The following German-language report discusses the determination by a British medical oversight board that the Pharma giant Pfizer/BioNTech had elided the truth just a wee bit in its promotion of Corona “vaccines” for kids.

Many thanks to Hellequin GB for translating this article from Boris Reitschuster’s website. The translator’s comments are in square brackets:

Pfizer advertised child vaccination with misleading claims

British regulator confirms breaches of code of ethics

You have to give Uğur Şahin (BioNTech) and Albert Bourla (Pfizer) one thing. The CEOs of the two pharmaceutical giants have never lacked a rock-solid belief in their own products. The “vaccination hero” (Bild) from Mainz was already absolutely certain in February 2021 that vaccinated people would no longer be infected. At the time, nobody wanted to know where Şahin got this conviction from, especially since the “constant questioning” of everything related to Corona had long been considered unacceptable at that point.

Similarly, in late 2021 Albert Bourla rushed to the public in Great Britain with exclusive insights into childhood vaccination. On December 2, 2021, in an interview with the BBC, the Pfizer CEO claimed that children between the ages of five and eleven would particularly benefit from the vaccine. “In my opinion, the benefits are entirely in favour of vaccinating children in this age group against Covid-19,” Bourla was quoted as saying at the time. Corona is spreading rapidly in schools, the Pfizer boss asserted in one of the most capital misjudgments of the entire “pandemic”. Only the coming years and decades will probably show what damage was really caused by this.

But that’s how it was back then, in December 2021. As long as it fit the narrative, everything could be said and asserted. Even Albert Bourla’s obvious bias in making such statements or the fact that child vaccination was not yet approved at that time hardly seemed to bother anyone at the time either.

Parent initiative goes to the barricades

The only resistance worth mentioning came from the group “UsForThem”. This parents’ initiative had been founded in Great Britain just a few months earlier to draw attention to the considerable disadvantages children suffered as a result of the Corona measures. In the unsubstantiated statements of the Pfizer CEO, the parents saw a “disgraceful misleading” with “extreme advertising character,” and submitted a complaint to the British Prescription Medicines Code of Practice Authority (PMCPA). There is simply no evidence that healthy children in the UK are at significant risk from Corona, argued UsForThem. Claiming or suggesting such a thing is a breach of several clauses of the British Pharmaceutical Industry Association (ABPI) code of ethics. [To break a code of ethics, you need to have them to start off with, something, I’m pretty sure, Albert Bourla does not have or has ever possessed.]

As The Telegraph reports, the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunization (JCVI) only emphasized in September 2021, just over two months before the controversial BBC interview, that the benefit of child vaccination was to be regarded as “small” for healthy ones, and children are hardly at risk from the virus. Regardless of this, the first young people in Great Britain were vaccinated from the beginning of October 2021, initially without an official recommendation from the supervisory authority. For children aged five to eleven, this only followed in February 2022, but with the express proviso that the last word must always lie with the parents.

PMCPA upholds parent’s complaint

Taking into account all of these and some other aspects, the PMCPA considered the parents’ initiative’s complaint in the spring of 2022 to be justified. In particular, it was found that the pharmaceutical industry’s code of ethics had been breached on a number of occasions, including by misleading the public, making false claims and failing to present information in a factual and balanced manner.

As might be expected, Pfizer appealed this decision. This spectacle was performed according to the well-known pattern, which in Germany, for example, Federal Minister of Health Karl Lauterbach (SPD) likes to follow again and again. Albert Bourla cited “current scientific knowledge” and “publicly available independent benefit-risk assessments” as the basis for his claims, but without specifying them. What would have been the problem of naming a study and presenting it if it existed? [But we are the conspiracy theorists for citing factual scientific studies.]

In early November, the PMCPA Appeals Committee considered Pfizer’s objection. The vaccine manufacturer initially tried to sell the outcome of the hearing as a success by pointing out that the PMCPA’s “more serious findings” had been withdrawn. Pfizer did not “bring the industry into disrepute” and did not “promote the irrational use of a drug.” In fact, the Appeals Committee has rejected these original findings. However, the violations of the code of ethics were explicitly confirmed by misleading the public, making unsubstantiated claims and lack of balance.

Afterword from the translator:

When I look at “people” like Bourla and Şahin, it confirms for me that learning confers no guarantee of virtue, since the evidence — with those two alone — is right before me. And the law doesn’t protect any of us from these predators either, since the powerful don’t punish themselves for their failures or crimes. One can only hope that they will eventually be held accountable by the people themselves. Only if we help ourselves and fight this War, that has been declared on us, without mercy. Mercy is for times of peace; it has no place in this War.