Perhaps the only thing Democrats and Republicans seem to agree on these days is that the pharmaceutical industry is bad. In particular, there has been bipartisan movement in recent years to ban direct-to-consumer drug ads, which are only permitted in the United States and New Zealand. Some supporters, like The Daily Wire’s Matt Walsh, have called these ads dangerous.

But even those who don’t feel that strongly about the issue aren’t jumping up to defend these ads, which generally feature a bunch of shiny, happy stock-photo models dancing around while a narrator speed-reads through a list of side effects ranging from nausea to death.

In this provocative piece, Stephen Moore does just that. A noted economist and political commentator, Moore served as a senior economic adviser to President Donald Trump and was instrumental in crafting the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017. Moore not only argues that pharmaceutical ads help patients, but that banning them could have negative downstream consequences. We hope you enjoy. — Tim Rice

***

Chevrolet’s newest holiday ad is tugging at America’s heartstrings.

The spot follows a family’s classic Chevy Suburban through decades of memories — kids tumbling around the backseat, tearful college drop-offs, and that quiet, bittersweet moment when the house becomes an empty nest. The ad ends as the couple parks their old Suburban beside a shiny new one, welcoming their grown children and grandchildren home for the holidays.

It’s the kind of commercial American companies have long excelled at: emotionally evocative in all the right ways, tapping into nostalgia, family, and the warmth of the season — and, yes, selling a product. Holiday ads have become part of our cultural fabric. Think of Coca-Cola’s polar bears, or the Budweiser Clydesdales. These ads don’t just market products; they help set the tone for the season.

Ads like these may not survive if Washington continues down a troubling road of restricting TV commercials for politically unpopular — but legal — products. At the top of this list is pharmaceutical ads, which Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) wants removed from the airwaves. In that fight he has an unlikely ally: Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

This may seem like a rare instance of bipartisan cooperation. And in today’s political climate, dinging pharmaceutical companies is almost certain to prove popular.

But we already have strict advertising laws against including false or misleading claims in ads, and severe penalties for violations — and appropriately so. Banning pharmaceutical ads would be regulatory overkill, and could have negative consequences its advocates aren’t considering.

Contrary to what critics say, prescription drugs preserve life and improve health. Because of this, advertising can be a social good. An ad that makes people aware of a new drug’s benefits can literally save lives and alleviate suffering.

Some politicians and regulators say these ads only serve to artificially drive up demand. And they do drive up demand — for treatments that work. That’s a good thing.

Think about what would happen if we had a new wonder drug to help cure or stop the spread of breast cancer. Now imagine that the government prevented the pharmaceutical company from promoting this treatment to patients.

It could take months before patients get access to this miracle cure.

Plus, if lawmakers succeed in chipping away protections for advertisers, it will only empower future government censors. Imagine a future Democrat administration that wants to ban ads for gas-powered cars or disposable diapers in the name of “protecting the environment.”

Pharmaceutical ads may not be the most popular thing in the world. But that doesn’t change the fact that they have a real benefit — or the fact that banning them would do more harm than good.

Stephen Moore is a co-founder of Unleash Prosperity and a former senior economic advisor to President Donald Trump.

A Stanford Medicine research team has confirmed that mRNA-based COVID vaccines can cause inflammation of the heart muscle, known as myocarditis, which can be fatal.

The study, recently published in the journal “Science Translational Medicine,” concludes that these mRNA vaccines can trigger certain immune cells to produce inflammatory proteins, specifically CXCL10 and IFN-gamma, which can cause heart issues.

“It’s not a heart attack in the traditional sense,” Dr. Joseph Wu, a senior author of the study and the director of the Stanford Cardiovascular Institute, explained. “There’s no blockage of blood vessels as found in most common heart attacks. When symptoms are mild and the inflammation hasn’t caused structural damage to the heart, we just observe these patients to make sure they recover.”

Some patients, though, can suffer severe complications, including death, Wu said.

The researcher confirmed that COVID itself “can cause myocarditis,” and “to a lesser extent, so can the mRNA vaccines.”

For reasons still unknown, the vaccines are tied to a heightened risk in males under the age of 30, particularly those who receive multiple doses, the study found.

“Vaccine-associated myocarditis occurs in about one in every 140,000 vaccines after a first dose and rises to one in 32,000 after a second dose,” Stanford Medicine News Center said. “For reasons that aren’t clear, incidence peaks among male vaccines age 30 or below, at one in 16,750 vaccines.”

Recently, U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) vaccine chief Dr. Vinay Prasad proposed in an internal memo an overhaul to how vaccines are evaluated and approved, basically initiating tougher standards.

Christmas Sale – Get 40% off New DailyWire+ Annual Memberships

This would reportedly include full randomized clinical trials even for updated or routine vaccines, like the flu shot. The changes would allow for an evaluation of real-world protection, not just antibody levels, as well as rates of side effects, and more information on risk-benefit analysis.

Notably, the memo cited at least 10 children who died “after and because of” receiving COVID vaccines as the apparent driving force behind the tougher vaccine standards.

The medical establishment quickly revolted over the proposed standards. For example, twelve former FDA officials denounced the memo in an editorial, claiming it casts doubt on vaccine safety. They also said the new standards “reject long-standing science” and will slow innovation.

In response to the backlash from the establishment, Health and Human Services (HHS) press secretary Emily Hilliard told The Daily Wire that the American people “deserve evidence-based science,” and said Dr. Prasad’s email “lays out a philosophical framework that points us toward that higher standard.”

Hilliard also said HHS will “soon release documents laying out that framework” as well as data confirming how the COVID-19 vaccine resulted in children’s deaths that “previous leadership failed to properly investigate.”

The FDA is also currently investigating adult deaths connected to the COVID vaccines.

Related: MAHA Supporter Destroys Famed Doctor Attacking RFK Jr. In Under 2 Minutes