SAN FRANCISCO — In 26 years in Congress, Rep. Anna Eshoo has always won reelection by at least 20 points. The Democrat is virtually certain to win big once again in November, buoyed largely by voters in her wealthy Silicon Valley district who do not struggle to pay for their prescription drugs.
So why is a political action committee focused on high drug prices bothering to sink $500,000 into attack ads against her?
The ad blitz from Patients for Affordable Drugs highlights the unorthodox tack the group is taking in the 2018 midterm elections: intervening in races in which there is no hope of altering the outcome.
Billions of dollars depend on tailoring the narrative. It is no surprise this PAC would want to spread partial information, it works. The mass media and these quasi medical sites have not kept the public informed. Any survey of mass media and popular commercial sites, would show the lack of any objective coverage of this topic. There is too much money at stake, to keep the public informed.
A little misinformation goes a long way.
Correct.
The problem, from a pharmacology point of view, is that
if you have patients who are taking four or five drugs on a
long-term basis, the drug interactions get to be unpredictable.
The policy of not developing cures, but only developing treatments,
is bad from a purely medical point of view.
Patients for Affordable Drugs has one thing right — it is the DRUG COMPANIES who are primarily responsible for high drug prices, period. And that’s a very important point to make.
The American public is so misinformed, distracted and propagandized, because pharma and other industries control their news media. Pharam prices are barely covered at all in their local news, and when it is, it always the most superficial and deceptive way. Our news media normalized the money given to all candidates on both sides. People like Bernie Sanders have been effectively censored too, they are not good for pharma profits. We will never see the mass media do any investigative journalism on how this effects healthcare delivery, or anyone personally.
Pharma even “educates’ journalists, at small city newspapers, on how great they are for Americans. Since the corrupt deal with Medicare Part D, most people are unaware how many Medicare and Medicaid dollars go to overpriced pharma schemes.
No one in my state tracked how many extra cases of Hep C were caused because the cure was too expensive, so our state rationed it. Pharma controls the data collected also. We don’t know how many tax payers dollars were wasted on pharma products that caused adverse events or hospital admissions. The media conflated the opioid debacle with other prescription drug deaths, and heroin, for a reason. The true numbers are a secret.
“If we sell a cure, we sell it one time to that patient. If we sell a symptom suppressor, we sell it many times to that patient. Therefore cures are not economically beneficial to us.”
Correct.
The problem, from a pharmacology point of view, is that
if you have patients who are taking four or five drugs on a
long-term basis, the drug interactions get to be unpredictable.
The policy of not developing cures, but only developing treatments,
is bad from a purely medical point of view.