RFK Jr Wants To Ban Pharmaceutical Ads On TV

[Rawley]

Yes, but it's taking over an hour for it to seep into the heads of the stupid!

You need to get your panties back on and run for cover Rawley. This idea is pure poison for your corporate masters!

Got it. Don't mind me, as I slowly back away.

 

[bendog]

Who'd you trust more to inform you of new medicines that might treat an illness you have? the Medical Associations or Pharma?

I'd say neither, but no one else is an info source, or is there another source?

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

I particularly like the "black, oily stool" warning.

.


And all the possibly fetal genital and perineal infections.


.

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

MSNBC too.

It's completely taboo to even think it.

The lights are coming on in Maga heads very slowly on this one.

They'll soon realize that there's nothing they can do to change the topic, and they'll skitter back into the woodwork.

.









.

 

[braalian]

.


And all the possibly fetal genital and perineal infections.


.

What exactly is a fetal genital infection?

 

[toobfreak]

RFK Jr Wants To Ban Pharmaceutical Ads On TV​

Seriously. Why are we like the only country on the planet where pharmaceutical companies advertise prescription drugs on TV? I hate it when they ask: "Ask your doctor if Wagovy might be right for you!" Are they serious? Does anyone actually make an appointment, go to their doctor, and ask them: "I saw drugs a, b, c, and d advertised on TV--- are any of them right for me? Can I take them?"

If you needed the stuff, a doctor would prescribe it to you. Along with banning all drug ads, limit Medicare ads to one per hour, not thirty.

 

[Concerned American]

My wife thought it was funny when she moved to this state how easy it was to buy beer. She likes to drink wine and the state was treating it like it was hard liquor. But beer was OK.

IDK where you live, but if it is in the midwest, that is common. It is kind of a protectionist measure. Those states usually have a large malt industry and promote the sales of malt based beverages over others. The wine industry has been affected for years. In response, wine producers, in many cases, have changed from wine coolers to malt based coolers or "flavored beer" to avoid these types of laws and their tax implications. I worked for a large wine producers for 33 years and saw this a lot.

 

[bendog]

Seriously. Why are we like the only country on the planet where pharmaceutical companies advertise prescription drugs on TV? I hate it when they ask: "Ask your doctor if Wagovy might be right for you!" Are they serious? Does anyone actually make an appointment, go to their doctor, and ask them: "I saw drugs a, b, c, and d advertised on TV--- are any of them right for me? Can I take them?"

If you needed the stuff, a doctor would prescribe it to you. Along with banning all drug ads, limit Medicare ads to one per hour, not thirty.

BECAUSE the gop Supreme Court held in Citizens United v. Clinton that corporations have free speech, and frankly cause of the money, their rights are bigger than your's or mine.

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

Seriously. Why are we like the only country on the planet where pharmaceutical companies advertise prescription drugs on TV?

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

Seriously. Why are we like the only country on the planet where pharmaceutical companies advertise prescription drugs on TV? I hate it when they ask: "Ask your doctor if Wagovy might be right for you!" Are they serious? Does anyone actually make an appointment, go to their doctor, and ask them: "I saw drugs a, b, c, and d advertised on TV--- are any of them right for me? Can I take them?"

If you needed the stuff, a doctor would prescribe it to you. Along with banning all drug ads, limit Medicare ads to one per hour, not thirty.

.


I think it's just a step in the process of turning medicine over to computers. The few doctors I've seen for my own "health care" in the last fifteen years have simply consulted a computer and phoned in the Rx, then did a boatload of paperwork

This is why I quit pre-med.


.

 

[toobfreak]

BECAUSE the gop Supreme Court held in Citizens United v. Clinton that corporations have free speech, and frankly cause of the money, their rights are bigger than your's or mine.

Individuals have freedom of speech, not corporations. No corporation has a right to free speech, especially if it is against the public good, and advertising drugs, pushing, promoting them to the public is against the public good. We the viewer are powerless to buy what they are selling anyway, they are all PRESCRIBED drugs.

 

[bendog]

Individuals have freedom of speech, not corporations. No corporation has a right to free speech, especially if it is against the public good, and advertising drugs, pushing, promoting them to the public is against the public good. We the viewer are powerless to buy what they are selling anyway, they are all PRESCRIBED drugs.

Well, the Supreme Court disagreed with you. I adamantly thought the idiot 5 were idiots back then, but then .... here we are.

Citizens United v. FEC - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[toobfreak]

Individuals have freedom of speech, not corporations. No corporation has a right to free speech, especially if it is against the public good, and advertising drugs, pushing, promoting them to the public is against the public good. We the viewer are powerless to buy what they are selling anyway, they are all PRESCRIBED drugs.

And if corporations have a right to free speech, then why was Fox sued for 700 million dollars for its free speech? And why was Alex Jones of Infowars sued for billions for his free speech?

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

Well, the Supreme Court disagreed with you. I adamantly thought the idiot 5 were idiots back then, but then .... here we are.

.



Cute post





.

 

[bendog]

And if corporations have a right to free speech, then why was Fox sued for 700 million dollars for its free speech? And why was Alex Jones of Infowars sued for billions for his free speech?

Because the first amend does not protect libel.

 

[Foxfyre]

I completely support this. The American public gets enough pHARMa crammed down their throats without being indoctrinated by their TV's to walk into the "doctor's" office and demand the drug they want because they thought the ad was full of well-dressed, smiling people who were ostensibly "cured".

GO BOBBY!

RFK Jr Lays Groundwork to Ban Big Pharma Advertisements on TV

Do you support this?

thepeoplesvoice.tv

Given that a good deal of the ad is them reciting (at warp speed) all the horrible side effects that can occur with this or that 'wonder' drug, I agree completely. If they can ban tobacco and liquor ads in the public interest, certainly it is in the public interest to not push drugs on people.

 

[bendog]

.



Cute post





.

poor sleepy. life is hard.

 

[Concerned American]

Because the first amend does not protect libel.

Who did they libel?

 

[toobfreak]

Well, the Supreme Court disagreed with you. I adamantly thought the idiot 5 were idiots back then, but then .... here we are.

Citizens United v. FEC - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Well, the SCOTUS got it wrong back then. Freedom of speech is a quality enjoined to INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY. A corporation is not an individual, so has no individual rights. Corporations have no "right" to advertise on TV, if they want to advertise, let them advertise in medical journals and such.

I cannot believe phrama companies think that advertising on TV actually increases sales enough to justify the cost.

 

[bendog]

Who did they libel?

well I'm sure you think they did not. but don't have a nice day, smartazz