Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

831

File what follows under: believe it when I see it.

A lot of people are black-pilled about Trump and whether he’ll deliver the goods on the Big Pharma front, and with good reason. I don’t blame anyone for their skepticism after relentless, brutal lies over the past five years (much longer, actually, but five years in the COVID context).

But we’ll know for sure here in about a month once the rubber hits the road; allowing a little bit of grace period is in order once he takes the reins, no?

Talk is cheap (and even the transition team rhetoric of late has been weaksauce anyway). So I’ll believe the MAHA agenda is real when I see it bear fruit — not in word, but in deed — with eyes wide open.

With all that caveat established, Big Pharma is worried their TV marketing racket might soon be abolished with the stroke of the executive pen, which it absolutely could be.

Via Fierce Pharma (emphasis added):

“With Robert F. Kennedy Jr. slated to take the top spot at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under President-elect Donald Trump, some in the biopharma industry are concerned about his tenure’s possible impacts on companies’ direct-to-consumer outreach.

RFK Jr. has previously expressed a desire to put a stop to DTC pharma ads in the U.S.—which is one of only two countries in the world, along with New Zealand, where prescription drugs can be directly advertised to consumers…

In a report Sunday, research firm Intron Health suggested that such a ban represents a major risk of RFK Jr.’s (still to-be-confirmed) HHS leadership for the biopharma industry.

“Whilst we have a relatively benign view of RFK’s impact on the Pharma industry, one thing that does worry us is the potential for the US government to ban DTC advertising of drugs,” Intron wrote, adding, “We see this as the biggest imminent threat from RFK and the new Trump administration.”*

The analysts noted that because the return on investment for DTC drug ads is quite high—with “estimates ranging as high as 100%-500%, depending on the drug”—pharmas will “almost certainly” see their drug sales take a hit from a DTC ban, even as they save money on marketing spending.”

*The fact that industry lobbying groups, which are presumably in a position to know, view a simple, anodyne reversal on DTC advertising, which would bring the United States in line with literally the rest of the planet policy-wise, as the “biggest imminent threat” just shows how neutered RFK Jr. and Trump might turn out to be. We’ll know for sure if that prediction bears out in short order.

Source (zerohedge.com)

>File what follows under: believe it when I see it. >A lot of people are black-pilled about Trump and whether he’ll deliver the goods on the Big Pharma front, and with good reason. I don’t blame anyone for their skepticism after relentless, brutal lies over the past five years (much longer, actually, but five years in the COVID context). >But we’ll know for sure here in about a month once the rubber hits the road; allowing a little bit of grace period is in order once he takes the reins, no? >Talk is cheap (and even the transition team rhetoric of late has been weaksauce anyway). So I’ll believe the MAHA agenda is real when I see it bear fruit — not in word, but in deed — with eyes wide open. >With all that caveat established, Big Pharma is worried their TV marketing racket might soon be abolished with the stroke of the executive pen, which it absolutely could be. >Via Fierce Pharma (emphasis added): >>“With Robert F. Kennedy Jr. slated to take the top spot at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under President-elect Donald Trump, some in the biopharma industry are concerned about his tenure’s possible impacts on companies’ direct-to-consumer outreach. >>RFK Jr. has previously expressed a desire to put a stop to DTC pharma ads in the U.S.—which is one of only two countries in the world, along with New Zealand, where prescription drugs can be directly advertised to consumers… >>In a report Sunday, research firm Intron Health suggested that such a ban represents a major risk of RFK Jr.’s (still to-be-confirmed) HHS leadership for the biopharma industry. >>“Whilst we have a relatively benign view of RFK’s impact on the Pharma industry, one thing that does worry us is the potential for the US government to ban DTC advertising of drugs,” Intron wrote, adding, “We see this as the biggest imminent threat from RFK and the new Trump administration.”* >>The analysts noted that because the return on investment for DTC drug ads is quite high—with “estimates ranging as high as 100%-500%, depending on the drug”—pharmas will “almost certainly” see their drug sales take a hit from a DTC ban, even as they save money on marketing spending.” >*The fact that industry lobbying groups, which are presumably in a position to know, view a simple, anodyne reversal on DTC advertising, which would bring the United States in line with literally the rest of the planet policy-wise, as the “biggest imminent threat” just shows how neutered RFK Jr. and Trump might turn out to be. We’ll know for sure if that prediction bears out in short order. [Source](https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2025-01-19/report-rfk-pressures-trump-ban-direct-consumer-pharma-advertising)
You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (11).
[–] • 1 pt

Pharma "advertising" is one thing. It really isn't advertising though in the typical sense. They aren't trying to get people to buy their products directly, they are buying favorable (or at least not disfavorable) coverage in news and current affairs programming from the networks they "advertise" on. "This segment is brought to you by Pfizer"

A larger problem is the total regulatory capture, to the point that pharmaceutical companies can place their own employees inside the FDA/CDC who then look from the outside to be "independent" FDA/CDC employees. That and the blatant revolving door from regulator to industry where so called regulators "retire" early to cushy jobs on the boards of big pharma companies.

Certainly, phama advertising, whether direct to consumers or not, should be banned But also a total ban on anyone who works for or has ever worked for a pharma company being employed in a regulatory role (in the same industry) and vicer vercer. Anyone who has worked in a regulatory agency must never be employed in the industry that they regulated.

Furthermore, the regulatory and safety monitoring aspects of agencies like the CDC need to be totally separate, even adversarial. Having the agency that approves a drug also monitoring the safety of that drug is a moral hazard, they have a bias towards hiding any adverse outcomes in order to not look like fucking imbeciles (or worse).