To the Editor:
Re “Trump’s Picks Want Pharmaceutical Ads Off TV” (front page, Dec. 27):
There’s almost nothing I agree with when it comes to Robert F. Kennedy Jr., but I’ve been against TV drug ads since they began.
They tell you how great the drug is, then tell most of the side effects, which ought to turn prospective users away. They tell you to tell your doctor if you have particular diseases, which “your” doctor should already know.
The ads are very elaborate and costly. That money could be better used to reduce the cost of the drugs.
There’s no excuse for the federal government not to end drug ads. The government did it with cigarettes. If Washington really wants to reduce drug prices, ending the ads would be an effective way to start.
Marshall Cossman
Grand Blanc, Mich.
To the Editor:
Your article highlights the perennial debate over pharmaceutical advertising but leaves some prescriptions unfilled.
First, it overlooks the new frontier: social media influencers. Pharmaceutical companies are increasingly infiltrating TikTok and Instagram feeds with “patient influencers,” blurring the line between personal anecdotes and covert advertising. This clever tactic skirts First Amendment defenses while leaving patients wondering if their neighbor’s miracle story is genuine or sponsored by Big Pharma.
Second, while TV ads contribute to overmedication, the systemic forces driving this trend are ignored. Direct-to-consumer ads are a symptom of a health care system that prioritizes “more pills, less prevention.” Banning TV ads might reduce visibility, but content will inevitably migrate to streaming platforms or podcasts.
Finally, the claim by Brendan Carr, Donald Trump’s pick to lead the Federal Communications, that Americans are “way, way too overmedicated” lacks nuance. Some ads promote necessary care, like vaccines for seniors. It’s not all Ozempic jingles and side-effect disclaimers. Instead of silencing ads, we need rigorous regulation and public health campaigns that outshine the sparkle of celebrity endorsements.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s proposal is bold, but treating the symptom won’t cure the disease. Let’s aim for reforms ensuring transparency and better health outcomes — not just quieter screens.
Y. Tony Yang
Washington
The writer is a professor of health policy at The George Washington University.
To the Editor:
I agree with prohibiting direct-to-consumer TV drug ads. I have practiced internal medicine for 40 years, and my main concern with this form of promotion is that it leads to a rapid and widespread escalation of the use of new drugs that are not necessarily better than similar generic drugs already in use, are certainly more costly and are not adequately safety-tested in the real world.
The premarket testing of new drugs for efficacy and safety typically involves only a few thousand subjects. When new drugs are widely prescribed to potentially millions of patients, in part fueled by this type of advertising, serious and sometimes deadly adverse side effects become apparent that were not seen in the premarket testing.
A more controlled introduction of a new drug into the general population, without TV drug ads, would prioritize patient safety over corporate profit.
Mark R. Goldstein
Paoli, Pa.
To the Editor:
Drug ads on TV are so ubiquitous that they make one long for detergent or cereal ads to break the monotony. If the incoming administration can remove this visual and aural pollution from our home screens, it will earn the lasting gratitude of the viewing public.
John A. Rudy
Cooperstown, N.Y.
The Abuses Inside Prisons
To the Editor:
Re “14 Prison Workers in New York Are Fired Over Deadly Attack on Inmate” (news article, Dec. 25):
For the past six years, we have been volunteers with the Alliance of Families for Justice, an organization that supports, empowers and mobilizes family members of incarcerated people and their allies. In the course of weekly organizing meetings with family members, we have heard innumerable stories of prison violence: people’s incarcerated loved ones being beaten by guards or thrown into solitary for complaining about prison conditions, some deprived of food, others denied urgent medical or mental health care, among other forms of abuse.
Visiting family members have also been repeatedly humiliated. Women have been forced to take off their bras and had dogs right up in their crotches while guards looked on. They have been denied entry when they refused to go through an X-ray machine that they are legally entitled to refuse. Numerous family members have taken time off from work and driven five hours to an upstate prison only to be denied the right to visit because a skirt was too short or they were wearing the wrong kind of shoes.
It has become entirely clear to us that every aspect of the system is meant to demean and dehumanize incarcerated people and their families. The fatal beating at the Marcy Correctional Facility is not at all unimaginable. The only thing that’s different about it is that it was caught on video.
We’re not talking about a few bad apples in a generally well-functioning system, but an orchard that is rotten to the core.
Judith Plaskow
Martha Ackelsberg
New York
Ms. Plaskow is professor emerita of religious studies at Manhattan College. Ms. Ackelsberg is professor emerita of government and women’s and gender studies at Smith College.
Stories of Miracles
To the Editor:
Re “The Gift of an Expectation-Free Christmas,” by Rachel Louise Snyder (Opinion guest essay, Dec. 25):
I nodded in agreement with the conclusion Ms. Snyder reached in her poignant essay about the Christmas night she unexpectedly spent with strangers thousands of miles from home a few days after her father’s death.
“All of us had our own histories and tragedies that had led us to that strange and beautiful place,” she wrote, an experience that surprised her because it captured the real essence of the holiday without relying on the usual expectations and obligations we associate with Christmas.
About 40 years ago, when I was a reporter for a large California newspaper, my editor told me to “find some miracles on 34th Street” for a holiday season-themed story. The assignment would require me to go door-to-door on our 34th Street. I was skeptical, because I thought no one would want to talk to a stranger, and if they did, few if any would have anything particularly novel or interesting to say, much less something that qualified as a miracle.
I couldn’t have been more wrong, on all counts.
Everyone invited me into their home, eager to talk. Each family shared a story they regarded as life-changing, something they considered their own private miracle. No two were alike. By the end of the day, I had filled two yellow legal pads to the brim.
We all have stories to share, if someone will just listen.
Greg Joseph
Sun City, Ariz.
