NY Times goes after supplement companies, Big Pharma avoids scrutiny.

pills cc

There have long been efforts to pull the supplement industry more under the control of the FDA. (And in all likelihood crush it.)

Pharma doesn’t like supplements. (The supplement industry challenges the massive drug industry fundamentally.) As such many politicians don’t like supplements.

Some believe that the media is also biased against supplements, as much of the advertising dollars media outlets get come from drug companies.

Alliance for Natural Health highlights what it believes may be an example of this bias.

(From ANH-USA.org)

What’s going on here? With drugs causing the most liver damage (and let’s not forget that prescription drugs in general are the fourth leading cause of death in America, based on hospital data alone), why is the New York Times attacking dietary supplements? After all, at the very same conference where the cited study was presented, there were eighteen sessions on liver damage due to acetaminophen—and only two presentations on dietary supplements and liver damage.

We are sorry to say that it may be linked to the pharmaceutical industry’s advertising clout, which the NYT depends upon. In its 2012 annual report, the NYT stated the obvious fact that it depends for its survival on advertising revenue. In 2012, Big Pharma spent $90 million on print advertising. The dietary supplement industry spends far less: $20 million on print advertising in 2010. Due to the FDA and FTC’s overzealous regulation of health claims and gag orders on dietary supplement advertising, there’s little incentive for supplement companies to advertise their products and anyway they have far less money with which to do so.

Click here for the article.