Satans Mark/Cashless
See other Satans Mark/Cashless Articles
Title: The deeper reason for drug ads on television
Source:
No More Fake News
URL Source: https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/ ... on-for-drug-ads-on-television/
Published: Mar 11, 2018
Author: Jon Rappoport
Post Date: 2018-03-12 09:21:21 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 2761
Comments: 13
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.
There is another reason for the insane flood of TV drug ads:
By their sheer number, they convince viewers that medical drugs (no matter what they are) are absolutely necessary.
Hour by hour, viewers numbly watch drug commercial after commercial. The overall message is: To keep illness from your door, to cure illness, to alleviate illness, you must take these medicines. THIS IS LIFE IN THE 21ST CENTURY. You’re all sick, and you need help, and this is the ONLY kind of help there is.
The drug companies could invent names of fake drugs that don’t even exist, advertise them in a cascade on television, with the same intent. DRUGS ARE AS VITAL TO LIFE AS WATER OR AIR.
But what about all those dire warnings of side effects from the drugs? By law, the companies must include them in their commercials. Well, the companies have calculated that, on balance, the stark, front-line, unending message of DRUGS, DRUGS, AND MORE DRUGS will outweigh the warnings in viewers’ minds.
If the television audience is nailed with the idea that they can’t escape; that their health always hangs in the balance; that dire illnesses are always waiting in the shadows to strike; that the slightest ache or pain could be a precursor to a crippling or fatal disease; and drugs are the only solution and protection—they’re going to overlook the warnings about side effects.
ALL IN ALL, DRUG ADS ARE NEWS.
That’s the approach. Pharma is blasting out 24/7 news asserting modern medicine’s central and commanding role in the life of every human.
It’s a gigantic and stupendous piece of mind control, but when did that ever stop tyrants from inventing reality for the masses?
Implicit in “ask your doctor if drug X is right for you,” is the message: “go to your doctor.” That’s the key. If the ads can put a viewer into the system, he will be diagnosed with something, and he’ll be given a drug for it.
So the drug ads are also promotions for doctors, who are the arbiters and the decision makers. Some kind of medical need (drugs) always exists—and the doctor will tell you what it is. And all patients should OBEY. Even if, in the process, they go broke.
Take the case of Opdivo, a drug that treats squamous non-small cell lung cancer. Cost? $12,500 a month. Patients on Medicare will pay $2500 a month out of their own pockets. And the result?
Wall St, Journal: “In the clinical study on which the Opdivo ad bases its claims, the drug extended median patient survival to 9.2 months from the start of treatment…”
The cancer patient pays $22,500 for nine months of survival, during which the suffering continues, and then he dies.
The ad isn’t mentioning THAT.
The ad relies on the doctor to convince the patient to go along with this lunatic program.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Opinions disguised as facts. Who's worse -- Jon Rappoport or the pharmaceuticals?
#2. To: misterwhite (#1) (Edited)
What's wrong?
Help is on the way Mr. THX1130WHITE.
#3. To: misterwhite (#1)
I can't stand Rappoport but he does have a point here about these drug ads.
Advertising drugs should be illegal, just like tobacco. And they should chase the doctors, lawyers and hospitals off of TV and magazines and radio too.
#4. To: Tooconservative (#3)
And they should chase the doctors, lawyers and hospitals off of TV and magazines and radio too.
And constrain the flow of vapors from the almighty velocity of bullshyte?
Not likely.
#5. To: Deckard (#0)
Huh ... TV BIZ Here Are the Biggest Advertisers on Fox News, CNN and MSNBC Television viewers are inundated with drug ads from Big Pharma. It’s a flood.
#6. To: Tooconservative (#3)
I can't stand Rappoport but he does have a point here about these drug ads.
All he has is speculation and innuendo. He offers nothing to support his statements.
"Advertising drugs should be illegal, just like tobacco.
Some drugs, sure.
#7. To: Deckard (#0) (Edited)
Well, they use to advertise Lipitor. My cardiologist Dr wanted me to take it, for cholesterol. I refused to take it. According to the blood work he had ordered, my cholesterol was fine. Even the ad pointed out that it could cause liver problems. The Doctor did not like my refusal. I told him why. Plus, my uncle had been put on it, and he ended up with liver cancer. Told him I had enough problems, did not need liver problems as well.
I don't know, but I suspect the doctors get a commission on their prescriptions.
Si vis pacem, para bellum
Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.
Never Pick A Fight With An Old Man He Will Just Shoot You He Can't Afford To Get Hurt
"If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went." (Will Rogers)
#8. To: Stoner (#7)
My cardiologist said they should put Lipitor in the water supply. It's that good. I've been on it since 2005.
#9. To: misterwhite (#8)
" I've been on it since 2005. "
Really ? How often do they test you for liver issues ?
Si vis pacem, para bellum
Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.
Never Pick A Fight With An Old Man He Will Just Shoot You He Can't Afford To Get Hurt
"If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went." (Will Rogers)
#10. To: Stoner (#9)
Every time whitey is hauled off to detox.
#11. To: Stoner (#9)
Really ? How often do they test you for liver issues ?
Every six months when I see my primary care physician -- liver, kidney, thyroid, electrolytes, blood sugar and lipids.
#12. To: misterwhite (#11)
" Every six months when I see my primary care physician -- liver, kidney, thyroid, electrolytes, blood sugar and lipids. "
That is good. My uncle had to do that, even after he was diagnosed with liver cancer. He, and his wife & kids were convinced that the lipitor was what did it to him. I don't know. I am still not taking it, but I get regular blood work any way, and so far, my cholesterol is fine.
Good luck, and God Speed !!
Si vis pacem, para bellum
Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.
Never Pick A Fight With An Old Man He Will Just Shoot You He Can't Afford To Get Hurt
"If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went." (Will Rogers)
#13. To: Stoner (#12)
and so far, my cholesterol is fine.
If my cholesterol was fine, I wouldn't take it either.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]