
These so-called “direct-to-consumer” drug ads are a contentious area of public health. The United States and New Zealand are the only countries that permit such ads. A study from the Government Accountability Office found that from 2016 through 2018, drug manufacturers spent $17.8 billion on direct-to-consumer ads for just 553 drugs, almost all of which were brand name. Experts have sharply criticised the ads for misleading patients and encouraging many to seek out medications that are not clinically appropriate.
The tsunami of drug ads began in 1997 when Congress lifted previous restrictions and allowed pharmaceutical ads as long as they contained a summary of the risks of each product at the end of the commercial. This has given many ads a whiplash quality, as sunny visions of a medicine’s benefits are followed by a parade of horribles regarding common side-effects ranging from hallucinations and nausea to strokes, suicidal ideation and even heart attacks.
However, Covid ads from Pfizer that ran nationally during the early rollout of the vaccine contained no basic disclosure, despite the fact they were marketing a drug that had enhanced disclosure requirements. The risks around myocarditis and other heart issues were not acknowledged in spots, nor were the relative lack of benefits for young, healthy individuals with prior infection immunity.
The most glaring omission, however, was the lack of disclosure that the vaccines had not yet received FDA approval. Under the emergency approval to Pfizer and Moderna, issued in December 2020, both pharmaceutical firms were required to remind viewers of the EUA status of the vaccines in any paid media. It stated that “all descriptive printed matter, advertising and promotional material” relating to the vaccine must “clearly and conspicuously” state that “this product has not been approved or licensed by FDA” and was authorised only under the emergency use declaration.
Those disclosures were almost nowhere to be found in countless advertisements that appeared over the ensuing months of the pandemic, as Americans faced widespread coercion to receive the shot.
In a response to a request for comment, a Pfizer spokesperson claimed that the ads were “unbranded campaigns”, and thus no disclosures were required. Moderna provided a similar explanation. “As this was a non-branded disease education campaign EUA disclosures were neither necessary nor appropriate,” said a company spokesperson.
In other words, although both vaccine firms poured vast resources into marketing and advertising the vaccine, they did not mention the official brand names – Pfizer’s Comirnaty and Moderna’s SpikeVax – and therefore, under this interpretation of the rules, neither the routine direct-to-consumer disclosures nor the EUA disclosures applied.
That justification strikes some medical ethics experts as pure sophistry.
“Since the Covid vaccines were approved under EUA, even unbranded ads should have carried the required warning,” noted Dr. Martin Kulldorff, a biostatistician and infectious disease epidemiologist, and critic of many vaccine policies.
The intent of the ads was clear to the marketing firms that managed them. WPP’s Gillis, in her remarks to the Drum, said that elevating the brand as part of the vaccine ads was very much the point. “Go to the doctor and ask for ‘Pfizer vaccine’,” she said, discussing the strategy.
Dini von Mueffling, a New York communications specialist who assisted with many of the Pfizer ads, later discussed the effort with Contagious, another marketing industry publication. The “many legal regulations”, said von Mueffling, “I think ultimately stymie creativity”. But, she added, “we worked within those regulations and were still able to be very creative, which was great”.
Pfizer ran many iterations of its “unbranded” COVID-19 vaccine campaign. The ‘Because of This’ ad campaign featured real people rather than actors answering the question of why they will get vaccinated. “Because this year she turns one, and I’m 74,” the tagline of one Pfizer-sponsored ad read. Another, titled ‘Hug’, showed two women clutching each other, weeping. “Because you can’t hug a computer screen. Why will you get vaccinated?” the text of the ad asked, in a nod to the lockdown orders.
Moderna, while operating under the EUA, launched a ‘Make it Yours’ campaign to encourage the use of its vaccine. The company brought on partnerships with the Seattle Seahawks and Boston Red Sox. One of the animated ads featured former Seahawks star Jordan Babineaux, who instructed viewers to “always protect the team” and get vaccinated. “With the vaccines here to help millions, we can take steps towards life as we knew it,” narrated Babineaux.
In other cases, third-party groups funded by Pfizer and Moderna blanketed viewers with ads urging vaccination without any disclaimers.
Immunise Nevada, a nonprofit that popped up during the pandemic and then disappeared, ran Facebook ads with a doctor imploring viewers to “get vaccinated”. GovVax, another group funded by vaccine industry sources, sponsored social media ads touting vaccines as “free, safe and effective”. The National Hispanic Medical Association, backed by grants from the vaccine pharmaceutical industry, similarly sponsored a “Get Vaccinated” social media campaign.
Pfizer also tapped the largely unregulated world of influencer marketing. In one instance, the company retained the public relations firm Real Chemistry and an influencer named Darrion Nguyen, who also goes by @Lab_Shenanigans, to create a series of comedic skits mocking vaccine misinformation. The series, titled ‘I Heard It on the Internet’, mocked critics of vaccine policy as fools who did not follow the science.
Nguyen, who identified himself as a “real life scientist”, produced videos debunking claims such as “vaccines don’t work with Omicron variants” and “vaccines can make you magnetic”. The latter was certainly not true, but the former was up for debate. Research from Israel showed that the Pfizer boosters provided as little as 30% efficacy against the Omicron wave – and other studies suggested at the time that natural immunity provided as much as 87.8% efficacy against the Omicron variant. Those facts were not included in the Pfizer-funded TikTok series.
The star of the Pfizer social media ads, however, later got into his own misinformation scandal. Earlier this year, Baylor College of Medicine in Texas retracted research authored in part by Nguyen, citing falsified data and fabricated lab results. Nguyen, in response to the news, cited “pressure to meet expectations”.
While few news outlets covered Moderna or Pfizer’s ad campaign at the time, both companies were widely celebrated by marketing professionals for the success of the blitz.
YouGov called Pfizer’s ads the most successful of 2020, while Medical Marketing and Media, an industry group, awarded Moderna, Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson for their innovative marketing efforts.
Pfizer went so far as to submit a detailed presentation touting the impact of its social media and marketing strategy during the pandemic to the ‘Shorty Awards’, another industry competition for DTC ads and drug marketing innovation. The video montage of the company’s success shows a series of public relations victories for the industry, including a social media pledge to ensure a safe and effective vaccine, which won Pfizer “positive coverage from almost every top tier [news] outlet”, including the New York Times and Bloomberg.
The success in selling the public was buoyed by Government support. The United States provided at least $31.9 billion in funds for the development, purchasing and production of the mRNA vaccines, money that padded record profits. Pfizer generated some $37 billion in revenue from the vaccine in 2021, making it one of the most lucrative drug product launches of all time. Moderna, meanwhile, minted four new billionaires as the company’s stock skyrocketed.
Kheriaty, the bioethicist, is an opponent of all direct-to-consumer ads. But he noted that the vaccine industry campaign appeared particularly pernicious, as Government and media voices largely echoed every marketing claim of the vaccine industry with little pushback, while the tens of millions of dollars of pharmaceutical ads provided an inherent conflict of interest for the news programmes covering the pandemic.
“You’re probably just at the tip of the iceberg in terms of tracing the money flow,” Kheriaty sighed.
Related Reporting:
— “Pfizer Quietly Financed Groups Lobbying for Covid Vaccine Mandates“
— “FBI Surveillance Contractor Probed Anti-Vaccine Mandate Activists“
— “Moderna Surveillance Operation Targeted Independent Media Voices“
This investigation was originally published by RealClearInvestigations and on Lee Fang’s Substack.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
The inference of this article is obvious, the elephant in the room.
Does that mean the excess cardiovascular deaths were not caused by climate change???!!!
From Bob Moran …
Lancet is blaming SADS on air pollution
(November 2022). https://bgr.com/science/study-claims-tiny-particles-in-the-air-can-cause-sudden-heart-attacks/
Clown world. Nothing to do with poison injections.
They think we are as idiotic as they are
Sceptic readers not but most of the population most definitely are unfortunately which is why they get away with the cr4p.
‘Nobody is blinder than the person who decides he does not want to see’
Dot to dot should be on the curriculum not enhanced maths
Bob Moran is a genius. He never fails to prove that a picture can say a thousand words.
That’s next week.
The guilty keep lying. One day, maybe soon maybe not so soon, they will run out of lies, or they will end up telling lies so big that even the sheeple will cotton on.
One can but live in hope!!!
“the Government could and should do better to get to the bottom of what is driving the excess in cardiovascular deaths. We’ll keep digging.”
Hilarious. Yes keep digging Carl, right underneath the giant Syringe shaped elephant. Maybe you’ll get to Australia and you can ask them what caused it.
Don’t look here……………………………………….look over here…
Carl,
You gaslight on plenty of TV and Radio shows. Regularly. Weekly in fact.
You know what is causing this just as much as I do – and I’m not a medical professional.
Why not compile the facts as you have them now and come out on TV and say there is strong indication/evidence that the excess deaths are caused by…….
…or will you keep the TV and Radio slots for as long as you can, not mention the unmentionable while the rest of us guess the correct answer and ask why all these super-experienced and super-educated medical professionals continue to be “baffled”.
There is real harm in the public being caused because of loss of confidence (more than now) in the medical profession because you/they will not call out the Emperors new clothes. We all see the nakedness.
Slowly slowly catchy monkey.
It’s a bit harsh to criticise a practitioner of ‘evidence based medicine’ for not resorting to speculation. CH and team are asking the government to provide the evidence required to form conclusions and then scrutinise that which is provided to test its reliability, that’s the difference between him and Dr Malhotra or Dr McCullough (neither of whom i’m criticising either, they just take a different approach).
I want to see these jabs exposed just as much as the next guy but it won’t be done by wild speculation.
I’d say we’re a bit past “speculation” at this point. It’s probably because he doesn’t want to risk jeopardising his job. Understandable but a shame because he, along with the likes of Malhotra, would have a heck of a lot of clout. No offence to Prof Heneghan but it does come off as cowardice. Don’t tell me he isn’t personally seeing evidence of vax harms first hand in his clinical practice. He’d also be in a position to establish the vax status of his patients.
I quite agree. We’re 2 years in. The time for speculation is long gone. Enough data the world over has been collected. The Prof has a duty of care both clinically and academically. It’s painfully obvious he’s dancing around the flaming obvious, all the while ignoring the Yellow Card system screaming the safety signal for anyone with zero letters behind their name to see. He’s failed in his duty to protect patients and inform the public and that’s a huge disappointment for someone so highly credentialed. He’d make one hell of an opponent for tptb and ally for others who’ve got the courage to speak up though. What a let down.
Swineflu Vaccine:- 1 adverse reaction in 100,000. Withdrawn
Rotashield Vaccine:- 20 adverse reactions in 100,000. Withdrawn
Covid mRNA Vaccine:- 125 adverse reactions in 100,000. Actively promoted.
(yet the AZ C19 Vaccine was quietly withdrawn with (less than??) 1/800 reaction rate)
Adverse reaction reporting is reputed to be only 1/10 of actual events?
That I would suggest is a very good starting point for any evidence based scientist and the medical profession to openly question the current “treatment” plan.
We all need to keep an open mind until there is clear evidence one way or another.
Those who claim the vaccines are causing many of the excess deaths need to explain why there haven’t been excess deaths in the highly vaccinated Nordic countries, at least up until July 2022:
“Between January 2020 and July 2022, Sweden’s age-standardised mortality rate was 4% lower than the five-year average. By contrast, Iceland’s was 3.9% lower, Denmark’s was 2.8% lower and Finland’s was 1.7% lower.”
https://dailysceptic.org/2023/01/04/sweden-did-better-than-its-neighbours/
Cholesterol…statins …a whole other can of worms…..40 million Americans are taking statins!
‘Our review of the literature indicates that statin therapy for both primary and secondary prevention of CVD is not warranted for individuals on an LCD with elevated LDL-C who have achieved a low triglyceride/HDL ratio.’
‘….a person on an LCD with a nonatherogenic lipid profile (low TGs/high HDL-C) is more likely to experience the adverse effects of statins including an increased risk of new onset type 2 diabetes, an increase in fasting blood glucose in patients with and without diabetes, mitochondrial dysfunction, tendinopathy, myopathy, acute kidney injury/renal failure and cognitive deficits than benefits.
https://journals.lww.com/co-endocrinology/Fulltext/2022/10000/Statin_therapy_is_not_warranted_for_a_person_with.14.aspx
Cognitive deficits?
‘……the study predicts that the number of people with dementia will go up in every country in the world, resulting in a near tripling in the global rate of dementia.’
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpub/article/PIIS2468-2667(21)00249-8/fulltext
Hmmm………
Great points Monro, and completely echoes what a long career in medicine has taught me.
A simple test of lipid subfractions (which splits LDL into 7 subtypes of which only some are atherogenic) as well as HDL and TG’s can stratify who may benefit from statins.
In my experience, few GP’s know of this test, such is the power of Big Pharma marketing.
The deleterious effects of the mRNA spike protein on the cardiovascular vascular system were theorised years ago – Sucharit Bhakdi – and on a biomolecular level this paper, particularly para. 10 :-
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S027869152200206X
No doubt those to be tasked, lol, with looking at any causal relationship will be well aware of the above.
Maybe I’m stupid, but to my mind we have –
Excess deaths from CVE’s in highly vaxxed countries,
A temporal link with the mRNA vaccines,
Evidence of harmful effects on the immune system/CV system theorised in many papers written by independent experts in their appropriate fields and absence of any coherent rebuttal.
Instead all we do have is a deafening silence from the public face of the medical profession, government and the MSM.
Warning for the jabbed, CVE’s may just be the start of the problems. But no worries, those won’t be investigated either.
CVE’s may just be the start of the problems. But no worries, those won’t be investigated either.
Indeed. It makes me shudder, and I’m unstabbed.
Apologies, ref to above paper should have been to para 14 in as opposed to just para 10
Considering he’s Prof of Evidence Based Medicine, Dr Heneghan sure is reticent about mentioning the word “vaccine”. It’s always the same in his articles. Weird..
The usual suspects would like us to believe that it is. It would support the finances of the manufacturers. As one or two have mentioned Malhotra in their comments, it’s worth noting that he has his own point of view about the large scale use of statins.
Aseem Malhotra is not alone in his view of statins. The International Network of Statin Skeptics has thoroughly trashed the cholesterol/heart disease link but has faced the same stonewalling and denigration that coronavirus vaccine sceptics are now seeing. Statins do reduce cardiac risk, but only a tiny bit, and the effect is almost certainly because of an anti-inflammatory action and not anything to do with their cholesterol-lowering properties – look at the recent introductions which are even better at cholesterol-lowering but no better at reducing cardiac risk. So I think that blaming a (non-existent) reduction in statin prescriptions is ridiculous. As far as being over-cautious with blaming vaccines goes, I think this is wise, as the high vaccination levels run in parallel with the appearance of new virus variants such as Omicron, and it is far from clear yet whether the viral variants confer a differential cardiac risk. It’s also pointed out that the risk of inflammatory cardiac disease is still (probably) higher with infection than with vaccine. Nonetheless it makes more scientific sense to pause the vaccination programme while all of this is sorted than continue, at risk, until the evidence is totally clear-cut.
Dr John Campbell with an inmteresting video on the subject.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26zP0YhEdmg
All these heart attacks are due to anything and everything but the real cause – which we all know.
We need to start laughing at the professional liars in Public Health when they come out with such ridiculous statements.
Trying to argue with professional liars using facts doesn’t gain traction. Laughing at them will.
Not listing vaccines as a hypothetical cause to be investigated and quantified alongside e.g. ambulance delays, is in itself suspicious.