Saturday, October 05, 2024

GET OUR FREE E-NEWSLETTER

“You may choose to look the other way, but you can never say again that you did not know.”

— William Wilberforce

Search

Moderna Offered Children £1,500 to Enroll in COVID Booster Shot Trial

Moderna Offered Children £1,500 to Enroll in COVID Booster Shot Trial

The Prescription Medicines Code of Practice Authority (PMCPA), an organization responsible for overseeing the marketing practices of pharmaceutical companies in the United Kingdom, criticized Moderna, Inc. for sending an unauthorized WhatsApp message that proposed a payment of £1,500 (about $2,000) to children for participating in a clinical trial for its COVID-19 booster shot.1

Complaint Filed Against Moderna for Ethics Violation

A complaint on behalf of Children’s COVID Vaccines Advisory Council (CCVAC), a group of health professionals and academics, who have concerns over the use of COVID shots in healthy children, was filed with PMCPA. Moderna Biotech U.K. Ltd. was cited for offering £1,500 to children 12 to 18 years old to enroll in a COVID shot clinical trial in 2023. The trial, named NextCOVE, recruited participants aged 12 and older from several centers across the U.K., United States and Canada.2

The complaint stated:

this amount seems much higher than what would be considered a reasonable reimbursement and therefore would contravene clinical trial regulations. The Medicines for Human Use (Clinical Trials) Regulations (2004) explicitly prohibit the giving of incentives or financial inducements to children… or their parents.3

The complaint explained that a clinical trial recruitment center, overseen by Moderna, used social media to recruit children for a clinical trial by offering unapproved financial incentives. The complaint stated that the action by Moderna violates the Medicines for Human Use (Clinical Trials) Regulations (2004) and goes against the guidance outlined in Integrated Research Application System’s Q A46. The complaint also cited Moderna for failing to adhere to the recommendations in the “PMCPA Social Media Guidance 2023”.4

The complaint also stated that a pediatrician employed at a hospital in the U.K. was responsible for sharing information on WhatsApp advertising that researchers were looking for participants aged 12 to 18 to receive Moderna’s COVID booster shot. In the message, the doctor mentioned an incentive for participants, stating, “What’s in it for them? £1500 upon completing the study.”5

Ruling Cites Moderna for Failing to Maintain High Standards

In response to the complaint, Moderna denied breaching the marketing code. The company stated that trial sites were provided with a local information pack from its contract research organization, which included preliminary documents submitted for ethics and regulatory review. After these documents received full approval, the contract research organization sent out updated final versions. Moderna indicated that the pediatrician who sent the message from a personal phone likely used the outdated figure from the earlier files.6

After reviewing the evidence, the PMCPA stated:

Moderna had been let down because the approved recruitment materials were not utilized,” but questioned whether the company had made it clear enough to trial sites that substantial changes could be made to the documents in the local information pack. The panel commented that the process outlined by Moderna was “confusing.”7

The PMCPA panel found that the complainant did not provide enough evidence to show that Moderna broke any codes so they decided there was no breach of any of the clauses, but they agreed with the complainant that Moderna did not maintain high standards. The panel made statement:

The panel considered that Moderna’s failure to ensure only approved recruitment materials were used had led to a WhatsApp message being sent by a third party that contained an unapproved and inappropriately high financial incentive to encourage the recruitment of children. On balance, the Panel considered that this brought discredit upon and reduced confidence in the pharmaceutical industry.8


If you would like to receive an e-mail notice of the most recent articles published in The Vaccine Reaction each week, click here.

Click here to view References:

One Response

  1. Oh they criticized the big corporation whom basically writes all of their paychecks in an indirect manner. The big corporation did not follow guidelines. The review panel became confused and that’s when the complaint was magically trans morphed into criticism rather then legal action or real accountability. Then they lamented that this behavior is causing harm to the monolithic international corporations reputation. Oh my, what can we do to keep this facade running on another day. Slow walk everything and sweep it all under the rug.

    See how this works yet? Who’s still buying this? These people are not experts. What they are doing is not science. Justice does not apply to them, as they set themselves above the law. Consume their products at your own risk. Besides, they should have known better that the current workable strategy is to bribe the doctors to pressure patients to take vaccines, rather than going straight to bribing their future medical malpractice victims. Close but no cigar. Better luck next time.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Search in Archive

Search in Site

To search in site, type your keyword and hit enter

Search