Bensenville, Illinois – September 10: Frames by US Attorney General Pam Bondi (rear) and Commissioner FDA Marty Makary (R), Minister of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. He talks to the press outside Midwest’s distribution after the imposition of federal agents on September 10, 2025 at Bensenville, Illinois. According to the company, various e-Liquids were seized in the raid. (Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)
Getty pictures
While running for president in 2008, Barack Obama is famous “yes, we can”. Love or half of his political views, Obama’s policy was quite effective. He asked voters to think big, to envision a much better future.
Advertisers were undoubtedly approved. This is because ads usually depict things not as they are, but as they could be. Exercise equipment and equipment companies do not promote their sites and equipment with flabby, suddenly people, their ads probably look appropriate, upright, energetic people. A look forward to. Restaurants do the same with ads that show happy people who enjoy dramatically food dishes. On the contrary, ads that were intended to persuade smokers to stop did not rarely show the worst of the worst future disadvantages of habit.
The nature of advertising comes to mind as Commissioner FDA Marty Makary enigmatically boast that “Trump administration takes over Big Pharma” in New York Times. Makary mourns pharmaceutical ads that “is full of patients with dance, shiny smiles and catch jingles drowning fine printing”. It is not explained if Makary would be happier if the drug companies put on real estate ads, frowning and vegetables.
Seriously, what is waiting for? Does it want drug companies to commit billions of drug development to accompany their achievements with images defined by misery? Has Makary stopped examining the myriad of shareholders that pharmacists will face, if, when they are at risk of scalable amounts intended to create a healthier future, do they care to degrade or refuse their achievements?
Makary presses the FDA and Trump’s administration on the back to act to “mislead the misleading pharmaceutical ads”, but it is the equivalent of Trump’s administration, demanding pharmaceutical companies to destroy their potential. How could Trump’s alleged administration that could make such a requirement, the one that no other politician or business is ever expected to comply?
To which makary and his defenders could answer that with medicinal medicines, the rules must be different. Since the results of health and health are on the line, sometimes of the variety of life and death, pharmaceutical companies must follow a different set of rules. Except that pharmaceutical companies are already doing. And Makary knows this truth well.
As evidenced by the years of labor and billions spent only to achieve drug approval, pharmaceutical companies go to huge lengths to get their market innovations. Their medicines are approved by FDA. What is the point, or should be.
Seeking a greater policing of drug advertising, Makary adds another layer to the already essential supervision provided by the FDA, a supervision that has even more layers. While pharmaceutical companies can advertise FDA -approved drugs, prospective patients can only achieve them to the extent that they are prescribed by a doctor. What, of course, is Makary’s weird criticism that pharmacists are aiming for potential users with “misleading ads”. Really; How;
To forget Makary, ads are once again for FDA -approved drugs that are again only accessible with a doctor’s signature prescription. This raises a key question: If the FDA does its job in the approval process and doctors do their jobs, why do the limits on the rights of pharmaceutical companies to advertise the health opportunities that come with their innovations? Because indeed.
Excellent a fascinating answer from Makary, it is difficult to find an urgent reason for Trump’s administration to make freedom of speech. Pharmaceutical companies prosper by improving our lives. Let them advertise their ability to do just that.
