This was not a court case, unless I'm missing something here.
Instead, it was a "complaint" made to the PMCPA, which appears to be a private organization (ie, not a government body) which "self-regulates" medical advertisements in the UK. So Pfizer even responding at all is voluntary.
The worst "sanctions" they seem to ever apply, when finding a company "in breach" of their code, is issuing a "public reprimand". In other words, they make a post on their blog to give the company a stern talking-to. In this case, the sanction was merely "Undertaking received". I believe that translates to "we received the complaint, and did some talking about it, and even wrote some things".
[ + ] knightwarrior41
[ - ] knightwarrior41 2 points 1.1 yearsApr 9, 2023 13:55:17 ago (+2/-0)
[ + ] GloryBeckons
[ - ] GloryBeckons 1 point 1.1 yearsApr 9, 2023 13:44:29 ago (+1/-0)
Tweet seems misleading.
This was not a court case, unless I'm missing something here.
Instead, it was a "complaint" made to the PMCPA, which appears to be a private organization (ie, not a government body) which "self-regulates" medical advertisements in the UK. So Pfizer even responding at all is voluntary.
The worst "sanctions" they seem to ever apply, when finding a company "in breach" of their code, is issuing a "public reprimand". In other words, they make a post on their blog to give the company a stern talking-to. In this case, the sanction was merely "Undertaking received". I believe that translates to "we received the complaint, and did some talking about it, and even wrote some things".
[ + ] deleted
[ - ] deleted 1 point 1.1 yearsApr 9, 2023 13:47:32 ago (+2/-1)
[ + ]deleted
[ - ] deleted 0 points 1.1 yearsApr 9, 2023 13:46:10 ago (+0/-0)