The Deeper Reason for Drug Ads on Television

[PopHistorian]

I think this is something a lot of people will be able to understand. I think it was originally from "economic hitman" John Perkins that I heard that corporations control the media in one of two ways, either through direct connections at the top, or through advertising budgets (threats to take their advertising dollars elsewhere).

https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2018/03/11/the-deeper-reason-for-drug-ads-on-television/

Excerpt:

The deeper reason for drug ads on television

by Jon Rappoport

March 11, 2018

Television viewers are inundated with drug ads from Big Pharma. It’s a flood.

Have you ever heard of these drugs? Otezla, Xeljanz, Namzaric, Keytruda, Breo, Cosentyz? Not likely. If you have, do you know what conditions they treat? Highly unlikely. But there they are, splashed in commercials.

Why? Who is going to remember to ask their doctor whether these and other obscure meds are right for them?

What’s going on here?

The answer is: IT DOESN’T MATTER WHAT DRUGS ARE BEING ADVERTISED.

If Pharma can pay enough TOTAL money for ads, for ALL drugs, and dominate the allotted TV time for commercials, it can control the news—and that is exactly what it wants to do.

Pharmaceutical scandals are everywhere. Reporting on them, wall to wall, isn’t good for the drug business. However, as an industry ponying up billions of dollars for TV ads, Pharma can limit exposure and negative publicity. It can (and does) say to television networks: If you give us a hard time on the news, we’ll take our ad money and go somewhere else. Boom. End of problem.

Face it, the billions of dollars Pharma is paying for TV ads are a drop in the bucket, compared with its profits gained from selling the drugs. The ads are a good investment. As a bribe.

Control the news.

 

[whitecoast]

I never thought of it that way. Thanks for sharing PopHistorian. :)

 

[loreta]

Control the news and control the mind of people. Many medication that is advertised on TV you bet people believe that is a good meditation. They are sure 100% that this medication is good for health, no matter the name of the medication or drug. It is on TV. They feel secure, TV talks about medication, talks about drugs! that drugs are goooood for your health! surely in their minds all medication is good. Drugs are good, so when the doctor that is zombie gives you a receipt for a medication the patient is happy ( a zombie that receives some money from the pharmaceutical evidently). And because there is never something about pharmaceutical scandals on TV, medication is absolutely the right thing to take if you feel sick or tired or depressed. So these devilish companies are really dangerous, also TV and all of this is like a spiral where money and wars and death and injustice and silence are in it. Because they control the news the news never will talk about the true reasons of what is happening in this planet. Never ever.

Thanks for the article!

 

[Keit]

I think this is something a lot of people will be able to understand. I think it was originally from "economic hitman" John Perkins that I heard that corporations control the media in one of two ways, either through direct connections at the top, or through advertising budgets (threats to take their advertising dollars elsewhere).

It becomes particularly insidious when pharmaceutical giants like Bayer buy companies like Monsanto. For example, while GMOs are banned in Russia, glyphosate isn't. Along with other Monsanto's "seed products". And while for many in Russia Monsanto is equal to the Devil, Bayer has a better reputation.

Now imagine the damage Bayer can do in other countries, that don't even try to ban GMOs and any similar products. It is literally Evil Incorporated. They can sell and advertise all kind of Monsanto's products under their name now.

 

[Lamp of Orion]

It gives new meaning to "shut up and take my money"

 

[Ca.]

Yep, Bayer (Healthcare Pharmaceuticals) is down right evil. It's big in the states, with a research facility in Emeryville California (across the bay from San Fransisco).

This was one of many company's that profited (as many know) during Hitlers Nazi regime in WW 1 & 2. Bayer was also instrumental in association with the Nazi Josef Mengele, and his human experiments.

Funny, as many times that it has been mentioned on this forum we see that California remains clueless (by design) of Bayer's history. And I wounder what part it may play in the near future as the past is currently repeating. Just as the C's said.

Bayer invites public comment on new building proposal (As always the comments show that some have insight.)
May 6, 2014, 12 p.m.
_http://www.berkeleyside.com/2014/05/06/bayer-invites-public-comment-on-new-building-proposal
_http://www.berkeleyside.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Bayer-Manufacturing-Testing-Laboratory_-Project-Description_02Apr14_final.pdf

Bayer (Revenue Increase €35.015 billion (2017)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayer

Map: https://www.google.fr/maps?biw=1280&bih=614&q=bayer+emeryville&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiYy43RypTaAhVDcRQKHcgfBMEQ_AUIDCgD

11 Companies That Surprisingly Collaborated With the Nazis
last updated February 24, 2018
http://11points.com/11-companies-surprisingly-collaborated-nazis

During the Holocaust, a German company called IG Farben manufactured the Zyklon B gas used in the Nazi gas chambers. They also funded and helped with Josef Mengele’s torture “experiments” on concentration camp prisoners.

IG Farben is the company that turned the single largest profit from work with the Nazis. After the War, the company was broken up. Bayer was one of its divisions, and went on to become its own company.

_https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9uuzRXZakI

Oh… and aspirin was founded by a Bayer employee, Arthur Eichengrun. But Eichengrun was Jewish, and Bayer didn’t want to admit that a Jewish guy created the one product that keeps their company in business. So, to this day, Bayer officially gives credit to Felix Hoffman, a nice Aryan man, for inventing aspirin. (Source: Alliance for Human Research Protection, Pharmaceutical Achievers {1} )

{1} _http://ahrp.org/about/
_http://ahrp.org/category/scientific-racism/medical-atrocities-of-nazi-germany/

 

[Voyageur]

I think this is something a lot of people will be able to understand. I think it was originally from "economic hitman" John Perkins that I heard that corporations control the media in one of two ways, either through direct connections at the top, or through advertising budgets (threats to take their advertising dollars elsewhere).

https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2018/03/11/the-deeper-reason-for-drug-ads-on-television

So true, PopHistorian - the "costs are a drop in the bucket" as Rappoport says, however, there dominating presents on the Box shackles media to them. At the same time when health issues pop up in the news, they are at the ready to be rolled out (or their surrogates) to opine with the benefits of vaccines or the myriad of drugs available while denouncing, if it fits, the old natural ways.

 

[Mark7]

That makes sense. I noticed a TV ad for a drug for blind people who suffer from a sleep disorder called non-24. How many blind people watch television? Seems like they could save money using just radio ads.

 

[PopHistorian]

That makes sense. I noticed a TV ad for a drug for blind people who suffer from a sleep disorder called non-24. How many blind people watch television? Seems like they could save money using just radio ads.

Many radio ads for that one, too. So many that I wondered how many blind people were in the market (and suffering the symptoms), and how could the ad campaign be cost effective?

 

[luc]

One thing about pharma companies is that they have an insane margin - which explains why they are so rich and powerful. No wonder: the production of a pill, once the machine is running, costs pennies, and they sell those for big bucks. It's a license to print money, really.

Consider that Pfizer has a margin of 42%, for example - this means that if you take their turnover and subtract all costs, including production, their huge marketing budgets, their oh-so-important R&D etc. they STILL get almost half of the price they sell their pills in profit! These metrics are complicated and diverse, so this might not be 100% accurate, but you get the picture.

So, if you can basically print money, what do you do? Well, you make sure that you can keep doing it. And a big, if not the most important part of this is to lobby the government (revolving doors etc.) and to keep the media from calling you out (bribing them with ads, bogus PR institutes and so on).

I think we need pharmaceutical companies and I want to be able to buy my Aspirin, for example. And they certainly produce many important and helpful products. But the system is so corrupted right now that a large chunk of what big pharma does amounts to poisoning the population, while keeping them away from more effective and cheaper ways to deal with health problems. Or so it looks to me.

 

[BHelmet]

Many radio ads for that one, too. So many that I wondered how many blind people were in the market (and suffering the symptoms), and how could the ad campaign be cost effective?

1. If people are unaware of a problem they might have, they won't buy the product to fix it.
Corollary: If you can convince enough people to believe that a problem exists; you can sell the cure.
2. Friends and loved ones of blind people are watching these ads too and may be sucked into trying to 'help'.
3. Blind people listen to TV too, even if they can't see it. (I used to live in a house of deaf people and they could still feel the music on the radio, although I know that is not quite the same thing.)
4. "They" are constantly testing and stretching our credulity and laughing all the way to the bank.

 

[Ant22]

Pharmaceutical scandals are everywhere. Reporting on them, wall to wall, isn’t good for the drug business. However, as an industry ponying up billions of dollars for TV ads, Pharma can limit exposure and negative publicity. It can (and does) say to television networks: If you give us a hard time on the news, we’ll take our ad money and go somewhere else. Boom. End of problem.

As Robert Hare said during his lecture, The Predators Among Us: “Not all psychopaths are in prison – some are in the boardroom.”

The above does sounds like something a bunch of psychos in top management / at board level would do. The overall percentage of psychopaths is statistically higher in top managerial positions than within a society.

Executive Psychopaths
The Corporate Psychopath — LEB

And since well over 90% of all psychopaths are men, I do sometimes wonder whether this statistical fact is one of the factors contributing to a lower number of women in top director / executive positions. There are plenty of other factors of course, it's enough to listen to Jordan Peterson's videos on this topic, but some of those factors seem to be linked to lack of compatibility with, or lack of willingness to put up with their management style. It's a far shot but it does make me wonder.

 

[ScioAgapeOmnis]

As Robert Hare said during his lecture, The Predators Among Us: “Not all psychopaths are in prison – some are in the boardroom.”

The above does sounds like something a bunch of psychos in top management / at board level would do. The overall percentage of psychopaths is statistically higher in top managerial positions than within a society.

Executive Psychopaths
The Corporate Psychopath — LEB

And since well over 90% of all psychopaths are men, I do sometimes wonder whether this statistical fact is one of the factors contributing to a lower number of women in top director / executive positions. There are plenty of other factors of course, it's enough to listen to Jordan Peterson's videos on this topic, but some of those factors seem to be linked to lack of compatibility with, or lack of willingness to put up with their management style. It's a far shot but it does make me wonder.

Well JP does often say that lack of agreeableness correlates to higher income and positions. It also correlated to lack of empathy, as agreeable people tend to be so because they can put themselves in the shoes of another and thus compromise. He doesn’t outright say psychopaths, unless I missed it, but yeah the extreme version of that is exactly that. The less empathy one has the less their self worth is tied to being useful to others in a caring sort of way and more it is status and money and power.

I think it ties into the concept of respect. It’s defined in different ways based on the nature of the person defining it. People tend to respect those whose qualities they admire, and expect respect based on their own priorities and values. Some respect empathy and honesty and conscientiousness. Others respect authority and money and status and rigidity. Power respects power. Love respects love etc. In a STS world most higher level positions will trend towards power rather than charity or responsibility or leading by example, I’d think. So they attract those who are more competitive. Interestingly enough those who break the mold - MLK, JFK etc tend to get killed; can’t have people rattling cages and changing the status quo!

 

[Mark7]

Many radio ads for that one, too. So many that I wondered how many blind people were in the market (and suffering the symptoms), and how could the ad campaign be cost effective?

One thing about pharma companies is that they have an insane margin - which explains why they are so rich and powerful. No wonder: the production of a pill, once the machine is running, costs pennies, and they sell those for big bucks. It's a license to print money, really.

Money to burn on advertising and 'CYA'.

Seems big pharma was trying to expand the use of non-24 medication tasimelteon to anyone with the 'disorder'...

....But because of an apparent major oversight by the FDA, the description of tasimelteon’s approved use in the product label did not match the one found in the original approval letter. The label omitted the phrase “in blind patients without light perception,” effectively expanding tasimelteon’s approval to anyone diagnosed with non-24 — widening the pool of potential users beyond patients who are totally blind.
At some time after the initial approval, the FDA realized its mistake. However, rather than simply correcting the label, the FDA compounded its original mistake by issuing a second approval letter that stated the error was in the original approval letter — not the drug label. The second letter modified the description of the medication’s approved use to match the one found in the erroneous label. In so doing, the FDA has violated the legal standard required for drug approval.

_Outrage of the Month: FDA Makes Major Blunder After Approving Drug for Rare Sleep Disorder | HuffPost

I am willing to bet there's a safer, and cheaper, (or free), treatment for non-24 - if not an outright cure.
Everything is a "mistake" for these guys - they would never do anything bad on purpose... right?