Pfizer: UK senior employee retweeted US post about unlicensed COVID-19 vaccine candidate on Twitter (ABPI Code 2019)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case	AUTH/3741/2/23
Company	Pfizer
Complaint source	Contactable member of the public
Channel	Twitter (now X)
Issue	Retweeting efficacy claims about a COVID-19 vaccine candidate before UK authorisation; lack of balance/safety information
Key content quoted by Panel	“Our vaccine candidate is 95% effective in preventing COVID-19, and 94% effective in people over 65 years old…”
Timing of tweet/retweet	November 2020
Complaint received	15 February 2023
Case completed	1 March 2024
Applicable Code	2019
Breach clauses	2, 3.1, 7.2, 7.9, 9.1
Sanctions	Undertaking received; Advertisement
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

📋

⌄

A member of the public complained (Feb 2023) about a Pfizer US employee’s tweet (Nov 2020) about a Pfizer/BioNTech press release on Phase 3 results for a COVID-19 vaccine candidate.
A senior Pfizer UK employee retweeted the US tweet in Nov 2020; the retweet remained visible on their feed at the time of the complaint.
The tweet stated: “Our vaccine candidate is 95% effective in preventing COVID-19, and 94% effective in people over 65 years old…” and said data would be filed with health authorities.
The complainant alleged the tweet used relative efficacy figures without absolute efficacy and provided no safety data/safety information, amounting to misleading and illegal promotion.
Pfizer’s investigation found four other UK colleagues (including another senior colleague) also retweeted the same post; four UK colleagues “liked” it.
The vaccine candidate had not been granted UK marketing authorisation or MHRA temporary emergency use authorisation (Regulation 174) at the time of the tweets/retweets.

⚖️

⌄

Breach found (ABPI Code 2019): Clause 2, Clause 3.1, Clause 7.2, Clause 7.9, Clause 9.1.
The Panel considered the retweets proactively disseminated information about an unlicensed medicine to UK health professionals and members of the public.
No appeal.

📖

⌄

Clause 2 Bringing discredit upon, and reducing confidence in, the pharmaceutical industry
Clause 3.1 Promoting an unlicensed medicine
Clause 7.2 Making a misleading claim
Clause 7.9 Making claims that did not reflect the available evidence regarding possible adverse reactions
Clause 9.1 Failing to maintain high standards

🔒

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