MSM. The advertising and promotional arm of the Pharmaceutical Industry

The pharmaceutical industry is not allowed to advertise their drugs in Europe, and most other countries with the exception of the USA and New Zealand. The situation varies, but the advertising of prescription only drugs is not allowed in the UK; but non-prescription, or ‘over-the-counter’ drugs can be advertised. However, this does not worry the drug companies!

• BUT MAKE NO MISTAKE, PHARMACEUTICAL DRUGS AND VACCINES ARE ADVERTISED THROUGHOUT EVERY PART OF THE WORLD.  
• MOREOVER THEY ARE ADVERTISED ENTIRELY FREE OF CHARGE, PERHAPS THE ONLY INDUSTRY IN THE WORLD THAT IS ALLOWED TO DO SO.

So how does this work in the UK, and most of the rest of the world?

• A drug company wants to promote a drug or a vaccine to the public. 
• They write a press release
• They give it to all the mainstream media (MSM) outlets. 
• The press release is dutifully published by a grateful, dependent and compliant MSM.

Moreover, the press release will be published in full, without changes or amendments, without comment, without question, and without further investigation.

• At the same time, the drug company will put the MSM in touch with doctors and specialists from the NHS (not from the drugs company, this would be advertising) who have been ‘primed’ to speak on the subject. The MSM will interview, often at length, they will reinforce the positive message. 
• The drug company will also suggest that the MSM speak to certain patients, or to a patient support group, or health charity (especially those generously funded by drug companies). These people are also interviewed by the MSM.
  

So we have a headline, a lengthy article; or 5–10 minutes of radio or television time, devoted to the drug, or the vaccine, and its benefit to the NHS, and to individual patients. The drug company will appear to be entirely absent, uninvolved, disinterested. This is not Ford advertising their cars, or Indesit advertising their washing machines. It is not advertising at all. It's news. Moreover, it's good news - another medical breakthrough. It's a matter of important public interest.

It's subliminal advertising - at its best and most insidious.

• At no time will the MSM mention, or question, or investigate any adverse drug/vaccine reactions or serious side effects - even when these are already well known, and easily found within the literature of the conventional medical establishment.

So the pharmaceutical industry has no problem advertising their drugs and vaccines in Britain, or anywhere else. In fact this kind of subliminal advertising has a very particular benefit!

When we see an advert for a Ford car we know it is advertised by the Ford Motor Company. It is partial. We know other makes of car are equally good. When we see an Indesit washing machine advertised we know it is promoting a product in order to persuade us to buy one. We know it’s self-interested promotion, and that there are other washing machines available. We can take it, or leave it.

When we see a subliminal advertisement from a pharmaceutical company we don’t realise that the information is coming from a drug company. It's news. Pharmaceutical medicine has done it again. They are ridding the world of illness and disease. We are led to believe that the information is coming from a reputable news source, interviewing independent, disinterested doctors, and patients who  have benefited. It's “good news”; we can all rejoice at this impartial, non-advertising information.

A similar advert within the MSM would cost the advertisers very significant amounts of money. Drug companies are given this subliminal advertising, and it is entirely free. All they have to do is to produce a press release, and to offer up spokespeople who will (be paid?) to corroborate the message. 

This is all Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Moderna, Johnson and Johnson have had to do in order to promote their Covid-19 vaccines. The result is staggering. The majority of people believe they are safe and effective. We have been led to believe they will save and world, and return us to normal life. 

Yet has anyone seen an advert for any of these Covid-19 vaccines?

Indeed, the MSM has done much more than this to promote the Covid-19 vaccines for the drug companies. 

• The MSM was instrumental, alongside government and the NHS, in creating the panic about the virus - a panic that will eventually have to be assessed alongside the seriousness of the pandemic. It was this panic that created an unprecedented demand for the only solution offered against the virus.
• It was the MSM who told us about the solution to Covid-19 - that only vaccines would save us, and return life back to normal.
• The MSM has done all the marketing the drug companies could ever have hoped for.
• And the entire cost has been borne by the taxpayer.
  

So it is unlikely that the pharmaceutical industry will want to rescind the advertising ban of their vaccines and drugs. Why should they? The kind of promotion the MSM has given these drug companies over the last 15 months has been phenomenal. If they had to pay for it would have cost them a prohibitive sum money - for less effective advertising and promotion

 

ADVERTISING STANDARDS AUTHORITY. A public company masquerading as an 'authority, working for its advertisers, and so attacking natural medicine

When you write a blog that contains positive and accurate information about homeopathy, and health generally, you can expect to be attacked by homeopathy denialists. It's part of the territory! You can see in these two previous blogs what they have to say for themselves, and the quality of their arguments.

• Skeptics insists homeopathy doesn't work. So what do they have to say? 
• Militant skepticism and homeopathy. What do they have to say?

Some of my detractors use my confrontation with the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) to attack me, so it might be useful to outline what happened - not to defend myself, that's unnecessary, but to demonstrate how homeopathy deniers work in order to support the conventional medical establishment, and to undermine homeopathy, and other natural therapies.

1.  One skeptic made a complaint about my homeopathy website. The complaint concerned my comments about the homeopathic treatment of arthritis, complaining that what I had written was not justified, and was not supported by medical science.
2. I was not the only one to be attacked in this way. Many other homeopaths became the subject of a single complainant, making a similarly facile complaint. It was clearly an organised and co-ordinated attack on homeopathy by militant skeptics who support the pharmaceutical industry.
3. Other natural therapies were also targeted, not least Chiropractors, another medical therapy particularly hated by skeptics.
4. I looked carefully at the wording on my webpage, and the various pieces of medical research that supported the treatment of arthritis with homeopathy were there. There is considerable scientific evidence for the medical treatment of arthritis which can be found here.
5. I decided that the complaint was unjustified, and asked my registration organisation, the Alliance of Registered Homeopaths, to support me. This was readily agreed, not least because by this time there were already several other homeopaths facing similar complaints, and it was clear that this was an organised 'anti-homeopathy' campaign. After some discussion I agreed that the complaint against me should be used as a 'test' case.
6. It soon became clear that ASA were not open to reasonable or rational discussion. They did not agree that the evidence I had provided was evidence. They had been told by medical experts that there was no such evidence for homeopathy. These experts were, of course, conventional medical 'experts'! Conventional medicine routinely states that 'there is no evidence to support homeopathy', it is one of their mantras. And it became clear that it was a mantra that ASA had been persuaded to adopt, rigidly.
7. Nor would ASA accept that I had treated many patients who had suffered with arthritis, with great success. Some of these patients would have willingly told ASA this, but they insisted that cured patients were also not considered to be proper 'evidence'!
8. Meetings were arranged between ASA and the two main homeopathic registration bodies, the ARH, and the Society of Homeopaths. They found that ASA were absoultely immovable. They had been told that there was no evidence to support homeopathic treatment, so all claims for its effectiveness had to be removed from all adverts.
9. This is something that the homeopathic community would not, could not, and will not accept, not least because making sick people better is what homeopaths do for a living, every day of the week.
10. ASA is a private company, which earns money from its advertisers. The biggest advertisers are the pharmaceutical industry, and related industries, so no doubt the dominant source of ASA's income.
11. So the homeopathic community had to make a decision. We either had to insist that we were going to continue advertising, honestly and accurately, about the value and benefitis of homeopathic treatment. Or we had to cave in to ASA's myopic and inaccurate view of homeopathy.
12. The ARH decided that it was not going to cave in, although we would check to our own satisfaction that adverts conformed with our well established advertising guidelines. Facing up to ASA was to be a personal decision by each individual homeopath, but any homeopath who decided to stand firm against them would be fully supported in doing so.
13. There was no way that I was not going to agree to what ASA required, which was basically to agree that homeopathy did not work. I likened the situation to a Ford dealer being told by ASA that they were unable to advertise their cars unless a Toyota dealer agreed with the advert! It was clearly nonsense - unacceptable nonsense.
14. So ASA made a formal adjudication again me, something that I proudly acknowledge. Even now, whenever I attend a homeopathic conference, homeopaths will congratulate me on my stance, so I still wear ASA's adjudication as a badge of pride!
15. What difference did the adjudication make? None whatsoever, as far as I could judge. Many of my patients knew about it, and they recognised the adjudication for what it was - the machinations of a pharmaceutical industry in which they had no trust or confidence it. So I know that the 'authority' of ASA has been damaged, far more than my reputation!
16. Moreover, I hold ASA in complete and utter contempt for allowing themselves to becomes the creature of the dishonest and corrupt pharmaceutical industry.

Pharmaceutical Advertising. Drug companies are not allowed to advertise drugs & vaccines in Europe. But they overcome the ban - easily!

It is only in New Zealand and the United States of America that permit pharmaceutical companies to advertise their drugs and vaccines. Elsewhere, including Europe, they are banned from any kind of direct-to-consumer advertisements.

Yet the ability of pharmaceutical companies to advertise in Europe does not worry them. Drug companies are not allowed to advertise prescription-only drugs, but they can advertise ‘over-the-counter’ drugs, and they do so - ad infinitum.

BUT MAKE NO MISTAKE. PRESCRIPTION-ONLY DRUGS ARE ALSO ADVERTISED IN THE EUROPE AND THE UK, AND AS I WILL OUTLINE HERE THIS BAN HAS SOME DISTINCT BENEFITS FOR THE PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY.

Let me outline how this works.

• A drug company wants to get a message to the public about a drug, or a vaccine, they are keen to promote.
• They write a press release, and give it to all the media outlets (especially those media outlets who benefit from, rely upon, the advertising of over-the-counter drugs.
• The press release is published by the grateful, dependent and compliant media outlets. The will publish the press release - without change, without comment, without question, and without further investigation.
• At the same time, the drug companies will put the media in touch with doctors and specialists from the NHS (note, not from the drugs company, this would be advertising) who have been ‘primed’ to speak on the subject. They are interviewed, often at length.
• The drug companies will also suggest that the media speaks to a patient support group, or a health charity (especially those who receive a generous charitable donation from the company), and to individuals who have experienced the disease, and/or the drug. So these people are also interviewed by the media, often at length.
• So we have a lengthy article, or 5–10 minutes of radio or television news, talking about the drug or vaccine and its benefits. The drug company appears to be entirely absent, uninvolved. So it's not really advertising.
• At no time will the media mention, or question, or investigate any adverse drug reactions or serious side effects - even if these are already well known.

So pharmaceutical companies have no problem about advertising their drugs and vaccines in Britain. In fact this kind of subliminal advertising has a very particular benefit!

When we see an advert for a Ford car we know it is advertised by the Ford Motor Company. And we know it’s an advertisement. And we know that what we are being told is not impartial information. We can take it, or leave it.

When we see a subliminal advert from a pharmaceutical company we don’t realise that the information is coming from a drugs company. We think it is coming from independent doctors and specialists, from patients. It is a piece of “good news” about which we can rejoice! It is impartial. It is not really advertising.

Moreover, advertising in the mainstream media usually costs the advertisers a significant amount of money. For drug companies this subliminal advertising is entirely free. They produce a press release, offer up spokespeople who will corroborate the message, and that is their only cost.

So I suspect that pharmaceutical drug companies would not want the adverting ban in Europe to be rescinded. It would cost them a lot of money - for less effective advertising.

BBC News. The subliminal advertising of vaccines, free vaccine promotion, measles scaremongering, and mandatory drugging

The BBC is the most ardent and effective promotors of pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines.

The BBC's promotion of vaccines and measles scaremongering reached new heights of dishonesty and notoriety yesterday (25 April 2019). The story was covered in much of the British mainstream media, but not with the wall-to-wall coverage made possible by the BBC's continual news and current affairs coverage throughout the entire day. It left their editorial guidelines (accuracy, impartiality, not causing harm or offence, fairness, and independence from external interests) in tatters.

The story the BBC told us throughout the day is simple. It is the tale of the powerful Conventional Medical Establishment, including the NHS, medical science, politicians and government. I do not intend here to go into detail of yesterday's BBC's coverage - beyond outlining these highlights (or lowlights) of the case the BBC made.

• There are epidemics of measles occurring around the world
• Measles is a terrible killer disease
• Measles has been controlled by vaccines since the 1960's
• Too many children are now not being vaccinated
• It is unvaccinated children who are now contracting measles
• Parents who don't vaccinate their children are misguided and misinformed
• Vaccines are entirely safe, medical science has proven this
• No child has ever been hurt of damaged by vaccines
• Anti-vaccine websites are largely to blame for low vaccine take-up (and should be shut down)
• The nonsense 'herd immunity' theory was promulgated
• Homeopathy was attacked, several times, without the right to reply
• Vaccines should be made mandatory

Those who put forward these arguments were exclusively a selection of politicians, government spokespersons, senior NHS officials, conventional doctors, and a parent of a child who had allegedly suffered from measles. They all of whom supported the BBC's position.

No-one who might have challenged any of the above arguments or assertions (all highly challengeable) were asked to give their views. Nobody who disagreed with any of the BBC's arguments were interviewed, but they were abused in their absence.

Worse, without any exception, BBC journalists and presenters vehemently supported these arguments, often pushing the people interviewed to express themselves more aggressively. On the early morning Today programme, one spokesperson from NHS England was criticised by Nick Robinson because she contradicted Simon Stephens, CEO of the NHS, who had earlier emphasised how serious the situation was. She did not believe it was quite as serious as he had suggested. Nick Robinson was clearly in total exasperation with this contradictory idea. He was clearly not looking for discussion, and just asked her to give 'her view' about how important vaccination was for children. She complied, and a little later the Secretary of State for Health was asked to comment on this 'difference of view'. He came down firmly on Nick Robinson's side. It was indeed a deadly serious situation, he confirmed.

This is typical BBC journalism. I have commented on the BBC's refusal to take part in a real health debate many times (do a search on 'BBC' above to find all my previous blogs on the BBC's coverage of health issues), and so I no longer expect any objectivity or fairness in their news coverage.

The main point I wish to make here is that the BBC (a public services broadcaster which is not supposed to involve itself in advertising) is providing the pharmaceutical industry with many hours of free and uncritical advertising.

Moreover, it is subliminal advertising. Most people would not have recognised or understood what they were hearing to be advertising, yet it would still have had a strong and powerful influence on peoples views on the safety and efficacy of pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines.

We are used to advertising. We know when a car, or a washing machine, or a washing-up liquid, (or anything else) is being advertised. We can recognise that what we are being told is promotional, part of selling a product. But not in this situation. No-one from any pharmaceutical company had to say a word. The companies who manufacture and profit from the MMR vaccine were not interviewed, and did not have to pay a penny in order to promote it!

This was all done for them, by BBC journalists, by conventional doctors, by the NHS, by government and politicians.

So to many people this was not advertising - at least not as most people know and recognise it! This is not a car maker, or washing machine manufacturer, or a detergent company selling its wares. The promotion was being done by independent people with no obvious connection with drug companies. This was a news story, and there was no obvious promotion of pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines.

These 'independent' people were telling us that pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines are good, necessary for us all, essential for good health. There were no obvious vested interests - so surely what we are being told must be right. 

Moreover, no-one was arguing against anything that the BBC was saying. Anyone who might have put forward a different view were not interviewed, whilst at the same time, in their absence, their reputation was being routinely undermined!

The primary purpose of this particular day of subliminal advertising soon became obvious. If people could not be persuaded about the rightness of vaccination, if parents continued to refuse to have their children vaccinated, they would have to be forced to do so.

• Mandatory vaccination. 
• Forced medication. 
• The end of any pretence of health freedom, or patient choice 

And perhaps another casualty - any idea that 'press freedom' is alive and well in this country, that indoctrination is a thing of the past, that the public is being properly informed, and that patients have all the information they need to make an informed choice about the medicine they want to use for themselves, or their children.