AUTH/3337/4/20 - Anonymous v Bio Products Laboratory

Alleged promotion of a unlicensed medicine to the public

  • Received
    23 April 2020
  • Case number
    AUTH/3337/4/20
  • Applicable Code year
    2019
  • Completed
    07 January 2021
  • No breach Clause(s)
  • Additional sanctions
  • Appeal
    No appeal

Case Summary

An anonymous non-contactable complainant who described him/herself as a member of the public/media, complained about an article in The Telegraph headlined ‘UK research on Covid-19 treatment using survivors’ blood “going at snail’s pace”’ shared in a LinkedIn post from Bio Products Laboratory.

The complainant alleged that the LinkedIn post which shared The Telegraph article promoted an unlicensed medicine and its off-label use to the general public.

The detailed response from Bio-Products Laboratory is given below.

The Panel noted that the article in question referred to the work Bio Products Laboratory was doing in relation to the pandemic and its specialism. The Telegraph article referred to antibody research and the need for more work, including clinical trials as well as the global alliance of plasma suppliers to pool knowledge and manufacturing capabilities.

The Panel noted Bio Products Laboratory’s submission that the journalist had approached the company and no transcript of the interview was available. The Panel did not know exactly what had been said by the employee during his interview with The Telegraph. The company had not commented on the accuracy or otherwise of the article. The Panel noted that the LinkedIn post on Bio Products Laboratory’s corporate account stated ‘BPL’S [named employee] comments on “hyperimmune” shots and the aim for BPL to be manufacturing them by the end of July 2020’ before providing a link to The Telegraph article. On the evidence provided, it appeared to the Panel that Bio Products Laboratory had set the potential availability of ‘hyperimmunes’ within the context of an aim to be manufacturing them once standards had been agreed. Further it was clear that more research was needed.

The Panel noted that whilst no specific product was mentioned within The Telegraph article, the company’s potential antibody therapy ‘hyperimmune shots’ was referred to. It was clear that no such product was available yet and thus Bio Products Laboratory did not have a prescription only medicine available at the time. There was no prescription only medicine at the time of publication of the article in The Telegraph or when the LinkedIn post sharing it was published. On this very narrow technical point, the Panel ruled no breaches of the Code.

The Panel noted the company’s submission with regard to the July 2020 date reflecting Bio Products Laboratory’s aspiration and that it aligned with the anticipated start of the NIH-funded clinical trial in which the Alliance’s hyperimmune would be tested against other hyperimmune products. The Panel noted its comments above regarding not knowing exactly what had been said by the employee during his interview with The Telegraph and the lack of a transcript of the interview. The company had referred to ongoing work being required and standards being agreed before a hyperimmune would be available; it was clear that further work was required. On the evidence available, the Panel did not consider that Bio Products Laboratory had promoted an unlicensed medicine to the public as alleged and therefore ruled no breach of the Code.