How Pharma hides its advertising in mainstream journalism
Readers will be well aware that I do not regard the biopharmaceutical sector in high regard. One of the reasons for this is that it gets treated entirely differently to other industries 1
If someone retained as a consultant by a company sings the (unverified and speculative) praises of that company’s products and urges everyone to use them, most people would regard that as advertising.
Not so with pharma.
This article in the UK’s Daily Telegraph illustrates this perfectly; it features an interview with John Todd, professor of precision medicine at the University of Oxford, in which he discusses the shingles vaccine, and especially the claim that it reduces the incidence of dementia.
As you can see from the below extract, he is pretty forthright in his recommendation.
Note that the difference in his recommendations for those in their 50s and older, and the under-50s strongly suggests that we “know” what the benefits are for the former, because they have been “examined”.
However, no comparative randomized clinical trial has demonstrated the same. The study which Professor Todd relies on (here) used statistical matching to mimic a “natural experiment,” and it remains an observational study showing an association rather than a clinically proven causal effect.
Such evidence is not usually regarded as sufficient to lead regulators to approve drugs, and indeed, the drug in question (the shingrix vaccine) has not been approved for the prevention of dementia.
In fact, the authors of the study (one of whom is Professor Todd) even admit this, stating that:
These results provide a rationale for conducting a randomized control trial aiming to confirm the findings..
Now, it’s important to recognise that in the UK, the advertising of medicines is strictly governed by Part 14 of the Human Medicines Regulations 2012, enforced by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
Regulation 284 reads as follows:
284.—(1) A person may not publish an advertisement that is likely to lead to the use of a prescription only medicine.
However, some leeway is given to journalism, in respect of which see the official guidance document (in the source document – Ed).
Even within that framework, this appears to be promotional, and I have submitted a complaint to MHRA which you can read below.
Daily Telegraph article 10 June 2026 re shingles vaccine; Regulation 284 breach.
Dear Sir or Madam,
In the attached Daily Telegraph article, John Todd – who by his own admission is a paid consultant for GSK – promotes GSK’s shingles vaccine for an unlicensed indication (prevention of dementia).
He speaks forthrightly and unequivocally about the benefits, for example: “To anyone over 50, I would say: get the shingles vaccine now”.
This is in breach of Regulation 284 of Part 14 of the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 which reads as follows.
284.—(1) A person may not publish an advertisement that is likely to lead to the use of a prescription only medicine.
I understand that there is a degree of leeway for independent journalism in terms of what is regarded as promotional (as described in the attached guidelines). However, notwithstanding these, this article would still seem to be in breach.
The guidelines make it clear that:
- proof of a commercial link to the sale of the product is not required
- articles should not actively encourage readers to seek a particular product from their healthcare provider and must take care not to exaggerate the potential benefits
- articles discussing healthcare issues, particularly medicines, ought to be factual, well balanced and accurate
That article breaches all these, and more. There is no balance. The claims made are unproven and theoretical. The article is essentially an advertisement but obviously is not labeled as such. Of course, it could not be, since promotion would breach the law, yet is cannot be the case that the law can be circumvented by simply not declaring the material as promotional, when it is.
I suggest that this article is in breach whether or not the manufacturer, GSK, had any hand in it. However, should the newspaper seek to claim full independence from GSK, then under the circumstances, I would suggest that the burden of proof in respect of the same is with GSK itself.
Hence I would expect to see:
- Clear evidence that Prof Todd’s consultancy agreement explicitly forbids him from using his relationship with GSK to promote their products in the media.
- Absolute proof that GSK’s PR team, medical affairs team, or external agencies had zero contact with The Telegraph or Miranda Levy regarding this piece.
To be clear though, proving independence from GSK would be a necessary but not sufficient point going towards the definition of this piece as promotional. Taken in the round, it is promotional whatever the involvement of the manufacturer, the nexus between Professor Todd and GSK being sufficient to create an intent to favour the fortunes of his client or employer (as the case may be).
I will let readers know if I receive a reply.
See more here substack.com