{"id":10752,"date":"2024-10-04T16:00:00","date_gmt":"2024-10-04T20:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/cov19longhaulfoundation.org\/?p=10752"},"modified":"2024-10-04T15:33:46","modified_gmt":"2024-10-04T19:33:46","slug":"nondisclosure-vaccine-ad-blitz-sidestepped-transparency-rules","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/cov19longhaulfoundation.org\/?p=10752","title":{"rendered":"Nondisclosure: Vaccine Ad Blitz Sidestepped Transparency Rules"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

By Lee Fang<\/a>, RealClearInvestigations<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cA bun in the toaster oven,\u201d a woman exclaims off-camera, handing an ultrasound image to family members who erupt into tearful emotion over the news. \u201cOh my God!\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The touching baby announcement video<\/a> 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. \u201cWhy will you get vaccinated? \u2026  Because some people you just want to meet in person.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n

It closes with the tagline: \u201cScience can make this possible. Only you can make it real.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n

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 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Most early vaccine ads did not include the typical disclosures about risks, incluidng those for pregnant women.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Although Pfizer and other pharmaceutical companies were operating under a special Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) that allowed them to sell their COVID vaccines without going through the traditional testing and approval process, that authorization explicitly required vaccine ads to include a prominent warning that the medicines had not been fully tested for potential risks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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 \u2013 promoting the idea that people should get vaccinated, rather than a company\u2019s specific product \u2013 drug companies claimed the disclosure requirements did not apply. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

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. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cIt\u2019s an advertising laundering operation,\u201d said Aaron Kheriaty, a bioethicist and fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. The ads \u201cviolate the spirit of the EUA, if not the letter of the law.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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\u2019s 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. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

A billboard displays Pfizer’s “Science Will Win” COVID-19 slogan.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

WPP, the advertising conglomerate that crafted<\/a> Pfizer\u2019s \u201cScience Will Win\u201d ad campaign during the pandemic, was clear about the motivation when speaking to a trade outlet. \u201c\u2018Science Will Win\u2019 campaign was about changing the perception that pharmaceutical companies profited from health and from sickness,\u201d Claire Gillis, the international chief executive officer of WPP Health Practice, boasted<\/a> to The Drum, a marketing industry outlet.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Yet the role of the COVID-19 vaccine ads, which widely shaped public opinion and galvanized 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 unscrutinized leeway. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The attorneys general of Texas<\/a> and Kansas<\/a> 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 \u201cimmune\u201d from claims since the company was acting under authorization from the federal government.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

These so-called \u201cdirect-to-consumer\u201d 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<\/a> 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 criticized<\/a> the ads for misleading patients and encouraging many to seek out medications that are not clinically appropriate. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

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\u2019s 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. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Pfizer sidestepped FDA rules regarding disclosure through “unbranded” vaccine campaigns.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The most glaring omission, however, was the lack of disclosure that the vaccines had not yet received FDA approval. Under the emergency<\/a> approval<\/a> 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 \u201call descriptive printed matter, advertising, and promotional material\u201d relating to the vaccine must \u201cclearly and conspicuously\u201d state that \u201cthis product has not been approved or licensed by FDA\u201d and was authorized only under the emergency use declaration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In a response to a request for comment, a Pfizer spokesperson claimed that the ads were \u201cunbranded campaigns,\u201d and thus, no disclosures were required. Moderna provided a similar explanation. \u201cAs this was a non-branded disease education campaign EUA disclosures were neither necessary nor appropriate,\u201d said a company spokesperson. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In other words, although both vaccine firms poured vast resources into marketing and advertising the vaccine, they did not mention the official brand names \u2013 Pfizer\u2019s COMIRNATY and Moderna\u2019s SpikeVax \u2013 and therefore, under this interpretation of the rules, neither the routine direct-to-consumer disclosures nor the EUA disclosures applied. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

That justification strikes some medical ethics experts as pure sophistry. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Dr. Martin Kulldorff says even unbranded campaigns should have accompanying warnings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cSince the COVID vaccines were approved under EUA, even unbranded ads should have carried the required warning,\u201d noted Dr. Martin Kulldorff, a biostatistician and infectious disease epidemiologist, and critic of many vaccine policies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The intent of the ads was clear to the marketing firms that managed them. WPP\u2019s Gillis, in her remarks to The Drum, said that elevating the brand as part of the vaccine ads was very much the point. \u201cGo to the doctor and ask for \u2018Pfizer vaccine,\u2019\u201d she said, discussing the strategy. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Dini von Mueffling, a New York communications specialist who assisted with many of the Pfizer ads, later<\/a> discussed the effort with Contagious, another marketing industry publication. The \u201cmany legal regulations,\u201d said von Mueffling, \u201cI think ultimately stymie creativity.\u201d But, she added, \u201cwe worked within those regulations and were still able to be very creative, which was great.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Pfizer ran many iterations of its \u201cunbranded\u201d COVID-19 vaccine campaign. The \u201cBecause of This\u201d ad campaign featured real people rather than actors answering the question of why they will get vaccinated. \u201cBecause this year she turns one, and I\u2019m 74,\u201d the tagline of one Pfizer-sponsored ad read. Another, titled \u201cHug,\u201d showed two women clutching each other, weeping. \u201cBecause you can\u2019t hug a computer screen. Why will you get vaccinated?\u201d the text of the ad asked<\/a>, in a nod to the lockdown orders. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Moderna, while operating under the EUA, launched a \u201cMake it Yours\u201d 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 \u201calways protect the team\u201d and get vaccinated. \u201cWith the vaccines here to help millions, we can take steps towards life as we knew it,\u201d narrated<\/a> Babineaux.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In other cases, third-party groups funded by Pfizer and Moderna blanketed viewers with ads urging vaccination without any disclaimers. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Immunize Nevada, a nonprofit that popped up during the pandemic and then disappeared, ran Facebook ads with a doctor imploring viewers<\/a> to \u201cget vaccinated.\u201d GovVax, another group funded<\/a> by vaccine industry sources, sponsored social media ads touting vaccines as \u201cfree, safe and effective.\u201d The National Hispanic Medical Association, backed by grants from the vaccine pharmaceutical industry, similarly sponsored a \u201cGet Vaccinated\u201d social media campaign. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Former Seattle Seahawk Jordan Babineaux was featured in a Moderna “Make it Yours” vaccine campaign.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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<\/a> of comedic skits mocking vaccine misinformation. The series, titled \u201cI Heard It on the Internet,\u201d mocked critics of vaccine policy as fools who did not follow the science.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Nguyen, who identified himself as a \u201creal life scientist,\u201d produced videos debunking claims such as \u201cvaccines don\u2019t work with Omicron variants\u201d and \u201cvaccines can make you magnetic.\u201d The latter was certainly not true, but the former was up for debate. Research from Israel showed that the Pfizer boosters provided<\/a> as little as 30% efficacy against the Omicron wave \u2013 and other studies suggested<\/a> 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. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

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<\/a> \u201cpressure to meet expectations.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

While few news outlets covered Moderna or Pfizer\u2019s ad campaign at the time, both companies were widely celebrated by marketing professionals for the success of the blitz.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Dr. Aaron Kheriaty warns that the money trail is hard to follow in the vaccine industry.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Aaron Kheriaty<\/p>\n\n\n\n

YouGov called Pfizer\u2019s ads the most successful of 2020, while Medical Marketing and Media, an industry group, awarded<\/a> Moderna, Pfizer, and Johnson & Johnson for their innovative marketing efforts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Pfizer went so far as to submit a detailed presentation<\/a> touting the impact of its social media and marketing strategy during the pandemic to the \u201cShorty Awards,\u201d another industry competition for DTC ads and drug marketing innovation. The video montage<\/a> of the company\u2019s 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 \u201cpositive coverage from almost every top tier [news] outlet,\u201d including the New York Times and Bloomberg. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

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\u2019s stock skyrocketed. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

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 programs covering the pandemic. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cYou\u2019re probably just at the tip of the iceberg in terms of tracing the money flow,\u201d Kheriaty sighed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By Lee Fang, RealClearInvestigations \u201cA bun in the toaster oven,\u201d a woman exclaims off-camera, handing an ultrasound image to family members who erupt into tearful emotion over the news. \u201cOh my God!\u201d  […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":10754,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[761,854,914,445,974,607,608],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-10752","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-concerns","category-leaky-vaccines","category-pfizer-vaccine","category-policies-politics","category-vaccine-long-term-safety","category-vaccine-news","category-vaccine-safety"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/cov19longhaulfoundation.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10752","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/cov19longhaulfoundation.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/cov19longhaulfoundation.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cov19longhaulfoundation.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cov19longhaulfoundation.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=10752"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/cov19longhaulfoundation.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10752\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":10753,"href":"https:\/\/cov19longhaulfoundation.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10752\/revisions\/10753"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cov19longhaulfoundation.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/10754"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/cov19longhaulfoundation.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=10752"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cov19longhaulfoundation.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=10752"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cov19longhaulfoundation.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=10752"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}