Claim: Pfizer sponsors many mainstream TV shows (with the implication being that can lead to bad things)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Rory

Rory

Closed Account
Here's a compilation video of US TV shows purportedly being sponsored by Pfizer:


Source: https://twitter.com/i/status/1450464402000556039

The shows featured are: Good Morning America, CBS Health Watch, Anderson Cooper 360, ABC News Nightline, Making A Difference, CNN Tonight, Early Start, Erin Burnett Out Front, ABC's This Week With George Stephanopoulos, Good Morning America's Weather Report, Today's Countdown to the Royal Wedding, CBS Sports Update, Meet The Press, CBS This Morning, 60 Minutes.

I believe it was put together to try to make the point that a certain percentage of the mainstream media, being financially supported by Pfizer, will be less likely/unlikely to be unbiased in its reporting of certain things - particularly Covid treatments that aren't made by Pfizer. I guess the idea is that it helps explain the peculiar 'crusade' CNN recently embarked upon when repeatedly criticising Joe Rogan's use of so-called "livestock dewormer" Ivermectin - conveniently neglecting the fact that it's also an inexpensive Nobel Prize-winning human antiviral drug that "has been used safely by hundreds of millions of people to treat river blindness and lymphatic filariasis" and that would hit Pfizer's profits if shown effective in treating Covid-19 (time will tell on that).

So I guess the first question is: is the video real or is it fake? Has it been cobbled together from other sources? Is there some clever editing going on?

I would say, going by the graphics and the voiceovers, that doesn't appear to be the case.

Another point, though, is how old are the clips? Pfizer changed their logo around January 2021 from this:

1636567084356.png


to this:

1636567117543.png


and the video appears to only use pre-January 2021 versions of the logo.

Still, that doesn't debunk the claim that Pfizer gives financial support to many mainstream TV programs - including those purporting to be news, such as CNN - which, if proven true, is of course concerning given questions of media bias and the nature of some of their coverage.

So is the video real? Does/did Pfizer sponsor those shows (and possibly others)? And, if so, what does that say about potential conflict of interest issues, media bias, and the way these shows may cover products that compete with those of their sponsor?
 
Last edited:
I mean, yeah, but I don't quite see the logic in that (ie, it's a bit of a strawman). And Joe Rogan had his ivermectin prescribed by a doctor, and took the "for human" variety (if there's a difference).

Hence why CNN's curious crusade seems all the more puzzling and bizarre - unless, of course, they had ulterior motives.
 
Rory said:
I mean, yeah, but I don't quite see the logic in that (ie, it's a bit of a strawman).
Click to expand...
i don't know what you mean. people should take doses that are prescribed by a doctor, not self prescribed doses. and should buy it from pharmacies for more quality control.

edit: oh i get it... i'm not talking about Joe ROgan, i'm saying you should have added "when prescribed by a doctor" to your blurb wording.

Rory said:
Hence why CNN's curious crusade seems all the more puzzling and bizarre
Click to expand...
because Joe Rogan is too conservative, and it's liberal media's mission to stamp out/cancel what they consider misinformation from conservatives. (ie. people who don't agree with them).

Joe Rogan gives alot of "alternative" people a platform and he rarely questions the things they say. (ex: Bob Lazar)
Plus Joe Rogan is friends with Alex Jones, which does make it a bit distasteful that his podcast is the most popular.
 
deirdre said:
because Joe Rogan is too conservative, and it's liberal media's mission to stamp out/cancel what they consider misinformation from conservatives. (ie. people who don't agree with them).
Click to expand...

Could be that. And could also be that the sponsors have put some pressure on the bosses and the bosses have put some pressure on the hosts.
 
Rory said:
Could be that. And could also be that the sponsors have put some pressure on the bosses and the bosses have put some pressure on the hosts.
Click to expand...
or the bosses are just kissing bum, because this way they can get "exclusive" interviews with Pfizer personnel which brings in big money.

I know a debunker (not from MB) who kissed bum and ignored ethics, for "exclusive" information access. so that could be a motive too.
 
Rory said:
the peculiar 'crusade' CNN recently embarked upon
Click to expand...
Could you show some sources for this?

Rory said:
Ivermectin - conveniently neglecting the fact that it's also an inexpensive Nobel Prize-winning human antiviral drug that "has been used safely by hundreds of millions of people to treat river blindness and lymphatic filariasis" and that would hit Pfizer's profits if shown effective in treating Covid-19 (time will tell on that).
Click to expand...
From the maker of Ivermectin:
Article:
KENILWORTH, N.J., Feb. 4, 2021 – Merck (NYSE: MRK), known as MSD outside the United States and Canada, today affirmed its position regarding use of ivermectin during the COVID-19 pandemic. Company scientists continue to carefully examine the findings of all available and emerging studies of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19 for evidence of efficacy and safety. It is important to note that, to-date, our analysis has identified:
  • No scientific basis for a potential therapeutic effect against COVID-19 from pre-clinical studies;
  • No meaningful evidence for clinical activity or clinical efficacy in patients with COVID-19 disease, and;
  • A concerning lack of safety data in the majority of studies.
We do not believe that the data available support the safety and efficacy of ivermectin beyond the doses and populations indicated in the regulatory agency-approved prescribing information.

Both Merck and Pfizer are producing actual Covid cure pills, with Merck's molnupiravir already approved in the UK a week ago.
 
Mendel said:
Could you show some sources for this?
Click to expand...
a washington post Opinion article summed it up pretty good with transcripts. hopefully it's not behind a paywall for you.

Article:
There's a reason for reciting these transcripts. They turn up a consistent
formulation from multiple CNN voices that surely wasn't a sober recitation of the facts. By highlighting that ivermectin is a horse dewormer, and downplaying that ivermectin has important uses for people, CNN facilitates a certain assumption among its viewers. Namely, that Rogan had been haunting the aisles of Tractor Supply.

After hearing Rogan's concerns about how CNN cast the issue, Gupta said, "They shouldn't have said that."

Given that a prominent CNN personality agreed with a strong critique of his own colleagues, we placed the matter before the network's PR department. They issued this statement:

The heart of this debate has been purposely confused and ultimately lost. It's never been about livestock versus human dosage of Ivermectin. The issue is that a powerful voice in the media, who by example and through his platform, sowed doubt in the proven and approved science of vaccines while promoting the use of an unproven treatment for covid-19 — a drug developed to ward off parasites in farm animals. The only thing CNN did wrong here was bruise the ego of a popular podcaster who pushed dangerous conspiracy theories and risked the lives of millions of people in doing so.




but CNN also did later publish a more flattering article about th epodcast with Dr. Gupta (CNN's chief medical correspondant)

Article:
For example: Even as he sometimes railed against masks, "The Joe Rogan Experience" masks emblazoned with his logo are available for sale on his website. I even bought one ahead of time and gave it to him as a gift. He looked surprised. (Incidentally, they are made in China.)
Despite a downplaying of Covid risks often heard on Joe's podcast, his private studio prioritizes safety. A nurse was present to perform a rapid Covid test before we began. We were even checked for the presence of antibodies with a finger prick blood test.
 
Thank you.

At this point, I stand with those who call Invermectin "horse dewormer" (which, amongst other uses, it is) against those who call it a Covid cure (which it's not).
Especially in light of who said it first.
 
Mendel said:
At this point, I stand with those who call Invermectin "horse dewormer" (which, amongst other uses, it is) against those who call it a Covid cure (which it's not).
Click to expand...
of course you do. You've demonstrated your activist bent since you got here (on MB).
 
Honestly, calling it a "horse dewormer" - especially to the extent that CNN did - is pretty silly. One might as well insist we lambast people for eating "horse food" when they sit down to a bowl of porridge in the morning. It makes as much sense as handwavingly dismissing ketamine therapy because it involves taking a "horse tranquilizer" used to get monged out at raves in the 90s; penicillin because it was discovered by accident; or viagra because it was developed as a treatment for jet lag.

For sources, Russell Brand did several videos on the argument which feature quite a few clips of CNN pushing their "horse dewormer" agenda, such as:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTtzGhYd0Po
www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5xqP-aPwOU

Starting here there's some good examples of that:


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTtzGhYd0Po&t=224s

If you made it to around 7:00 you'll have seen where CNN's chief medical correspodent Sanjay Gupta says, talking about their labelling of ivermectin as a horse dewormer, "they shouldn't have called it that". This is later followed by Don Lemon subsequently defending that label to Gupta.

Even in their responses and explanations such as the one above by Lemon or the one given to the Washington Post it seems CNN demonstrate an extraordinary level of cowardice and dishonesty. When they write:

The heart of this debate has been purposely confused and ultimately lost. It's never been about livestock versus human dosage of Ivermectin. The issue is that a powerful voice in the media [promoted] the use of an unproven treatment for covid-19 — a drug developed to ward off parasites in farm animals.
Click to expand...

they once again missed a golden opportunity to earn some respect, to apologise for what is obviously a misguided course of action, and to be truthful. In the same breath they say "it's never been about livestock verses human dosage" they also can't resist reminding everyone that ivermectin was "developed to treat parasites in farm animals". The level of hypocrisy, pig-headed ignorance, and frankly unintelligent behaviour from a group of people who know at least enough to type sentences on a computer and hit send is staggering. I mean, why something is developed is irrelevant if it turns out to be used very successfully for some other purpose. But maybe they're just trolling and doing it for the attention and the lolz.

I think I'll stand with those who call it what it actually is - an antiparasitic agent - and against those who belabour the horse dewormer angle, as well as against those who believe it's been shown to help against Covid, which it hasn't (and probably won't be).

Also, I'm reminded that this is a thread about whether Pfizer actually does/did sponsor all those TV shows and what the implications of that might be. Whether ivermectin works or not is another thread altogether, which I suppose we could start. Though maybe the Joe Rogan stuff fits here.

(By the way, I'm no fan of Rogan, Russell Brand or ivermectin, nor am I particularly averse to Pfizer - though it is true that the few times I've watched clips of CNN I've been left massively unimpressed and surprised by the quality of their product.)
 
Last edited:
Rory said:
. When they write:

The heart of this debate has been purposely confused and ultimately lost. It's never been about livestock versus human dosage of Ivermectin. The issue is that a powerful voice in the media [promoted] the use of an unproven treatment for covid-19 — a drug developed to ward off parasites in farm animals.
Click to expand...

you edited teh part that i think speaks to the OP topic:
deirdre said:
CNN PR response: The issue is that a powerful voice in the media, who by example and through his platform, sowed doubt in the proven and approved science of vaccines
Click to expand...
 
Ah. Like they're saying "we don't like it that he has sown doubt in the vaccines made by our sponsors so we're going to go after him with some low blows and try to sow doubt in him"?

Good spot.
 
Rory said:
Ah. Like they're saying "we don't like it that he has sown doubt in the vaccines made by our sponsors so we're going to go after him with some low blows and try to sow doubt in him"?

Good spot.
Click to expand...
yea.

i personally just think pfizer advertising on big networks because all drug manufacturers do. I'm sure they advertise on Fox News as well.

a very liberal source, but sounds correct based on my American experience with TV.
Article:
July 2021 "Other top vaccine manufacturers, like Pfizer and AstraZeneca, have run hundreds of commercials on the network [Fox News] since the start of the year and rank among the cable network's top 150 sponsors," Baragona observes.

...
It's no coincidence that pharma companies do so much advertising on Fox News, Fox Business, CNN (both English-language CNN and the Spanish-language CNN en Español) and MSNBC. The cable news audience, on the whole, leans older, and someone who is 50 or older is more likely to need a drug for high blood pressure or Type 2 diabetes. And pharma companies will gladly sell their products to liberals who watch Rachel Maddow and Joy Reid on MSNBC as well as Republicans who watch Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham on Fox News.
 
So I guess we started out wondering whether the video in the OP was real and now we're wondering if companies like Pfizer maintain some sort of direct impact on the content and agenda of purported news channels like CNN.

I suppose the jury's out on that one, even if it does seem clear they were embroiled in some kind of vendetta and smear campaign against one of Joe Rogan's self-medication choices (a video I just clicked on features a guy called Michael Shellenberger positing that "they hate Joe Rogan because they can't control him").

One other thing Rogan claimed in his conversation with Gupta was that "they put a yellow filter on me" when showing the instagram video he posted to share that he had Covid.

Let's look at a screenshot from CNN:

1636655672762.png

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/09/01/media/joe-rogan-covid/index.html

And from his original instagram:

1636655747909.png

Source: www.instagram.com/p/CTSsA8wAR2-

So clearly there's a difference. But whether it was done on purpose is debatable.

Watching that original CNN report a few things strike me: first of all, the prominent banner saying that he's taking a "livestock drug despite warnings"; second, that he lists quite a few other medications that he used when he tested positive - monoclonal antibodies, Zithromax Z-Pak, prednisone and a vitamin drip - but that they didn't address any of them; and third, that most of their report is taken up with a doctor responding to the very loaded question: "how dangerous is [ivermectin] and how dangerous is it for someone so influential to be pushing it?" (The doctor avoids answering that and mostly says things along the line of "it isn't supported for treatment of Covid-19".)

I'mma say that all adds to the idea of a strongly biased anti-ivermectin agenda at CNN. Though it is interesting that such a bias doesn't seem to happen at the also sponsored FOX News. So maybe it's just that CNN hate Joe Rogan and the ivermectin angle was the most obvious one to go for.
 
Last edited:
Rory said:
I'mma say that all adds to the idea of a strongly biased anti-ivermectin agenda at CNN
Click to expand...
I'mma say this all adds up to the idea of a strongly biased anti-conservative agenda at CNN.

if the conservatives say the sky is blue, some personalities at CNN would say it isn't. (and vice-versa with some Fox news personalities)
 
I shall defer to you on that one: lucky for me my lifetime total of watching CNN is probably less than 60 minutes. :)
 
Rory said:
He's called "Don Le-Mon"? I've been pronouncing it like the fruit. :D
Click to expand...
um... missed that part. pretty sure cuomo has always called him Lemon like the fruit. (was watching alot of their clips because of the cuomo covid debaucle and his brother)
 
Rory said:
One might as well insist we lambast people for eating "horse food" when they sit down to a bowl of porridge in the morning.
Click to expand...
The difference is that nobody's claiming oats cure cancer.
The lies and misinformation came first.
I hope Joe Rogan doesn't sell miracle drugs like Alex Jones did?
 
Article:
Arguably and no one has been more successful at promoting ivermectin than Rogan himself. In an April 23rd episode of his podcast, the earliest example that could be found by Rolling Stone, he accused Twitter of preventing him from sending a private direct message containing a link to a video about the drug, echoing a common narrative on the right that the media is censoring discussion of any vaccine alternatives. "This doctor was saying ivermectin is 99 percent effective intreating Covid, but you don't hear about it because you can't fund vaccines when it's an effective treatment," he says on his podcast. "I don't know if this guy is right or wrong. I'm just asking questions."

[more examples omitted]

"Joe Rogan really did us dirty," Abbie Richards, a misinformation and disinformation researcher who focuses on TikTok, previously told Rolling Stone about ivermectin misinformation on the platform.

Maybe that's why the people at cnn don't like him.
 
but the preprint (quoted below) wasnt retracted until July.
External Quote:
Research Square withdrew this preprint on 14 July, 2021 due to an expression of concern communicated directly to our staff. These concerns are now under formal investigation.
so at the time noone knew ROgan was spreading misinformation.

Article:
Results: Patients received ivermectin early reported substantial recovery of laboratory investigations; and significant reduction in rT-PCR conversion days. A substantial improvement and reduction in mortality rate in Ivermectin treated groups; group I (99% & 0.0%, respectively) and group III (94% & 2.0% respectively) versus hydroxychloroquine plus standard care treated groups; group II (74% and 4%, respectively) and group IV (50% and 20%, respectively).
 
Mendel said:
The difference is that nobody's claiming oats cure cancer.
Click to expand...

That's not the difference at all, and I'm very surprised you're not able to see it. Though your following comment leads me to believe that you're still confusing "ivermectin probably doesn't work" with "let's tell everyone this guy's been eating horse pills even though they're also human pills".
 
FatPhil said:
If CNN have something against asking questions, it might be time for them to stop playing journalist.
Click to expand...
I expect you know about leading questions.

Rory, my distinction is between "let's tell everyone that Ivermectin is a miracle cure suppressed by the man" (a lie) and "Ivermectin is a horse dewormer" (a half-truth), with the added knowledge that people actually believe the former while they know the latter is polemic. The first statement is harmful, the second is not.
cnn doesn't have to follow our posting guidelines.
 
Right, but the discussion isn't about Rogan, it's about CNN.

I guess the distinction is that you think it's okay for CNN to use polemic and half-truths - among other things - while others think it isn't okay given that they're supposed to be a news network.
 
Also, I think you're being very generous with calling what they did merely "a half-truth" while also being rather ungenerous to Rogan in calling his reading and repeating an apparent (but later disputed) scientific paper "a lie".

Probably "mistake" or "premature conclusion" is more accurate, while "half-truth" lets CNN off very lightly and doesn't tell the whole story at all.
 
Last edited:
I think a lot of people are working waaaaay too hard
to politicize things that are not truly political. Like medicine.
 
Just reading a Snopes article debunking the claim that Pfizer's new oral pill Paxlovid is an Ivermectin ripoff I notice that Pfizer themselves were playing similar word games as CNN:

External Quote:
A spokesperson for Pfizer told us:

Pfizer's protease inhibitor is not similar to that of an animal medicine and is not the same mechanism.
Click to expand...

Strange that they felt the need to refer to Ivermectin as "an animal medicine": it really doesn't do them any favours (if they want to appear trustworthy and honest).

Then again, Snopes themselves, in an earlier article on Ivermectin, also stressed its animal connections, calling it a "canine heartworm preventative", and barely mentioning its human applications until halfway through. Seems like the quality of the article depends on the person who wrote it - the author of that one also originally incorrectly wrote that Ivermectin was only approved by the FDA in its topical form, while the writer of the one mentioned above presents a more correct and balanced description (ie, they don't forget to mention the Nobel Prize).
 
Last edited:
Rory said:
and smear campaign against one of Joe Rogan's self-medication choices
Click to expand...
and fyi... this line is factually incorrect. self medication is when you take something without a prescription. like when they say people self medicate by smoking pot.

but if a doctor prescribes you something, not fda approved for your disease that is called "off-label use". So Joe Rogan took off-label medication prescribed by (assumingly) his personal physician.
 
Rory said:
Right, but the discussion isn't about Rogan, it's about CNN.
Click to expand...
It's about cnn's reaction to Rogan (and similar Ivermectin claims). I prefer the whole picture.

What I really want to know is if there is precedent for an advertising client to set policy on how somebody else is treated, in reputable media.

I can understand two types of bias resulting from advertising:
• if company P advertises in C, C may be` more likely to select good news from P for inclusion in their reporting than good news from sources who don't advertise;
• if company P advertises in C, C may be less likely to report it, and when they do, tjey may give more space to P's representations in the matter than otherwise.

You can do both of these things as a news organisation and still feel that you're reporting truth.

The claim of this thread is that Pfizer influenced reporting on an issue that, unlike my two examples above, does not directly involve them, in a reputable news source.

In short:
• There is no evidence.
• There is no precedent.
• There is motivation for cnn to do it regardless of Pfizer.

I see no reason to consider the claim "Pfizer makes cnn badmouth Ivermectin" true, and no evidence for the claim that allows debunking it.
 
also, other outlets have 'defamed' Rogan too. It's hard to believe they are ALL in Pfizers pocket.


Here is NPR suggesting ROgan took the veterinary version.
Article:
Rogan says he took a drug the FDA urges people not to use
His methods included taking ivermectin, a deworming veterinary drug that is formulated for use in cows and horses. While a version of the drug is sometimes prescribed to people for head lice or skin conditions, the formula for animal use is much more concentrated. The Food and Drug administration is urging people to stop ingesting the animal version of the drug to fight COVID-19, warning it can cause nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, neurologic disorders and potentially severe hepatitis requiring hospitalization.


Article:
Joe Rogan said he tested positive for Covid-19 and imbibed an array of drugs to try to fight it, including the horse dewormer ivermectin.



warning: this quote has multiple falsehoods in it (basically every word is false)
Article:
Right-wing libertarian comedian/podcast host Joe Rogan recently became infected with COVID-19 after refusing to take a vaccine, and he is now crediting the drug ivermectin with his recovery. But veteran shock jock Howard Stern is saying that Rogan should have received a COVID-19 vaccine in the first place.

Although Ivermectin is primarily used as an anti-parasitic drug for animals, conspiracy theorists have been claiming that animal-grade Ivermectin should be used to prevent or treat COVID-19. But medical experts, including immunologist Dr. Anthony Fauci, have been warning that taking animal-grade Ivermectin could be dangerous; in fact, Fauci strongly advises against it. But the 54-year-old Rogan is claiming that Ivermectin was beneficial for him after he was infected with COVID-19.
 
one last thought on cnn bash of ROgan. What cnn should have done was point out how Rogan goes on and on and on and on about how healthy he is, and yet he has suggested to young people that they don't need the vaccine if they are healthy.

Article:
On his show "The Joe Rogan Experience," the podcast host urged people to get vaccinated "if you're vulnerable" saying he thinks "for the most part it's safe." But Rogan said if a 21-year-old asks him if they should get the vaccine, "I'll go, 'No.'"

"Are you healthy?" he said in his April 23 podcast. "Are you a healthy person? Like, look, don't do anything stupid, but you should take care of yourself. You should – if you're a healthy person, and you're exercising all the time, and you're young, and you're eating well, like, I don't think you need to worry about this."



so if Rogan is so "healthy", why did he freak out and talk his physician into giving him a bunch of medication he did not necessarily need? medications that are either too expensive for most of his young viewers, or come with their own dangers and side effects.

Does that mean Rogan does not believe that most people who catch covid recover naturally?
 
There are a few things I've heard on that last regard: number one, that Rogan attributes his getting Covid to staying out late and getting really, really drunk - ie, he wasn't actually "healthy" when he got it - and, two, he later backtracked on the "advice" he gave in the April 23rd podcast:

External Quote:
"I'm not a doctor, I'm a f***ing moron," he said. "I'm not a respected source of information, even for me ... But I at least try to be honest about what I'm saying."

https://www.axios.com/joe-rogan-wal...ify-4ab56dcf-b60e-41c6-9c49-fe7f22be7d04.html

As for the rest of it, it's cool that you found other sources going with the "horse dewormer" angle - which leads me to believe that it may be more a case of low quality research rather than using low blow tactics to besmirch someone. I mean, if Snopes and NPR were wrong about that then I guess it's okay that CNN were wrong about it too, even if they did rather overdramatise things - especially by focusing on the apparent "danger" of taking an extremely safe drug (when dosed properly) - but overdramatising is what news does (even in the UK).

That they stuck with it is a bit weird but, oh well, they do appear to be quite a weird bunch of people so I guess it makes sense.

So the sponsorship video is real - but Pfizer sponsors just about everybody, including networks that push Ivermectin such as FOX News. And they weren't alone in pushing the weird "horse pill" angle - which may have simply been a mistake, lazy journalism, or ramping the dramatic. And Joe Rogan's not the smartest tool in the box - but we knew that already.

I guess the only question remaining is: "who made him yellow???" :D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

NorCal Dave
Claim: A UFO crashed in 1933 Italy and the US Recovered it
Replies
34
Views
8K
NorCal Dave
NorCal Dave
U
The UAP Policy and Discursive Shift - Changing narratives on UAPs and its effect on policy.
Replies
21
Views
8K
Greene
Greene
Mick West
  • Sticky
Escaping the Rabbit Hole - Updated Endnotes and References
Replies
9
Views
10K
Stealth777
Stealth777
Mick West
Debunked: Sandy Hook: Anderson Cooper Green Screen Disappearing Nose with Pozner
Replies
20
Views
61K
AluminumTheory
AluminumTheory

Latest posts

Trending content

Back
Top