Does This RFK Proposal Align With A Political Ideology?
I'm thinking not.
populism
I'm thinking not.
This isn't a radical idea. Many countries limit marketing pharmaceuticals directly to the public, including most all the countries in Europe. I haven't thought through the legal challenges in the U.S.
This isn't a radical idea. Many countries limit marketing pharmaceuticals directly to the public, including most all the countries in Europe.
Pretty much this.
If we all believe in the science and trust doctors to be experts and make pharmaceutical recommendations in our best interest, why do we need advertising anyway?
No, it doesn't. Americans across the political spectrum have problems with drug companies and big business's influence on the media. That said, we'd probably have to go down a few more levels to actually solve the problem, and it's not as if there aren't others ready to step in and take their place.
From the article:
“The primary purpose of pharmaceutical advertising is not to influence consumers, but rather the television networks and news itself,” according to a statement on Kennedy’s website. “It gives Big Pharma the power to dictate what goes on the news — and what doesn’t — because the networks won’t bite the hand that feeds them.”
This quote made me laugh.
“If you want an empowered population of adults to be able to do their own due diligence, you can’t block them from the information that a pharmaceutical [ad] is going to give them — especially when they’re [pharmaceutical companies] allowed to give it to healthcare practitioners,” Singer added. “Denying us the information actually denies us the opportunity to be informed.”
This isn't a radical idea. Many countries limit marketing pharmaceuticals directly to the public, including most all the countries in Europe.
only allowed in NZ & US afaik
I haven't thought through the legal challenges in the U.S.
goes against moneyed interests therefore legal challenges will prevail. that's assuming rfk even gets confirmed, on which i'm doubtful
Is just a stupid pet project. RFK thinks vaccines cause autism and a host of other nonsense. The merit, legality, enforcement of this proposal don't really matter because it will be impossible for this administration to get anything done. When the government similarly went against the tobacco industry and restricted their advertising it took competence and people making data based claims about the health hazards of smoking. We don't have either of those things here.
Is just a stupid pet project. RFK thinks vaccines cause autism and a host of other nonsense.
So he just woke up one day and decided "I think vaccines cause autism"?
This poor kid was just forced to get all his vaccines and he developed autism within a month.
https://tennesseeconservativenews.com/te...
People have also been awarded settlements over it:
So it definitely appears RFK's on to something.
Of course RFK did not invent the vaccine autism nonsense. Someone told it to him and he lacks the ability to think for himself.
Do we understand what the causes of autism actually are?
Of course RFK did not invent the vaccine autism nonsense. Someone told it to him and he lacks the ability to think for himself.
Andrew Wakefield more or less kicked off the the modern antivax movement in the late 1990s. He has since lost his medical license, but I'm sure that PB believes that was all part of some grand conspiracy.
Of course RFK did not invent the vaccine autism nonsense. Someone told it to him and he lacks the ability to think for himself.
What does this statement even mean?
Isn't him taking the initiative to change our health guidelines away from all the bureaucracy, money and profits of big corporations and instead do and follow what's actually good for our bodies show he's able to "think for himself"?
No. He’s just a conspiracy stooge. You can get him to believe almost anything that aligns with his biases because of his poor thinking abilities. These people can’t tell you the odds a coin lands heads twice on four flips, but they are convinced they should be taken seriously on heterodox interpretations of medical trials and meta studies. They think that because that’s what they need to be true, otherwise what their critics say about them is true.
No. He’s just a conspiracy stooge. You can get him to believe almost anything that aligns with his biases because of his poor thinking abilities. These people can’t tell you the odds a coin lands heads twice on four flips, but they are convinced they should be taken seriously on heterodox interpret
Assuming you know his motives.
Sure, assuming he really believes what he is saying. If he’s knowingly spreading misinformation to morons who can’t think for themselves he’s way more evil than stupid, I’m assuming a heavy mix of both.
Sure, assuming he really believes what he is saying. If he’s knowingly spreading misinformation to morons who can’t think for themselves he’s way more evil than stupid, I’m assuming a heavy mix of both.
It goes both ways though, so if you're spreading misinformation by saying vaccines don't increase the risk of autism, doesn't that make you more evil than stupid as well?
I will blame myself for not making it clear. But what I really wanted to see was whether people thought that banning prescription drug ads to the public is a good idea. Healthwise. I couldn't care less if the idea is constitutional or not or whether the proposed law (which most countries have) was brought forth by a nut.
I will blame myself for not making it clear. But what I really wanted to see was whether people thought that banning prescription drug ads to the public is a good idea. Healthwise. I couldn't care less if the idea is constitutional or not or whether the proposed law (which most countries have) was b
It's hard to say what a ban would do in a vacuum. The consequences of media's influence heavily depends on the motives of the drug companies. Then there's the accuracy and effectiveness of the ads, how good doctors are at their jobs, etc. If ads sell more drugs and bring more money in, does that mean that money will be used for more research and development and save more lives? Who knows.
I'm okay with no TV ads, but don't take my pamphlets.
thread needs craig imo
It goes both ways though, so if you're spreading misinformation by saying vaccines don't increase the risk of autism, doesn't that make you more evil than stupid as well?
This is the world according to the current right wing post modernism trend. 2+2=5 or 2+2=4 are not really any different and bOtH SidEZ etc.
