AUTH/3336/4/20: Anonymous v Bio Products Laboratory — lay press coverage of unlicensed ‘hyperimmune’ Covid-19 shots (No breach) | PMCPA Case

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case	AUTH/3336/4/20
Complainant	Anonymous (described as a consultant intensivist at an NHS trust)
Company	Bio Products Laboratory (BPL)
Issue	Statements in lay press and LinkedIn about potential unlicensed ‘hyperimmune’ Covid-19 shots; alleged misleading promotion/false hope and “safe” claim
Channels	Daily Mail online (20 April 2020); The Telegraph online (22 April 2020); corporate LinkedIn post and employee comment
Applicable Code year	2019
Clauses considered	2, 7.2, 9.1, 26.1, 26.2
Decision	No breach
Rationale highlight	Clauses 26.1/26.2 not applicable because no prescription only medicine existed at the time; content not misleading in context
Complaint received	23 April 2020
Case completed	7 January 2021
Appeal	No appeal

Reviewed by Dr Anzal Qurbain (FFPM) — ABPI Final Signatory

🤖

Got a question about this case?

Ask one of our 13 specialist ABPI advisors — instant answers, 24/7.

Ask AskAnzal AI

🎬 Expert Video Walkthrough

🎬

Video walkthrough — coming for members

Subscribe now and get expert video analysis for every case as we publish them.

Subscribe — from £299/yr

📋

⌄

An anonymous complainant (consultant intensivist at an NHS trust) objected to statements attributed to Bio Products Laboratory (BPL) in two lay press articles: Daily Mail (20 April 2020) and The Telegraph (22 April 2020) about a potential unlicensed ‘hyperimmune’ product for coronavirus/Covid-19.
The complainant alleged the statements were speculative and misleading, potentially promoting an unlicensed medicine/indication to the public and raising false hope.
Concerns included: implied availability timelines (eg “jab could be available by September”; “could produce… by the end of July”), use of the word “jab” (potentially implying vaccination), and a LinkedIn comment referencing developing a “safe medicine”.
The complaint also covered BPL’s corporate LinkedIn post linking to the articles and an employee comment beneath it.
BPL said journalists approached the company; no interview transcripts were available; employees were not consulted on final article copy. BPL deleted the LinkedIn posts/comments to avoid confusion (while maintaining they were Code-compliant).
The Authority asked BPL to consider Clauses 2, 7.2, 9.1, 26.1 and 26.2.

⚖️

⌄

No breach of the Code was found.
No breach of Clauses 26.1 and 26.2 on a narrow technical basis: there was no prescription only medicine available at the time, and those clauses apply only to prescription only medicines.
No breach of Clause 7.2: the Panel considered the articles and LinkedIn material, in context, did not mislead readers; it was clear further work and research (including clinical trials) were needed.
No breach of Clause 9.1: the Panel did not agree the public would be given false hope; the need for further work was clear.
No breach of Clause 2: the matter did not warrant a finding of discredit to the industry.

🔒

Members get the complete breakdown — Clauses, Sanction, Signatory Lens, Audit checklist, and 3 Key Questions.

Best value

£249/year

Annual — save £99

£29/mo

Monthly

Join Now — Instant Access