Corporate Media Is Panicking
Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the Health and Human Services Secretary under Donald Trump, is advocating for a ban on pharmaceutical advertisements from television, a move that warrants consideration given the detrimental impact of such ads on the nation’s health system. The United States, one of only two countries globally that permits direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical advertising, alongside New Zealand, is facing a crisis that extends beyond the realm of healthcare, with far-reaching consequences for the media and the pervasive influence of the pharmaceutical industry. Patrick Bet-David points out that “75% of cable TV ad revenue comes from Big Pharma.
America’s health system compromising public health and journalism
The inherent flaws in America’s health system are not only compromising public health but also perpetuating a distorted narrative in journalism, while empowering the pharmaceutical industry to exert a profound and insidious influence over daily life. A critical examination of the dynamics at play reveals that television drug advertisements are not intended to educate, but rather to manipulate, employing a formulaic approach that relies on emotive storytelling and sentimental music to create a false narrative of salvation through medication.
The typical advertisement features a protagonist who, after taking a pill, undergoes a transformative experience, suddenly finding joy in mundane activities and basking in the warmth of idyllic settings. However, this sanitized portrayal is juxtaposed with a rapid-fire voiceover that catalogues an extensive list of potential side effects, including severe and life-threatening conditions such as stroke, heart failure, and suicidal thoughts. The ultimate goal of this approach is to create a desire for the medication among viewers, often before they have even consulted with a medical professional, thereby undermining the fundamental principles of informed healthcare decision-making. This paradigm fundamentally inverts the traditional doctor-patient dynamic, where medical decisions should be made within the confines of an exam room, guided by a healthcare professional’s expertise and thorough understanding of the patient’s medical history. Instead, patients are being coerced into requesting specific medications, often based on emotional appeals rather than a comprehensive evaluation of their health needs, thus compromising the integrity of the healthcare system and highlighting the need for a more nuanced and informed approach to pharmaceutical advertising.
Time is ticking for Big Pharma
The prevalence of a pill-for-everything culture in America has led to a misguided approach to healthcare, where many issues that could be effectively addressed through lifestyle modifications, dietary changes, supplements, or preventative care are instead being treated with pharmaceuticals. This phenomenon is largely driven by the fact that doctors often face pressure from patients who demand specific medications they have seen advertised on television. This trend is not only medically unsound, but it also poses significant risks to public health. The massive investment of billions of dollars by Big Pharma in advertising is a calculated move, driven by the prospect of enormous returns on investment, with estimates suggesting that the return on investment for direct-to-consumer drug advertisements ranges from 100% to 500%. In 2025, pharmaceutical companies are projected to spend over $5 billion on national linear TV advertisements alone, with this figure increasing substantially when digital and streaming platforms are taken into account. A small number of blockbuster drugs, including Skyrizi, Jardiance, and Ozempic, are allocated tens of millions of dollars in TV advertisements every month.
75% of ad revenue on cable television comes from the pharmaceutical industry
The revenue generated from these advertisements not only contributes to the substantial profits of Big Pharma but also exerts a profound influence on the media landscape. In 2024, a staggering 31% of advertisement minutes on major nightly news broadcasts were attributed to pharmaceutical brands, resulting in a significant proportion of media budgets being dependent on the very companies that they should be holding accountable. Consequently, when Big Pharma engages in misleading practices, many news outlets are either reluctant or hesitant to provide critical coverage, due to the inherent financial conflict of interest that exists. Calley Means exposed how big pharma runs ads to buy off the media and that it’s an open secret when you work for big pharma. 75%of ad revenue on cable television comes from the pharmaceutical industry.
What was witnessed during the COVID-19 pandemic was a stark illustration of the worst-case scenario. The novel mRNA vaccines, which were hastily approved for emergency use, were touted to the public as miraculous solutions. Government officials and media outlets made unsubstantiated claims that these vaccines would completely prevent infection, eradicate the risk of death, and bring an end to the pandemic. Young, healthy individuals were misled into believing they required the vaccines for the sake of public safety, despite their already low statistical risk of severe illness. However, none of these assertions withstood scrutiny. As the data continued to emerge, it became evident that the vaccines offered some reduction in severe disease, but not complete immunity. Nonetheless, the media rarely rectified their narrative.
RFK Jr. Is Pushing Big Pharma Ad Ban
What incentive did they have to do so? Pharmaceutical advertisements were generating substantial revenue. Meanwhile, federal employees were mandated to receive the injections under false pretences, and numerous private sector employees were coerced into doing the same. Billions of dollars were funnelled to major pharmaceutical companies. The American public was deliberately misled. This pattern of deception is not a novel phenomenon. Pfizer, for instance, has paid billions of dollars in legal penalties over the years for engaging in unethical marketing practices, promoting products off-label, and committing other violations. The most notorious example is the $2.3 billion settlement in 2009, which was the largest healthcare fraud settlement in U.S. history at the time. Yet, companies like Pfizer, AbbVie, and Johnson & Johnson continue to project a polished image on television, thanks in part to their relentless advertising expenditures and the leniency of regulatory bodies.
RFK Jr. Is Pushing Big Pharma Ad Ban
The plan proposed by RFK Jr., although facing legal challenges, is not without historical precedent. In 1970, President Nixon signed the Public Health Cigarette Smoking Act, which prohibited tobacco advertisements from being broadcast on television and radio. Although cigarettes were legal products, they were deemed too hazardous to be promoted on the airwaves. The same principle should be applied to the pharmaceutical industry. The fact that a drug has received FDA approval does not imply that it should be marketed in a manner similar to that of consumer goods. Approval does not equate to infallibility, as evident from the cases of Vioxx and OxyContin, which had devastating consequences for those who took them.
Critics, including the Wall Street Journal, have mischaracterized RFK’s proposal as a personal vendetta, a claim that is both inaccurate and misleading. In reality, there is widespread bipartisan and public support for regulating pharmaceutical advertisements. The American Medical Association has been advocating for a ban since 2015, and a STAT/Harvard poll revealed that 57% of Americans support prohibiting TV drug ads. Proponents of the pharmaceutical industry often cite the First Amendment, arguing that banning ads would be unconstitutional. However, commercial speech is not afforded absolute protection. The Central Hudson test establishes that the government can regulate ads if it has a substantial interest, the regulation directly advances that interest, and the restriction is narrowly tailored. Protecting public health from misleading pharmaceutical marketing meets all three criteria. Even if a comprehensive ban is not upheld, stricter regulations, such as prohibiting ads for specific drug classes or requiring full price transparency, could be deemed constitutional. Moreover, the mere threat of a ban could prompt drug manufacturers to voluntarily reform their practices, as they did in 2008 when criticism led to updated self-regulatory guidelines. If Kennedy’s initiative compels them to reexamine their methods, that alone would be a significant achievement.
Time is ticking for Big Pharma
The pharmaceutical industry will undoubtedly resist this proposal vehemently. However, this should not be a reason to retreat – it should be a reason to intensify efforts. For too long, we have allowed an industry driven by immense profit motives to influence our health decisions, resulting in a nation overwhelmed by prescriptions, plagued by chronic disease, and uncertain about who to trust.
Written By Tatenda Belle Panashe
