Short of the total ban that many MAHA faithful would prefer— which might not stand up to legal scrutiny when it would surely be challenged in court — the Trump administration is considering a pair of policy changes designed to hamstring the pharmaceutical industry’s ability to propagandize the American public.
Related: In 2025, WebMD Claims COVID Vax ‘Still Crucial for Children’
Via Bloomberg (emphasis added):
The Trump administration is discussing policies that would make it harder and more expensive for pharmaceutical companies to advertise directly to patients, in a move that could disrupt more than $10 billion in annual ad spending…
The two policies the administration has focused in on would be to require greater disclosures of side effects of a drug within each ad — likely making broadcast ads much longer and prohibitively expensive — or removing the industry’s ability to deduct direct-to-consumer advertising as a business expense for tax purposes, these people said.
Again, the ideal solution to this death-grip that the pharmaceutical industry — and the private defense contractors who shill for forever-wars and the bankers who thieve at all turns from productive members of the economy — enjoy over the media would be a total ban on direct-to-consumer advertising.
But, Congress being populated by feckless crooks that currently hold office as it is, it’s difficult to imagine such legislation coming to fruition anytime in the near future.
Related: MAHA: Top FDA Vax-Monger’s Firing Sends Pharma Stocks Plummeting
Even these relatively modest proposals currently on the table, however, are enough to elicit squeals of indignation from the likes of Brought to You By Pfizer™ CNN, which is wholly dependent on pharma ads to sustain its bottom line while manipulating its dwindling audience with a deluge of horrendous commercials for magic prostate pills every five minutes.
Via CNN (emphasis added):
For decades, pharmaceutical companies have shelled out big bucks to broadcasters to place ads between TV segments. But a pair of policies being considered by US Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. could change that and leave broadcasters in financial straits.
While not an outright ban, the two policies would make it significantly more difficult and expensive for drug companies to push their products across broadcasters’ airwaves… The policies look to either mandate that advertisers elaborate on the risks posed by their drugs — forcing ads to be longer and, therefore, more expensive — or bar drugmakers from writing off direct-to-consumer ads as business expenses on their taxes, also padding the bill.
Methinks the lady doth protest too much.
This is a tangential point, but I can’t resist the opportunity to re-humiliate the human-potato hybrid eunuch Brian Stelter, who once claimed with a straight face that his (now former) bosses at CNN aren’t really all that interested in ratings in the context of their nonstop anti-Trump coverage in his first administration:
We might be up 20 percent, we might be up 30, we might be up 40 percent. If we go back down 40 percent, that’s okay.
The panel and audience laughed right to his face, delivering a hearty helping of schadenfreude to the good citizens of the United States who have been made to suffer these fools for far too long.
