Executive order to cut MSM funding and big pharma...70% of their income!

President Trump needs to sign a executive order to stop big pharmaceutical company's from advertising on television networks.

Speaking with former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura on an episode of “Off The Grid“, Kennedy revealed that 70% of ad revenue for major news networks comes from big pharma.

Read More: www.trueactivist.com...

This would be a major blow to MSM revenue. Everytime I turn the television on these ads are all I see.

Today, drug companies spend $4 billion a year on ads to consumers. In 1997, the FDA rules governing pharmaceutical advertising changed, and now companies can name both the drug and what it's for, while only naming the most significant potential side effects. Then, the number of ads really exploded. The Nielsen Co. estimates that there's an average of 80 drug ads every hour of every day on American television. And those ads clearly produce results.

From what I can read here it is just regulations not law. So I'm guessing Trump can cut of their main reveue source by EO. I'm sure he is already on it but just bringing it to light. My first ATS post thanks for reading!
www.fda.gov...

I believe this is President Trumps ace in his sleeve. Cut the head off the snake!!!
Star and flag please

Great 1st post, star and flag. Big Pharma would probably retaliate in a way that hurts. That would be an obvious downside to this.

a reply to: Lenert29

This right here is a big deal.

These companies are raking in billions a year. Peddling, in some case, drugs with horrible side effects.

I was watching one of these commercials and in the list of side effects. They claimed, this product may make you start gambling.

I don't know what sort of ingredients are in the pill. However something making you gamble is a big deal.

How did that even pass FDA testing?

They should be ashamed of those commercials with their uber - long and grotesque side effects anyways.

Sounds like a nice two-fer, OP.

a reply to: Lenert29

You mean I'm paying for advertising when I have my prescription filled?
So I'm getting more for my medicine dollars, right?
I'll be cured in no time if I watch enough commercials!

Word of mouth advertising is free---if you're in the doctor's office---
with sufficient insurance to cover the advertising costs...health comes second.

That's like begging the psychopath who kidnapped you and wants you to become his first killing;
to let you go home....

a reply to: Illumimasontruth

Like I said they spend 4billion on ads, so I wonder what they make I couldn't find any numbers. They may try but people don't work for free.

4 billion a year that could be used to lower the cost of the drugs.

why do they even advertise on T.V. for drugs that can only be obtained through a doctors prescription?

a doctor isn`t going to prescribe a drug for you that he thinks you don`t need no matter how much you may want it because you saw ads for it on T.V.

I always found it amusing(and sad) that prescription drugs are advertised(and in effect sold) to the patient by television ads.

Do you have this?

Do you have that?

Ever feel like this?

Then this prescription only drug is what you need, just go to your doctor and tell him you want to take this.

Shouldn't the doctor be the one to assess the symptoms and prescribe the appropriate medication?

It's such an obvious push, by big pharma, that it's amazing it isn't illegal. Granted the big buck lobbyist and in the pocket politicians will never touch them. I hope trump drags them out into the streets and tears this whole sham industry down.

It really worked with tobacco and alcohol didn't it???? Kinda like the strict gun laws in Chicago.
I see that only driving up the cost of meds and causing mass employee cuts. It's a nice thought, but in a capitalist country it would cause layoffs in advertising, manufacturing, and every other aspect of the pharma business.
If somebody wants to risk all the laid out side effects of trying to keep a boner, it's on them.

originally posted by: Tardacus
4 billion a year that could be used to lower the cost of the drugs.

why do they even advertise on T.V. for drugs that can only be obtained through a doctors prescription?

a doctor isn`t going to prescribe a drug for you that he thinks you don`t need no matter how much you may want it because you saw ads for it on T.V.

Sure he will, otherwise he won't get invited to the next "conference" that the drug company puts on. By conference I of course mean that all expense paid luxurious week long getaway where they throw out millions of dollars wining and dining the doctors to push their pills.

But that would mean less sophisticated propaganda. They might actually just have to do plain old journalism after that.

Your title is misleading as all Hell.

You WANT Trump to sign an EO for this (honestly - I'm not against it at all), your title makes it seem like he has.

Big pharma is a blight on the American people's wellbeing. There's a reason why we're protecting poppy plants in Iraq and Afghanistan. Keep 'em addicted to those hardcore narcotics.

a reply to: Lenert29
This is part of the price you pay for avoiding "socialised medicine". I've never seen(in the UK) commercials for anything but the trivial non-prescription stuff- cough mixtures, pain relievers, back rubs, etc. I've just watched through a couple of commercial breaks, as a test, and even those were absent. I suppose the relevant budgets won't stretch to prime time rates.

a reply to: MisterSpock

yeah you`re partially right, if the doctor thinks you need a certain class of drug he will prescribe the brand that gives him the most kick backs.

originally posted by: MisterSpock

originally posted by: Tardacus
4 billion a year that could be used to lower the cost of the drugs.

why do they even advertise on T.V. for drugs that can only be obtained through a doctors prescription?

a doctor isn`t going to prescribe a drug for you that he thinks you don`t need no matter how much you may want it because you saw ads for it on T.V.

Sure he will, otherwise he won't get invited to the next "conference" that the drug company puts on. By conference I of course mean that all expense paid luxurious week long getaway where they throw out millions of dollars wining and dining the doctors to push their pills.

I have been saying this for years. It should be illegal, just like if I advertised '___' on MSM.

a reply to: RomeByFire

Sorry my first post will do better next time

a reply to: Lenert29

I agree.

What was very eye opening to me is when I started traveling to Eastern Europe regularly about five years ago. They have practically zero medication ads on tv. Most people there are also far healthier than they are here. They're not a culture of taking meds for any little problem you have. They are not a culture which hands out meds to kids like candy. And the kids over there don't appear to have half the mental issues kids here do.

The Big Pharma marketing blueprint is there to convince people they need meds, not because people actually need meds. How many commercials start with "if you feel like this or that, you might have this or that, and this can fix it". It's ridiculous.

More ridiculous are the side effect. Chronic arthritis? Take this. Side effect include dizziness, heart palpitations, stroke and seizure. Well when considering the side effects, arthritis no longer seems that bad!

a reply to: Lenert29

I gave you a S&F for your well laid out thread and creative thinking. I must disagree with you though for one big reason.

Unless a company (pharmaceutical or whatever) is receiving federal funds, I don't want the government dictating how they spend their money. Private(non federally funded) businesses should not be restricted on how they spend their funds.

I hate the fact that the cost of products we buy are so expensive because of the excessive and wasteful spending, but it is what it is. Unless they're receiving federal funds, we have no say on how they operate.

a reply to: Tardacus
Really? I used chantix to successfully stop snuff use. Saw that advertisement on TV. Big evil pharma!

originally posted by: KawRider9
a reply to: Lenert29

I gave you a S&F for your well laid out thread and creative thinking. I must disagree with you though for one big reason.

Unless a company (pharmaceutical or whatever) is receiving federal funds, I don't want the government dictating how they spend their money. Private(non federally funded) businesses should not be restricted on how they spend their funds.

I hate the fact that the cost of products we buy are so expensive because of the excessive and wasteful spending, but it is what it is. Unless they're receiving federal funds, we have no say on how they operate.

I agree to your most likely constitutional principals. But we are not talking about power tools we are talking about schedule III narcotics in many cases. You will be arrested for having any of these pills without prescription. Another point is why we the consumer not a MD is being offered these choices?