re: RFKjr Announces Plans for Pharma TV Commercial Ban

quote:

---

Yeah, they were singing a different tune when folks wanted to talk about the 2020 election "results"

---

quote:

---

or the possibility of FBI/CHS/paid agitators at the Capitol on J6,

---

quote:

---

or discuss the potential dangers of an untested/unregulated/unverified experimental gene therapy being mandated under the guise of a vaccine

---

quote:

---

Where was their staunch defense of free speech then?

---

quote:

---

Here are specific examples of government involvement or coordination with social media companies to limit free speech regarding discussion of the 2020 election results, based on available information:

Biden Administration's Communications with Platforms: During the early months of the Biden administration, officials from the White House, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) reportedly engaged with social media platforms like Twitter (now X), Facebook, and YouTube. These interactions involved requests to remove or limit posts deemed as misinformation about the 2020 presidential election. For instance, a White House official emailed Twitter staff after a post by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. suggested, without evidence, that Hank Aaron’s death was linked to the COVID-19 vaccine—a claim tied to broader election-related narratives about government trustworthiness. The email asked, "Wanted to flag the below tweet and am wondering if we can get moving on the process for having it removed ASAP." This example, highlighted in court filings from Murthy v. Missouri, illustrates government pressure on platforms to suppress content, though the administration argued it was to protect election integrity rather than coerce.

FBI and DHS Meetings with Tech Companies: Prior to the 2020 election, tech companies including Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, Discord, Wikipedia, Microsoft, LinkedIn, and Verizon reportedly met monthly with the FBI, DHS, and other government agencies. These meetings, as noted in posts on X and referenced in congressional hearings, aimed to coordinate efforts to address election-related content. While not all actions were explicitly coercive, the regular engagement raised concerns about government influence over content moderation, particularly targeting narratives questioning election results. For example, former Twitter executives testified before the House Oversight Committee in February 2023 that the FBI had flagged content, including the Hunter Biden laptop story, which some argued affected election discourse.

Election Integrity Partnership (EIP) Collaboration: The EIP, a consortium involving Stanford Internet Observatory and other research groups, worked with social media companies to monitor and flag election-related misinformation in 2020. A House Judiciary Committee report detailed how the EIP collaborated with platforms to suppress content, including posts questioning the election’s legitimacy. Internal emails uncovered in Murthy v. Missouri revealed that the DHS’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) had "recommended" that the State Department connect with the EIP, suggesting a government-backed effort to influence content moderation. This partnership allegedly led to the censorship of millions of posts, as claimed in discussions on X and by figures like Mike Benz on Tucker Carlson’s program.

State Department’s Global Engagement Center (GEC): Emails uncovered in the Missouri v. Biden lawsuit (later Murthy v. Missouri) showed that the State Department’s GEC provided technology to social media companies to assist in censoring speech before the 2020 election. This technology was purportedly used to identify and suppress posts challenging the official election narrative, as reported in posts on X and discussed in legal filings, highlighting a direct government role in shaping online discourse.

These examples stem from legal cases like Murthy v. Missouri, congressional investigations, and public statements on platforms like X. In that case, Missouri and Louisiana, along with private plaintiffs, alleged that federal officials coerced platforms to remove content, leading to a district court injunction in 2023 (later modified by the Fifth Circuit and reviewed by the Supreme Court in 2024). The Supreme Court ultimately ruled 6-3 in June 2024 that the plaintiffs lacked standing, leaving the coercion question unresolved but not refuting the interactions occurred. Critics argue these actions stifled free speech, while the government maintained they were necessary to counter misinformation threatening election integrity. The evidence remains contested, with some details supported by court documents and testimony, though the full extent of coercion versus persuasion is still debated.

---

quote:

---

It is ridiculous to market product to people who can't outright buy it.

---

quote:

---

Unfortunately, that golf outing in Hawaii for issuing the 50th new Rx for the month might carry some weight in their decision.

---

quote:

---

It used to happen all the time, but I thought it was regulated away in almost every state.

---

quote:

---

In the United States, the legality of pharmaceutical companies rewarding doctors with trips or other incentives for prescribing specific drugs is a bit of a gray area, but it’s heavily regulated. The short answer is: not really, at least not in the way you might be imagining.

The Physician Payments Sunshine Act (part of the Affordable Care Act, enacted in 2010) requires pharmaceutical companies to report any payments or "transfers of value" (like gifts Kingston trips) given to doctors. This transparency law doesn’t outright ban incentives, but it makes them public, which acts as a deterrent. On top of that, the Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS), a federal law, prohibits offering or accepting anything of value to induce prescriptions for drugs covered by federal healthcare programs like Medicare or Medicaid. Violating the AKS can lead to hefty fines or jail time.

---

quote:

---

Pharma companies can’t directly tie trips or rewards to prescribing quotas (e.g., "Prescribe 100 units of Drug X, get a Hawaii vacation"). That’s illegal under the AKS. But they can offer indirect perks—like funding for "educational conferences" at fancy resorts, consulting fees, or speaking engagements—where the line gets blurry. These arrangements have to be framed as legitimate business or educational activities, not quid pro quo for prescriptions. The Office of Inspector General (OIG) at the Department of Health and Human Services keeps a close eye on this, and companies risk big penalties if they’re caught crossing into kickback territory.

---

quote:

---

But they can offer indirect perks—like funding for "educational conferences" at fancy resorts, consulting fees, or speaking engagements—where the line gets blurry. These arrangements have to be framed as legitimate business or educational activities, not quid pro quo for prescriptions.

---

quote:

---

They also keep "voting" for more debt

---

quote:

---

That's how the free market works.

---