By Dr. Mercola
WebMD is the most visited health site on the web. While the
general belief is that it's a trustworthy source of "independent and
objective" health information, it's become quite clear that WebMD is
a shill, using its influence to primarily promote corporate-backed
health strategies and products.
Partnerships and sponsorships1
color WebMD's recommendations across the board, and "passive"
promotion techniques, where advertisements are designed to look more
like editorials, have become commonplace.
The pharmaceutical industry's influence over WebMD has of course
been evident for some time.2
As just one glaring example, back in 2010, I wrote about how
WebMD's free online
depression test3
was rigged in such a way that no matter how you responded the only
answer you could receive was that you were at risk for major
depression and should discuss your options with your doctor.
This fake test was sponsored by Eli Lilly, the maker of Cymbalta,
and its function was quite clear — to get you to inquire about
antidepressants.
This sneaky form of direct-to-consumer advertising masquerading
as a bonafide consumer aid sparked enough furor to spur Senator
Charles Grassley to launch an investigation. After all, no one
expects to be directed to seek help, let alone drugs, when you have
no symptoms of a problem whatsoever.
Monsanto is one of the latest multinational corporate giants to
use WebMD's influence to serve its own biased agenda.
Almost every article now flaunts a Monsanto sponsored ad saying,
"It's time for a bigger discussion about food," with links4
to Monsanto's biased take on soil, water, and honey bee issues, with
no other contributors to the discussion in sight.
The Rise of 'Passive' Marketing
According to marketing strategists, advertorial sponsorships are
the best way to sell something these days, because consumers do not
realize they're being sold something.
In years past, the line between editorial and advertorial content
was quite clear, and there was virtually no confusion about the fact
that you were reading an ad. Today, you have to be more "eagle-eyed"
to spot these differences.
A business has to pay for a sponsorship/advertorial just like it
would a regular ad, and in some cases, they pay significantly more
than they would for a regular ad. But the expense of a
sponsorship/advertorial is considered worth it because:5
- 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
- You, the advertiser, can control how the information is
presented on the page, as opposed to having to select a regular
display ad format.
- Although expensive, 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' Blurs the Line Between Ads and Independent
Content Even Further
Another form of this type of shrouded sales presentation is
called "native advertising.6"
The key difference between a native ad and an advertorial is that a
native ad fits more seamlessly into the Website on which it is
featured, making it even less noticeable as a sales pitch.
In essence, 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 very thin. Many of WebMD's disclaimers
on its pages are barely noticeable and in a typeset that encourages
readers to skip over the disclaimers entirely.
What this amounts to is a 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.
The worst thing about this is that WebMD and its affiliates
promote themselves as trustworthy sources for health information.
But if the information is being blurred — deliberately — to sell
very specific products and ideas. How trustworthy is that?
Monsanto Uses 3rd Parties to Manipulate GMO Content
In February 2015, the California-based activist group US Right to
Know filed a freedom-of-information (FOIA) request to obtain
correspondence between 40 researchers at U.S. public universities
and 36 different companies, trade groups, and PR firms.
The purpose of the FOIA request was to determine whether or not
academics and researchers are coordinating their messaging with the
industry, and/or receiving undisclosed remuneration for spreading
positive messages about GMOs.
The New York Times posted a long list of emails7
between Monsanto and University of Florida professor
Kevin Folta, a vocal advocate for
GMOs. These emails clearly reveal how Monsanto's PR firms use
"independent" scientists to further the industry's version of
science.
Mother Jones8
has also posted an email exchange between Lisa Drake, lead for
Monsanto's U.S. State and Local Government Affairs, and Folta,
relating specifically to WebMD, and how Monsanto is manipulating
WebMD's content on GMOs via third parties.
On January 15, 2015, Drake wrote to Folta saying (in part):
"Over the past six months, we have worked hard through
third parties to insert fresh and current material on WebMD's
website relating to biotechnology health and safety, especially
since before that, the material popping up on relation to the
topic dredged up highly negative input from Organic Consumers
Association and other anti-GMO critics ...
[W]e understand another way to improve the resources on
the website is through bloggers to the website. It is a fairly
simple process and I would appreciate your consideration of
submitting a blog on the safety and health of biotech to WebMD
..."
Folta has since been thoroughly discredited as an "independent"
GMO expert, but it's quite clear that there are many more just like
him, quietly working on behalf of the industry while hiding the
connection between them, to prevent you from realizing that what
you're reading is actually part of a covert propaganda strategy.
WebMD's History Is Riddled with Conflicts of Interest
WebMD also receives funds from the U.S. government. In 2013,
WebMD received a $4.8 million government contract to educate doctors
about the
Affordable Care Act and stimulate drug sales.9
At the time, the lack of transparency and disclosure of the
contract raised questions about potential conflicts of interest. As
noted by Michael Minkoff:10
"If WebMD is comfortable selling out to the drug
companies, I can't imagine they will show more compunction
concerning the civil government. In order to keep their
government contracts, it is very likely they will say whatever
they are told to say."
WebMD is also partnered with the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration (FDA). This virtually assures that you will not learn
about any alternatives besides those approved by the FDA for your
condition, and further strengthens the promotion of sponsored drugs.
By default, you will be kept in the dark about the strategies
that can make a real and lasting difference, such as simple dietary
changes and
exercise, which in some cases have been shown to be just as
effective as drugs.
WebMD also has a programming partnership with CBS News;11
the two working closely together to create co-branded news segments.
However, this partnership is not openly disclosed to viewers.
In 2008, CBS News ran a segment on how to protect yourself from
bad medical information on the Internet.12
Part of the recommendations included looking at sites like WebMD, as
its content has been reviewed by health professionals.
But, when so much of the information presented is sponsored
advertorials and "native advertising," just how valuable is that
medical advice? Viewers were essentially snookered twice, because
you're just as likely to be misled by advertising as you are by an
outright crook.
Advertisers Are Not Concerned with Transparency and Full Disclosure
Others have noted that many of WebMD's chosen doctors and experts
just so happen to be affiliated with major advertisers13
— yet another way of steering unsuspecting patients into a
particular fold.
Besides drug companies, other major advertisers include the
nutrition and diet industry and the processed food industry. Here
too advertorials can easily be misunderstood as "real,"
science-backed content by those who are unfamiliar with diet and
nutrition and can see right through the sponsored presentations.
As noted by Terry J. Allen:14
"Numerous WebMD news videos and stories tacitly endorse
fast food by posing misleading questions such as 'Fast-Food
French Fries: Which Are Healthiest?' In 'Fast Food Survival,'
the only quoted expert, 'Jodie Worrell, RD, Chick-fil-A
dietitian,' praises the healthiness of her company's chicken
sandwich. On WebMD's U.K. site ... a Kellogg's-funded
'advertorial' asserts that a 'panel of world health experts …
concluded that a high sugar intake is not related to the
development of heart disease, diabetes, high blood pressure or
cancer.'
And that Kellogg's breakfast cereals, some packing more
sugar than a Twinkie, 'do not increase the risk of tooth decay'
when eaten with milk ... [T]here's a 'fundamental conflict
between a business model that is reliant on pleasing BigPharma
and other advertisers, and unbiased healthcare information that
serves the public.'"
Indeed, and that's a major problem for WebMD, which on the one
hand relies on advertising dollars and sponsors to survive, while
presenting itself as a source of reliable health information.
Advertising has never been known for transparency and truth-telling.
It's about increasing sales, plain and simple.
It has nothing to do with public education, yet consumers turn to
WebMD to become better informed about issues of concern. When
marketing is presented as content, consumers are misinformed at
best.
As just one of countless examples, Merck is one of WebMD's
sponsors,15
and when surfing through the many vaccine-related pages on WebMD,
you will find a very clear pattern: The alleged benefits of vaccines
are repeatedly hammered down as if they were irrefutable facts,
while the potential drawbacks and hazards of vaccines are virtually
nonexistent.
Contrary to what a concerned parent would expect, WebMD presents,
on the whole, an exceptionally one-sided view of the vaccine issue,
and what is NOT presented is equally potent evidence of corporate
bias and influence as what is included.
Take Action! Tell WebMD to Stop Promoting Monsanto
The Organic Consumers Association (OCA) is now urging WebMD’s CEO
to stop promoting Monsanto — the world’s largest poison pusher. If
you’re as upset about this as we are, OCA has created a petition
letter that you can sign and submit.
WebMD 'Accreditation' Promotes False Reassurance of Truthfulness
WebMD explains that the site is "accredited" by URAC Health16
— a nonprofit organization that promotes health care quality and
offers accreditation for Internet health sites — which lends
credibility to whatever WebMD publishes, whether it has a sponsor
disclaimer on it or not.
For example, if you have knee pain and you find the page on knee
pain on WebMD, you'll see that this sponsored page talks a lot about
ways to get pain relief — from Genzyme, the company sponsoring the
page.
Now, if you're in pain, why would you go traipsing all over the
Internet for something else, when WebMD has it right there in front
of you? After all, WebMD wouldn't let them sponsor if it wasn't
good, would they? Especially since WebMD is accredited.
Most people simply are not going to sit and analyze this. They're
just going to buy the product. The same applies to Monsanto. If
WebMD is carrying Monsanto's message, even if it's clear that
Monsanto crafted it, then many will simply assume that GMOs must be
safe. Especially if there's no counter-balance of information
presented.
Key for Successful Propaganda — The Illusion of Independent
Corroboration
The drug, junk food, and biotechnology industries have deep
pockets, so it's no surprise that their adverts would be splashed
all over the WebMD website.
Prescription drugs for every imaginable problem are listed on
virtually every WebMD page, along with plenty of
health-harming processed foods and snacks — along with
Monsanto's assurances of GMO safety. WebMD is a great example of the
brilliant marketing these industries are doing.
They seek to provide you with the illusion of an
independent objective third party that just so happens to confirm
their solution is the best choice. But, when you draw back the
curtain, you find it's really the companies themselves that are
crafting the message — not an independent entity that has
looked at all the pros and cons and detail both sides of the issue.
The lack of independence among promoters and distributors of
health information has become of tremendous concern. Due to a
dramatic rise in scientific fraud, it's more important than ever to
be able to gain access to the full set of data before making or
taking a recommendation.
Not only are industry studies 400 percent more likely to show
positive outcomes, negative findings are often never published, and
raw data is rarely publicly available. Across the board, companies
do an excellent job of publicizing the findings they want you to
know, while keeping studies that don't support their product hidden
from you and the rest of the world.
Also, I'm sure by now many of you can follow the dots and draw
your own conclusions with circular maps and arrows marking the many
conflicts of interest that exist between this unholy alliance of
so-called independent health advisors, pharmaceutical companies,
processed food companies, the biotech industry, and various
regulatory agencies, including the FDA.
Folks, it's time take control of your health, and that includes
being able to discern real health advice from shadow marketing
machines and propaganda that serves no one but the very industries
responsible for much of the ill health in the first place.
When it comes to GMOs, labeling is an important aspect of public
education. Campbell Soup recently announced17
it supports a mandatory national labeling standard for GMOs — a
surprising but welcomed move, considering it's a member of the
Grocery Manufacturers Association, and has been a major
contributor to previous anti-labeling campaigns.
Three-quarters of its products reportedly contain GMOs, and the
company is already disclosing which ingredients in its products are
genetically engineered on its website.18
© Copyright 1997-2016 Dr. Joseph Mercola. All Rights Reserved.