WebMD shills for Monsanto, Big Pharma, and other corporate giants. Natural News has revealed how WebMD has never seen a Monsanto product or a Big Pharma drug or vaccination that it didn’t like. It promotes them all, without question or critical comment. Why?
It’s the Advertising Money, Stupid
WebMD takes most of its advertising money from Big Pharma corporations like Merck, maker of the dubious shingles vaccine, the dangerous MMR vaccine, and other troublesome vaccines that are far from as safe or as effective as advertised by Merck and WebMD. The company known as WebMD is one that clearly knows which industry giants are paying its bills. WebMD is, in point of fact, little more than a tireless promoter of not only Big Pharma drugs and ethically-challenged Monsanto, but any and all vaccination, regardless of real science (or lack thereof) or circumstances.
Related: Five Most Dangerous Vaccines
Passive GMO Promotion
Corporate sponsorships taint WebMD’s recommendations and “passive” promotion techniques. WebMD advertisements are often designed to look more like editorials to disguise their real intent, fooling readers into thinking that the advertising they see is actually news of some sort.
Monsanto WebMD Partnership
Monsanto uses WebMD’s influence to serve its own agenda. Monsanto produces several sponsored “advertorials” that can easily be mistaken for “real” content rather than marketing propaganda. Monsanto also uses independent third parties to manipulate GMO content on WebMD’s web site. (Monsanto also colludes with the EPA to play down the dangers of Roundup and promote it.)
Web MD Internet’s Most Visited Health Site
WebMD is, unfortunately for the truth, the internet’s most visited health site. Public perception is that it’s a trustworthy source of “independent and objective” health information. Nothing could be further from the truth. WebMD is a thinly-disguised corporate shill masquerading as a news site. WebMD uses its influence to shamelessly promote corporate-backed health products and protocols.
WebMD’s Journalistic Subterfuge destroys Credibility
WebMD “Partnerships” destroy any credibility the site may have once had. Partnerships and sponsorships infect WebMD’s recommendations across the board. “Passive” promotion techniques include advertisements designed to look like editorials. This is journalistic subterfuge at its worst, and its most sophisticated.
Web MD Rigs Phony Test for Depression
The pharmaceutical drug industry’s capture of WebMD has been clear for a long while and is nearly complete. In just one egregious example, Dr. Mercola has reported how WebMD’s free online depression test in 2010 was rigged to make any person responding feel like she needed professional help. The only result a test respondent could receive was that she was at risk for major depression and should discuss her options with a doctor.
That phony “test” was sponsored by Cymbalta maker Eli Lilly. The test’s intent was obvious – to make a person inquire about antidepressants, and hopefully start taking them, preferably forever.
This advertisement dressed up as a “consumer aid” to make people go from feeling normal to depressed caught the attention of Senator Charles Grassley. He launched an investigation, but that announcement changed no laws and apparently no perceptions. WebMD continues to hide advertising business as usual. Consumer Beware!
Web MD Aids Monsanto
Monsanto is one of the latest multinational corporate giants to use WebMD for its own hidden agenda. Nearly every WebMD article now includes a Monsanto-sponsored ad that boldly declares: “It’s time for a bigger discussion about food.” This clever propaganda then links to Monsanto’s corporate take on soil, water, and honey bee-disappearance, with no other contributor’s point of view allowed.
Marketing Strategists Tout “Advertorial Sponsorships”
Marketing strategists say “advertorial sponsorships” are the best way to sell something today. They are designed to fool consumers, so that they don’t realize they’re being sold something.
Back in the day, before deep-pocketed advertisers called the shots and completely ruled the publishing world, the line between editorial and advertising content was clear. You knew whether you were reading an advertisement or an editorial. Today, readers practically need degrees in journalism and science to know what they’re reading, who sponsored it, and why.
A business has to pay for a sponsorship/advertorial just like it would a regular ad. In some cases, businesses pay significantly more than they would for a regular ad. But corporations consider the expense of a sponsorship/advertorial ad well worth the cost.
As Dr. Mercola explains: “The venue where your sponsored advertorial is going (in this case, WebMD and its affiliates) has no input on the content – the advertiser has full control over the text of the ‘informative’ ad. The advertiser can control how the information is presented on the page, as opposed to having to select a regular display ad format.”
The sponsored advertorial can be used in multiple publications. Companies can reuse a sponsored advertorial as a stand-alone ad in other places.
‘Native Advertising’ further Blurs the Line Between Ads and Independent Content
Another form of this type of shrouded sales presentation is called “native advertising.” The key difference between a native ad and an advertorial is that a native ad fits more seamlessly into the Website which features it, making it even less noticeable as a sales pitch.
This sneaky ad is designed to make you think you’re reading a regular content article, when in fact it’s all marketing. In the case of WebMD, the advertorial/native ad line is so thin as to be non-existent. Many of WebMD’s disclaimers are barely noticeable, and rendered in a typeset which manipulates readers into skipping them entirely.
Dr. Mercola explains: “This all amounts to massive collusion on the part of the industries partnering with WebMD to sell THEIR health goals and products without you realizing you’ve been sold something that may or may not be in your best interest at all.”
WebMD pushes Vaccination
When it comes to vaccination, WebMD publishes only those articles which make it seem as if vaccination is a tried and true science without enormous problems, which include lawsuits for dubious vaccines like Merck’s Zostavax. Vaccination “science” is far from settled, but you wouldn’t know that if you read only WebMD’s narow take on the subject. The same goes for Monsanto products, and Big Pharma drugs.
WebMD shills for Monsanto & Big Pharma
If you want to find out what is really going on in the world of GMO foods, Big Pharma drugs, and vaccination safety and efficacy, the best thing you could do is avoid WebMD. You will find little truth there not colored by WebMD’s fealty to its corporate and government sponsors. Selah!