There is only one reason for Big Pharma advertising on Corporate Media and it nothing to do with direct marketing but everything to do with buying the Narrative.
No. A reason but not the only reason. As a retired health care provider, I can tell you that patients would ask me for an Rx for the drug they saw advertised. I would have to take the time explaining to them that that drug was not appropriate for them. I often felt that those ads contributed to the idea of a drug for every ailment which is simpler than healthy living.
Controlling the Narrative! Yes! Don't want the Public to know how harmful their drugs that "cure" are. Also, they dictate what the Mass media says on cue! RNA injections front and center. Also, when they want to discredit a repurposed drug like Ivermectin, they can get the negative word out. Just wait. They will be a tool of Big Pharma to disrupt the work of RFK Jr. Billions and billions in profit at stake if Big Pharma looses control of the direction of healthcare in this country. It already is twice as expense per capita than any other country and doesn't deliver quality outcomes. Could write a book on it! 2025 will bring more turmoil!
I was raised in a family drug store in the 60s and 70s before direct to consumer advertising was allowed. Bill Clinton and his Congress changed the rules, and the result has been horrible.
As Dr. Gina alluded to, direct to consumer advertising of these products appeals to and encourages the hypochondria present in most humans.
It's my understanding that in1993, Hoechst came out with a non-drowsy antihistamine (Seldane) and convinced the FDA that it was a public service to tell Americans how to avoid having a car crash when on antihistamine that makes you drowsy! THAT OPENED THE DOOR TO DIRECT ADVERTISING TO THE CONSUMER. A few years later Seldane was taken off the market because it was killing people! In the meantime, other drug companies saw the value and jumped in!
I so much concur with your words. Sickness as victimhood is being promoted. This is very unfortunate in that it encourages a state of helplessness and self pity amongst those naive enough to give their personal power away to entities they do not even know or understand.
What was once thought to be a public good—letting consumers be more equal partners in knowing what medications were out there to treat various conditions—has proven to be a powerful way to control what the media will say. I hope they get rid of these ads.
Note @Dr. McCullough: In paragraph one there seems to be a typo, with a greater-than symbol instead of a lesser-than symbol: “I can tell you that orphan drugs are for diseases with >100,000 cases in the United States.”
Wow! May I join the revolution, please? As I'm not vaccinated. don't take any pharmaceuticals and am on strict organic diet, I think think that I do qualify, no?
I have to underscore what you said Grazyna, my wife and I take care of ourselves via diet, exercise and healthy supplements. We follow people like Dr. Eric Berg who has been censored heavily by Youtube and still persists in telling the truth about health and how food may be the best medicine along with a positive mental attitude.
Good question…about whether to ban these slighted presentations on TV for a new drug with significant side effects. All very slick psycho-babble to once again scam people with little money…put more into medical debt and bankruptcy. Yes besides the side effects their actual benefit is very much in doubt…many are the same companies who wanted their COVID vac data buried for 75 yrs…do not believe once second of what these characters say about the true value of any of this…That the FDA approved these is even greater a concern too…they too wanted the 75 yr burial of vac info…as a healthcare provider I would not believe one word from THIS FDA…thank God new management is on its way.
What a delightful interview from a new broad perspective by the interviewer! I loved the reactions on your face, Dr M, as she presented new thoughts and language about the HUGE challenges of the new administration. You always had the perfect answers for her.
Although I support a ban on direct to consumer pharmaceutical advertising, I would prefer that this not be accomplished by executive order, but rather by an act of Congress. I think it would be advantageous to the American people to witness a live televised debate of the proposed bill, so that the people can see which of their legislators is defending big Pharma and which are opposing it, as regards their rights to propagandize, excuse me, advertise their products. It would also be worthwhile, when it comes time to assessing the integrity of their elected representative what kinds of arguments they brought forth supporting the rights of big Pharma to advertise their products. It would also be helpful to hear the arguments against granting big Pharma this power. Let the better side win. I have little worry who will prevail.
"American people to witness a live televised debate of the proposed bill, so that the people can see which of their legislators is defending big Pharma and which are opposing it, as regards their rights to propagandize, excuse me, advertise their products."
Thanks Mark Brody....direct to consumer drug advertising was tremendously destructive.
Getting rid of the horrific tv ad doctors which many elderly and impaired viewers trust more than anyone else. Remember when tv doctors sold us cigarettes?
I have a theory that the reason they have these dumb names - like "Padcev" or "Skyrizi" - is so that they are a unique set of letters that will be easy to find in search engines. I wouldn't be surprised if in the future we see this same trend with baby names - or, maybe we'll see the exact opposite because people don't want to be so easily searchable - there will only be a few names and everyone will be named one of them.
There is only one reason for Big Pharma advertising on Corporate Media and it nothing to do with direct marketing but everything to do with buying the Narrative.
No. A reason but not the only reason. As a retired health care provider, I can tell you that patients would ask me for an Rx for the drug they saw advertised. I would have to take the time explaining to them that that drug was not appropriate for them. I often felt that those ads contributed to the idea of a drug for every ailment which is simpler than healthy living.
Controlling the Narrative! Yes! Don't want the Public to know how harmful their drugs that "cure" are. Also, they dictate what the Mass media says on cue! RNA injections front and center. Also, when they want to discredit a repurposed drug like Ivermectin, they can get the negative word out. Just wait. They will be a tool of Big Pharma to disrupt the work of RFK Jr. Billions and billions in profit at stake if Big Pharma looses control of the direction of healthcare in this country. It already is twice as expense per capita than any other country and doesn't deliver quality outcomes. Could write a book on it! 2025 will bring more turmoil!
we can only hope. Obviously, the purpose of all this drug advertising is not to inform the consumers, but to buy good coverage from the media.
I was raised in a family drug store in the 60s and 70s before direct to consumer advertising was allowed. Bill Clinton and his Congress changed the rules, and the result has been horrible.
As Dr. Gina alluded to, direct to consumer advertising of these products appeals to and encourages the hypochondria present in most humans.
It's my understanding that in1993, Hoechst came out with a non-drowsy antihistamine (Seldane) and convinced the FDA that it was a public service to tell Americans how to avoid having a car crash when on antihistamine that makes you drowsy! THAT OPENED THE DOOR TO DIRECT ADVERTISING TO THE CONSUMER. A few years later Seldane was taken off the market because it was killing people! In the meantime, other drug companies saw the value and jumped in!
I so much concur with your words. Sickness as victimhood is being promoted. This is very unfortunate in that it encourages a state of helplessness and self pity amongst those naive enough to give their personal power away to entities they do not even know or understand.
Thank you very much . Stay safe
What was once thought to be a public good—letting consumers be more equal partners in knowing what medications were out there to treat various conditions—has proven to be a powerful way to control what the media will say. I hope they get rid of these ads.
Note @Dr. McCullough: In paragraph one there seems to be a typo, with a greater-than symbol instead of a lesser-than symbol: “I can tell you that orphan drugs are for diseases with >100,000 cases in the United States.”
Wow! May I join the revolution, please? As I'm not vaccinated. don't take any pharmaceuticals and am on strict organic diet, I think think that I do qualify, no?
I have to underscore what you said Grazyna, my wife and I take care of ourselves via diet, exercise and healthy supplements. We follow people like Dr. Eric Berg who has been censored heavily by Youtube and still persists in telling the truth about health and how food may be the best medicine along with a positive mental attitude.
Good question…about whether to ban these slighted presentations on TV for a new drug with significant side effects. All very slick psycho-babble to once again scam people with little money…put more into medical debt and bankruptcy. Yes besides the side effects their actual benefit is very much in doubt…many are the same companies who wanted their COVID vac data buried for 75 yrs…do not believe once second of what these characters say about the true value of any of this…That the FDA approved these is even greater a concern too…they too wanted the 75 yr burial of vac info…as a healthcare provider I would not believe one word from THIS FDA…thank God new management is on its way.
What a delightful interview from a new broad perspective by the interviewer! I loved the reactions on your face, Dr M, as she presented new thoughts and language about the HUGE challenges of the new administration. You always had the perfect answers for her.
Although I support a ban on direct to consumer pharmaceutical advertising, I would prefer that this not be accomplished by executive order, but rather by an act of Congress. I think it would be advantageous to the American people to witness a live televised debate of the proposed bill, so that the people can see which of their legislators is defending big Pharma and which are opposing it, as regards their rights to propagandize, excuse me, advertise their products. It would also be worthwhile, when it comes time to assessing the integrity of their elected representative what kinds of arguments they brought forth supporting the rights of big Pharma to advertise their products. It would also be helpful to hear the arguments against granting big Pharma this power. Let the better side win. I have little worry who will prevail.
Money and blackmail of our representatives will prevail.
"American people to witness a live televised debate of the proposed bill, so that the people can see which of their legislators is defending big Pharma and which are opposing it, as regards their rights to propagandize, excuse me, advertise their products."
Thanks Mark Brody....direct to consumer drug advertising was tremendously destructive.
Stop advertising booze if you get on a real roll.
Getting rid of the horrific tv ad doctors which many elderly and impaired viewers trust more than anyone else. Remember when tv doctors sold us cigarettes?
I have a theory that the reason they have these dumb names - like "Padcev" or "Skyrizi" - is so that they are a unique set of letters that will be easy to find in search engines. I wouldn't be surprised if in the future we see this same trend with baby names - or, maybe we'll see the exact opposite because people don't want to be so easily searchable - there will only be a few names and everyone will be named one of them.