Posted on 12/23/2024 9:02:39 AM PST by E. Pluribus Unum
If it can be done by EO before legislation, why not?
I saw one that said one of the side effects (uttered in that super fast, low VoiceOver that you can barely understand) of their drug was:
“Uncontrollable greasy discharge”
I thought: “Wow. That better cure cancer (or at least, constipation)...”
I bet the NYT gets a nice healthy share of pharma advertising cash.
The TV adds should have never been allowed in the first place. I hope RFK Jr is successful.
And Pfizer, etc. need to be squelched and need to be liable for the human damage they’ve caused. Protection until 2029 is outrageous. Follow the money and arrest all involved with covid.
Tobacco companies can’t ...............
They banned cigarette ads
They restricted alcohol ads (notice no one ever actually drinks during the commercial.
So why not?
Having said that, TV as we know it is changing. The number of people watching is drying up. How long network TV will continue to exist is anyones guess but at some point they will simply cease to exist.
They were illegal for years.
Your first instincts were correct.
They are called controlled substances for a reason - Fed.gov is the controlling authority.
There are numerous other aspects that move drug ads out of the first amenendment, including precedent.
It’s already been done. Legally.
If you ban drug ads, my border collie will be out of a job!
The ads give the MSM huge financial incentives to give drug companies favorable press and not cover bad stories.
List the side effects of banning drug ads.
One possibility:
Insurers may postpone payment for any drug advertised by or on behalf of any of its rightsholder on TV indefinitely.
A second possibility:
A trademark preservation fee shall be due and payable 14 months after disseminations of the trademark of an FDA approved pharmaceutical product via electronic means or printed means other than on physical product packing or FDA required materials where such dissemination has a total cost of over $100,000 in the amount of 12 months sales revenue of the product in the prior 14 months, excluding months upon which a trademark preservation fee was paid.
That might be ok as long as they ban shyster lawyer adds also.
Drug ads often lead up to same drug involved in class action notices.
“90% of the corporate gaslight “news” media revenue is “Brought to you by Pfizer,” which is why the corporate gaslight “news” media never has any bad news about Pfizer or the rest of the pharmaceutical industry.”
I think they should run ads, but be prohibited to give political donations as they have a partnership with the government on many drugs and it can come off as unethical. COVID would be a good precedent.
“If you ban drug ads, my border collie will be out of a job!”
If you ban drug ads, Lester Holt will be out of a job.
There are nothing but drug ads on tv
They are in charge of programming
No matter what the audience says or turns off their crap or how low numbers they get they still air this horrible “programming”
Look at what they’re pushing form the content they’re selling
The kids say that all the stars are interviewing strictly on podcasts no more late night. They say the moment it turned for good was when Stephen Colbert had a dancing syringe propaganda piece he was in promoting the vax. They say it was so obvious and so intellectually insulting they were done
It’s all podcast now
Rogan, Dillon, Theo.
Most of these ads tell you the reasons the drug will likely kill you.
><
They certainly do that. And they are all Woke and DEI themed.
Wish they would ban the ads for stiffy’s. Idiots.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.