6 ms·
Did you even read the article? Marketing had nothing to do with the "success" of this drug. Good and old FUD did. The drug was sold directly from Roche to gover
by mmariani 13y ago
Did you even read the article? Marketing had nothing to do with the "success" of this drug. Good and old FUD did. The drug was sold directly from Roche to governments. Typical HN bias, it's all marketing's fault. Next time just follow the money.
- DanBC 13y agoRoche doesn't use marketing when selling to governments? Pharmaceutical companies don't use marketing budgets to drive demand among the general population?
- mmariani 13y agoTotally agree with your second point. Add to that the fact that pharmaceutical companies market drugs directly to doctors which can yield prescriptions of useless drugs. However, I disagree that they use normal marketing strategies with governments. They play politics instead. In this case they had the backing of the World Health Organization, and media outlets screaming words like pandemics every ten seconds. We all know that dead bodies don't look good on a politicians resume willing to run for reelection.
- microjesus 13y ago... and politics aren't marketing?
- DanBC 13y ago... But surely they prepared a lot of information to give to the WHO. I agree that those materials were not glossy brochures and adverts with smiling mother and happy children, but those information packs are very definitely marketing and not just a dump of all the data they have. That's partly why Cochrane had to struggle for so long to get the full data.