Health and Human Services Secretary (HHS) Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has long called for the banning of pharmaceutical ads on television. Whether or not such a ban can or will become a reality is unknowable, but the fundament issue comes down to the following:
Is an outright ban the best option, or, short of such a ban, could new rules and regulations be a compromise that would satisfy both sides of the argument? Could ads be subject to FDA approval before they are aired? And even more importantly, which option would be best for the health and healthcare of American people?
These are simple enough questions, but their answers won't be simple.
However, RFK Jr.'s bottom-line argument is simple. The HHS head attributes televised ads to making America "the biggest consumers of pharmaceutical products in the world -- and they’re not making us healthier." He wrote on X while he was running for president in May 2024:
"We are one of only two countries in the world that allow pharmaceutical companies to advertise directly to consumers on television. Not surprisingly, Americans consume more pharmaceutical products than anyone else on the planet. As I told @JoePolish on my first day in office I will issue an executive order banning pharmaceutical advertising on television."
While that ban didn't happen on Kennedy's first day on the job, he remains committed to making it a reality.
We are one of only two countries in the world that allow pharmaceutical companies to advertise directly to consumers on television. Not surprisingly, Americans consume more pharmaceutical products than anyone else on the planet.
— Robert F. Kennedy Jr (@RobertKennedyJr) May 22, 2024
As I told @JoePolish, on my first day in office I… pic.twitter.com/jsvDhzq7yA
Let's first digress a bit and look at the reality of politics in today's America.
Whether or not televised prescription-drug commercials are ultimately banned will likely come down to a political decision rather than a health-related medical decision. That's a travesty — but it's also reality.
This country is arguably more divided than at any other time in modern history; positions on most major issues are either black or white on both sides of the aisle. One needs only to look at President Donald Trump and how he's perceived by each side as a perfect example.
On the left, Trump is the Devil incarnate; a modern-day "Hitler" or "fascist" who seeks nothing less than ruling America as a dictator or oligarch, and intentionally destroying America as we know it.
On the right, particularly among Trump's most avid supporters— let's be honest — he can virtually do no wrong. His every move is defended, even against legitimate criticisms from conservatives, with those "guilty" being subject to ridicule and attack (trust me; I've been there).
I only bring up the above up because the raging debate about pharmaceuticals — "Big Pharma," as it were — is virtually black or white, as well.
Suddenly, social media keyboard jockeys are pharmaceutical experts, some of whom condemn all vaccines (I'm not talking about the disastrous farce of COVID faux-vaccines) and prescription drugs, while others condemn those who dare to question America's "addiction" to prescription medicines.
So who's to blame for the "addiction" — Big Pharma, or doctors who regularly write multiple prescriptions for their patients? Anecdotally, I believe it's both.
Big Pharma
Currently, like most things in business, the advertising of prescription medications all comes down to money and the bottom line. As the Wall Street Journal reported in early January, pharmaceutical advertising now makes up a major portion of the hundreds of billions of dollars spent on advertising in the U.S. each year.
For example:
Recent large spenders include Abbvie’s anti-inflammatory drug Skyrizi, spent nearly $400 million in linear TV ads [in 2024] in the U.S., and Novo Nordisk’s weight-loss drug Wegovy, spent nearly $300 million, according to TV ad-tracking firm iSpot.tv.
Prescription drug brands accounted for 30.7% of ad minutes across evening news programs on ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox News, MSNBC and NBC last year through Dec. 15, according to data from iSpot.
Anyone who watches TV knows that endless drug commercials, from Ozempic and other weight-loss drugs, to various ED drugs and countless other medications are pervasive to the point of ad nauseam.
"The leading theory," according to DailyWire's Matt Walsh, is "companies like Pfizer essentially buy off the media." Walsh also wrote:
The pharmaceutical industry spends something like $5 billion on advertising every year — which in some years, is more than they spend on research and development. And a lot of this spending is concentrated on news stations.
[...]
These are among the most lucrative ad purchases — pushing drugs like Ozempic, Skyrizi, “Vyvgart Hytrulo,” and so on. Naturally, that kind of spending leads to favorable coverage.
Big Pharma doesn’t even need to establish any kind of quid pro quo, or request anything from the news networks. It’s just generally understood that, if you’re working for one of these networks, you should go easy on the pharma giants.
It's not hard to connect the above dots to the possibility (near certainty) that at least part of the reason the so-called mainstream media vociferously attacks RFK Jr. at every opportunity, is because of the bottom line.
ALSO READ: Some Perspective on Measles and Vaccines
MAHA: Is RFK Jr.'s Mission to 'Make America Healthy Again' Already Paying Dividends?
On the other hand, according to Brookings in early February, Kennedy's "history of medical misinformation" raises concerns:
Doctors, scientists, [and] researchers ... have expressed distrust in RFK Jr.’s ability to oversee U.S. health care. Others [have] criticized his past remarks, with epidemiologist Dr. Michael Mina tweeting: “Beyond the absurdity, biological know-how simply isn’t there to make a virus that targets only certain ethnicities.”
In recent years, RFK Jr.’s focus has been on promoting conspiracy theories.
[...]
While he has tried to deny his past anti-vaccine positions during his Senate confirmation hearings, years of documented evidence show his ties to the anti-vaccine movement, which has grown from a fringe subculture to a well-organized network that spreads false information about vaccines on social media.
Vaccine hesitancy has contributed to rising cases of whooping cough (also known as pertussis) and measles, as lower immunization rates weaken herd immunity. When vaccination rates decline due to hesitancy, “different vaccine schedules,” or a growing number of unvaccinated individuals, the consequences can be tragic.
Again, while one side warns against Kennedy's views, the other side lauds them. So what's a non-expert in pharmaceuticals supposed to believe, with even a semblance of valid comfort?
Is the very complex issue hurt by "expert" keyboard jockeys on one side of the issue or the other?
Do pharmaceutical commercials lead uninformed Americans to ask their docs to prescribe the latest "wonder drug" they saw on TV?
Simple questions without easy answers.
Incidentally, I accompanied my better half to her doctor appointment earlier on Thursday. The doc is the head of surgery at our local hospital. I asked if she had an opinion on televised pharmaceutical ads.
After making a strong medical case, the doc said such ads aren't beneficial to consumers and often lead to misconceptions and misperceptions.
For now, at least, I'm with the good doctor.
