Marketing applied to drugs has a name, it's called disease Mongering, it serves to sell more medicines or more diagnostic tests, somehow expanding the market of potential customers. ?In practice, it promotes a disease, or the hypothesis of a disease, to then magically bring out the remedy promptly served by industrious researchers who set to work as soon as the disease was discovered. ?Research times, in the eyes of unsuspecting citizens, appear so compressed, lightning fast: as soon as there is news of a pathology, a diligent drug multinational is ready, which only has to wait for the distributors to do their duty.
Instead, let's try to reverse the terms of the problem: let's say that first we choose which drug to use, or which fear to ride, after which we invent an effective "battle" to fight a disease whose existence we previously ignored or which was considered a simple malaise, to be faced using only the means physiologically made available by our body.
Here, in this way many things appear, unfortunately, much more plausible. Maybe we aren't sick anymore, maybe we just use more drugs. Big Pharma can't just wait for the family doctor to decide to prescribe antibiotics for his cold grandfather (who, until proven otherwise, shouldn't use them); if you want to see your turnover constantly increasing, as it is actually happening, you need to work on several fronts. Thus antivirals, vaccines and the like are considered "valuable" but perhaps only because they are such for the balance sheets of many companies. "Prevention is better than cure, vaccinations will defeat diseases, mass screenings will save the lives of millions of people every year, cancer is almost defeated." . . How many times have we read and listened to these sentences from those who asked for economic contributions and voluntary work, how many times unwillingly or willingly we underwent therapies that did not convince us at all only because we were persuaded by a fear, inculcated who knows when, which
