Background
Summary of Council decision:
Four issues were investigated, all of which were Upheld.
Ad description
A local press ad placed by Steven Thomas, seen in the Forest of Dean and Wye Valley Review, The Forester and the Cheltenham Post in September and October 2021 featured the headline “Do you know about the MHRA Yellow Card Scheme?” with the sub-headline “Have you been vaccinated or know somebody who has? Did you know that ANYONE can use the Yellow Card Scheme to report ANY suspected side-effects of the vaccine?”.
Text in the main body of the ad stated, “There are NO long-term studies on the effects of the Covid vaccine, so your reports are vital for the future vaccine safety of others”. Below that was a table titled “UK: Covid Vaccine Injury & Death Reports to 29th Sep 21”. At the top of the table was large, bold text that stated “INJURIES: 1,222,565 … DEATHS: 1,698”, with the words “INJURIES” and “DEATH” appearing in red, followed by a table which listed various medical conditions and the number of incidences of injuries and deaths allegedly attributable to the conditions caused by each of the three available COVID-19 vaccines. A table at the bottom of the ad listed alleged vaccine-related injury and death figures for the UK, EU and USA.
A bar running down the side of the ad stated, “REMEMBER … mRNA vaccines have never previously been used on humans … The phase 3 Coronavirus/Covid-19 vaccine trails end in 2033 meaning these ‘vaccines’ are experimental … Covid vaccines have not been approved for public use and have been authorised for emergency use only … The vaccine companies cannot be sued for any harm caused”.
Issue
Full Fact, an independent fact checking-organisation, challenged whether:1. the ad misleadingly presented the Yellow Card Scheme report data as the number of injuries and deaths that were caused by COVID-19 vaccines;2. the claim “Covid vaccines have not been approved for public use” was misleading and could be substantiated;3. the ad misleadingly implied the ad had been approved or endorsed by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Authority (MHRA); and4. the ad was socially irresponsible.Response
1. Steven Thomas said that the data presented in the ad had been taken directly from the MHRA Yellow Card Scheme website and relevant reports on the side effects of the COVID-19 vaccines, referenced in the ad. Their understanding was that the Yellow Card Scheme was the official database for vaccine injuries in the UK and a report to the Scheme meant there had been a very strong suspicion, often submitted by a medical practitioner, that the vaccine was the cause. They said it followed that a “death” reported as part of the Scheme in relation to COVID-19 vaccines would always mean that the relative or doctor of the deceased believed to that to have been the cause of death.2. Steven Thomas said that all COVID-19 vaccines had been issued under an emergency use authorisation. They understood that no vaccine could achieve full approval for public use until Phase three trials had been completed, and that Phase three trials of the vaccines were ongoing and would not be completed until 2023.3. Steven Thomas said that they did not believe the ad contained any implication that it had been approved by the MHRA.4. Steven Thomas said that they were impartial and had placed the ad out of a sense of obligation to the public, drawing their attention to the process for reporting injuries.1. – 4. Tindle News t/a The Forester and the Forest of Dean and Wye Valley Review said that they had withdrawn the ad as a result of a small number of reader complaints and had turned down further, similar ads from other individuals.All4One Media Ltd t/a The Cheltenham Post said that the ad was part of an awareness campaign by Steven Thomas regarding the COVID-19 vaccines. They said Steven Thomas wanted to make readers aware of the MHRA Yellow Card Scheme, but that in the future they would consider similar advertising requests more carefully.Assessment
1. UpheldThe ASA considered that readers would understand the claims “INJURIES: 1,222,565” and “DEATHS: 1,698” in the ad to mean the COVID-19 vaccines listed in the ad had directly caused those numbers of injuries and deaths, respectively. We considered that the claim “EVEY REPORT HELPS SAVE LIVES” and the detailed table shown in the ad contributed to that impression.We understood that a report to the MHRA Yellow Card Scheme of suspected side effects relating to the COVID-19 vaccines did not establish that they had caused the reaction or event reported. Such reports could be made by patients or healthcare professionals. We understood that many suspected adverse reactions reported via the Yellow Card Scheme did not have any causal relationship with the vaccines and that it was often coincidental that symptoms occurred around the same time as vaccination. In their explanatory note to the report data, the MHRA emphasised the importance of not interpreting suspected adverse reactions described in it as being proven side effects of COVID-19 vaccines.We considered that the ad misrepresented the meaning of reports to the Yellow Card Scheme and we therefore concluded that the ad was misleading.On that point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 3.1 The standards objectives, insofar as they relate to advertising, include:a) that persons under the age of 18 are protected;
b) that material likely to encourage or incite the commission of crime or lead to disorder is not included in television and radio services;
c) that the proper degree of responsibility is exercised with respect to the content of programmes which are religious programmes;
d) that generally accepted standards are applied to the contents of television and radio services so as to provide adequate protection for members of the public from inclusion in such services of offensive and harmful material;
e) that the inclusion of advertising which may be misleading, harmful or offensive in television and radio services is prevented;
f) that the international obligations of the United Kingdom with respect to advertising included in television and radio services are complied with [in particular in respect of television those obligations set out in Articles 3b, 3e,10, 14, 15, 19, 20 and 22 of Directive 89/552/EEC (the Audi Visual Media Services Directive)];
g) that there is no use of techniques which exploit the possibility of conveying a message to viewers or listeners, or of otherwise influencing their minds, without their being aware, or fully aware, of what has occurred"
Section 319(2). (Misleading advertising) and 3.7 3.7 Advertisements must not falsely imply that the advertiser is acting as a consumer or for purposes outside its trade, business, craft or profession. Advertisements must make clear their commercial intent, if that is not obvious from the context. (Substantiation).2. UpheldWe considered that readers would understand the claim “Covid vaccines have not been approved for public use” to mean that the Government body responsible for ensuring vaccines were safe for public use had not yet approved the vaccines.We understood that the Department of Health and Social Care, through its executive agency the MHRA, had initially approved the COVID-19 vaccines listed in the ad – Oxford/AstraZeneca, BioNTech/Pfizer and Moderna – for public use under Regulation 174 of the Human Medicines Regulations 2012, and that Conditional Marketing Authorisations (CMAs) had since been granted for each vaccine. We understood that Regulation 174 authorisations and CMAs were both regulatory tools that enabled medicines to be approved at the earliest possible time during emergency situations, and that approval was given based on robust data.We therefore concluded that the claim “Covid vaccines have not been approved for public use” was misleading and had not been substantiated.On that point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 3.1 The standards objectives, insofar as they relate to advertising, include:
a) that persons under the age of 18 are protected;
b) that material likely to encourage or incite the commission of crime or lead to disorder is not included in television and radio services;
c) that the proper degree of responsibility is exercised with respect to the content of programmes which are religious programmes;
d) that generally accepted standards are applied to the contents of television and radio services so as to provide adequate protection for members of the public from inclusion in such services of offensive and harmful material;
e) that the inclusion of advertising which may be misleading, harmful or offensive in television and radio services is prevented;
f) that the international obligations of the United Kingdom with respect to advertising included in television and radio services are complied with [in particular in respect of television those obligations set out in Articles 3b, 3e,10, 14, 15, 19, 20 and 22 of Directive 89/552/EEC (the Audi Visual Media Services Directive)];
g) that there is no use of techniques which exploit the possibility of conveying a message to viewers or listeners, or of otherwise influencing their minds, without their being aware, or fully aware, of what has occurred"
Section 319(2). (Misleading advertising) and 3.7 3.7 Advertisements must not falsely imply that the advertiser is acting as a consumer or for purposes outside its trade, business, craft or profession. Advertisements must make clear their commercial intent, if that is not obvious from the context. (Substantiation).3. UpheldWe considered that consumers would understand from the claim “Do you know about the MHRA Yellow Card Scheme?”, which featured the same logo and colour scheme as the MHRA Scheme, that the ad had been placed, or authorised, by the MHRA. We considered that the inclusion of a link to the Yellow Card Scheme website, along with the claim ‘“EVERY REPORT HELPS SAVE LIVES”’ in quotations contributed to that impression.Steven Thomas did not provide any evidence that he had received authorisation from the MHRA to place the ad, and the MHRA told us that they had not been involved in the ad’s creation. We therefore concluded that the ad was misleading.On that point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 3.1 The standards objectives, insofar as they relate to advertising, include:
a) that persons under the age of 18 are protected;
b) that material likely to encourage or incite the commission of crime or lead to disorder is not included in television and radio services;
c) that the proper degree of responsibility is exercised with respect to the content of programmes which are religious programmes;
d) that generally accepted standards are applied to the contents of television and radio services so as to provide adequate protection for members of the public from inclusion in such services of offensive and harmful material;
e) that the inclusion of advertising which may be misleading, harmful or offensive in television and radio services is prevented;
f) that the international obligations of the United Kingdom with respect to advertising included in television and radio services are complied with [in particular in respect of television those obligations set out in Articles 3b, 3e,10, 14, 15, 19, 20 and 22 of Directive 89/552/EEC (the Audi Visual Media Services Directive)];
g) that there is no use of techniques which exploit the possibility of conveying a message to viewers or listeners, or of otherwise influencing their minds, without their being aware, or fully aware, of what has occurred"
Section 319(2). (Misleading advertising) and 3.50 3.50 Advertisements must make clear each significant limitation to an advertised guarantee (of the type that has implications for a consumer's rights). Broadcasters must be satisfied that the advertiser will supply the full terms of the guarantee before the consumer is committed to taking it up.
(Endorsements and testimonials).4. UpheldThe words “INJURIES” and “DEATHS” appeared in capital letters with a bold, red typeface, both at the top and the bottom of the ad in a table that showed a comparison of alleged deaths and injuries between the UK, the EU and the USA. We considered that presentation of the figures was alarmist in tone, and omitted the context provided by the MHRA’s explanatory note to the publication referenced in the ad – namely that a report to the Yellow Card Scheme should not be interpreted as a proven effect of the vaccines. Text superimposed over the ad stated “MHRA estimate that only 1-10% of injuries are reported in the UK”, which we considered was intended to give the impression that the figures presented in the ad were underestimates, and contributed to the alarmist nature of the ad.We also considered that the other claims featured in the ad, “REMEMBER … mRNA vaccines have never previously been used on humans … The phase 3 Coronavirus/Covid-19 vaccine trails end in 2023 meaning these ‘vaccines’ are experimental … Covid vaccines have not been approved for public use and have been authorised for emergency use only … The vaccine companies cannot be sued for any harm caused” cast significant doubt on the safety and efficacy of the vaccines. This, therefore, had the effect of encouraging vaccine hesitancy, and risked dissuading readers from having the COVID-19 vaccine.Given the risk that people could be discouraged from being vaccinated, based on reading the ad’s claims, resulting in less protection for them and for the population more widely, we concluded that the ad was irresponsible.On that point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 1.3 1.3 Advertisements must comply with the law and broadcasters must make that a condition of acceptance. (Social responsibility).
Action
The ad must not appear again in the form complained of. We told Steven Thomas that their future ads must not present MHRA Yellow Card Scheme report data in a misleading way; misleadingly state that COVID-19 vaccines have not been approved for public use; or misleadingly imply that their ads have been endorsed or approved by the MHRA. We also told Steven Thomas to ensure that their future ads were socially responsible.
