The ARPP points to three reasons: the "reference to serious diseases" which "could be perceived as shocking by the public", "quantified allegations" that are not sourced on the posters and, above all, the ARPP writes first justification:
"We particularly draw your attention to the risk of negative reactions that could be caused by the line of communication chosen by representatives of the pharmaceutical industry. Indeed the companies thus implicated could consider that such a campaign undermines their image and causes them serious harm and decide to act in this direction. "
Following the negative opinion of the ARPP, Médiatransports sends a negative opinion to Médecins du Monde. But it does not stop there. The NGO will then solicit other displays, among which JC Decaux or the display network Insert. None will follow suit and for good reason: the "council" of the ARPP was "circularized"
Janic wrote:The drug dealers who bite the breast that feed them is never seen!
izentrop wrote:Self-censorship in the first degree, but the campaign will still be broadcast and even more distorted because the entire alternative network will publish it with a lot of superlatives, like "dealer labs", "lobbyism".
It is true that with such statements, not sourced, we need explanations from competent authorities.
and posting on the internet is "eternal" ...izentrop wrote:A return on investment of years of study is not a scandal, while an abuse of dominance is. The problem with the internet, there is more than the first degree that works
MDM and replied:
"Research and development costs are overestimated and the actual amounts are confidential and much anyway is funded by public money through grants or research tax credits"
Back to "Health and Prevention. Pollution, causes and effects of environmental risks "
Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 212 guests
