Big Pharma Advertising Dollars Are at an All-Time High
Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola
April 06, 2022
- The drug industry influences and manipulates media through advertising dollars. In 2021, drug companies spent an aggregate $6.88 BILLION on direct-to-consumer advertising (DCTA), up slightly from $6.86 billion in 2020
- The U.S. and New Zealand are the only two countries that permit DCTA, making media in these countries more likely to have pro-pharma bias
- The Will Smith-Chris Rock drama during the Oscars may have been nothing more than a subliminal publicity stunt for Pfizer’s upcoming alopecia drug
*** begin quote ***
Over the past year, the U.S. government spent $1 billion of U.S. taxpayers’ money to advertise the COVID jab, which is the most dangerous and least proven drug ever marketed, while simultaneously calling for the censorship of anyone who dared to address the risks of this novel treatment
By law, drug ads must not be false or misleading, must present a “fair balance” of information describing both the risks and benefits of a drug, must include facts that are “material” to the product’s advertised uses, and must include a “brief summary” that mentions every risk described in the product’s labeling. Few if any ads for the COVID jab have fulfilled these requirements
How do you control major media? The short answer — illustrated in the video above — is: through advertising dollars. Big Pharma advertising dominates, making up a large portion of a given media outlet’s revenue, and that funding gives Pharma the power to dictate what ends up in the news and what doesn’t.
While Big Pharma has frequently spent more on advertising than on research and development, over the past couple of years, ad spending has increased to new heights.1
In 2021, drug companies spent an aggregate $6.88 BILLION on direct-to-consumer advertising (DTCA), up slightly from $6.86 billion in 2020.2 And, remember, DTCA is only permitted in two countries in the world, the U.S. and New Zealand, so media tend to be particularly biased in favor of Big Pharma those two countries.
Did Will Smith Smack Chris Rock on Behalf of Sponsors?
Pfizer, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Incyte and Exact Sciences even sponsored the 2022 Academy Awards, which was “an unusual turn for the industry,” according to some biopharma professionals.3 Chances are you heard about how Will Smith smacked Chris Rock across the face. Smith supposedly took offense over a comment about his wife’s lack of hair.
Jada Pinkett Smith has alopecia areata, which is believed to be an autoimmune disorder. Isn’t it amazing, then, that Pfizer, a primary sponsor of this year’s Oscars,4 is working on an alopecia drug? They announced “top-line results” from a Phase 2b/3 trial in August 2021.5
It’s especially curious since three of the other sponsors — Eli Lilly, Incyte (partnering with Lilly) and Novartis — also have alopecia drugs nearly ready to go.6,7,8 Coincidence? Or a cleverly disguised publicity stunt for soon-to-be-released drugs? If the latter, it would put a whole new spin on the concept of subliminal advertising.
*** end quote ***
Well, here’s a a Conspiracy Theory that needs some watching?
Clearly, like all “good” Conspiracy Theories, it has some plausibility. Money, motive, opportunity … …. and best of all it has “that’s just crazy” defense.
I’ll have to dig out my “conspiracy theory” ruler to measure how to label this.
Remember my 2010 taxonomy on conspiracy theory: (1) Government; (2) Political; (3) Historical; and (4) Miscellaneous. S0 I may have to add a “Commercial” category.
Can’t find my conspiracy theory ruler. Guess I’ll have to reinvent it. Argh! The scale would go from “Generally Accepted As True” all the way to “Generally Accepted As False” with “tab stops” at “unlikely”, “plausible”, “possible”, “less likely than not”, “more likely than not”. I welcome input on my scale.
For this one, I’d assign it a label of “plausible”. I take no opinions but would like to see evidence (i.e., a Pfizer email; a check to the parties involved). Rumors and innuendo can move it on the scale.
Conspiracy Theory Ruler
“Generally Accepted As True”
“plausible” — plausible conspiracy theory
“less likely than not”
“more likely than not”
“Generally Accepted As False”
Commercial — commercial conspiracy theory