BUSTED: This Popular Independent Health Website is Deceiving You

[Guest guest]

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/12/14/webmd-not-the-independent-health-source-you-expected.aspx

BUSTED: This Popular "Independent" Health Website is Deceiving

You

Posted By

Dr.

Mercola | December

14 2010

In a shocking report published earlier this year, BNET exposed

how WebMD's online test for depression is rigged for profit:

"Feeling depressed? Cheer yourself up by taking WebMD's

comical new depression test.

It's sponsored by Eli Lilly (LLY) — maker of the

antidepressant Cymbalta – so they must

know what they're talking about, right?

In fact, no matter which of the 10 answers you choose on

the test, the result comes out the same:

You may be at risk for major depression."

But that's just the beginning. A number of questions about just

how 'independent' a source WebMD is have since surfaced, and the

answers are not what you'd expect.

Sources:

BNET

February 22, 2010

BNET

February 26, 2010

Policy

and Medicine February 24, 2010

Boston.com

March 2, 2010

This entire story reminds me of the old adage, "with

friends like that, who needs enemies?"

If you didn't already know this, WebMD is the second most

visited health web site on the entire web. The general

belief is that it's a first-rate, trustworthy source of

"independent and objective" information about health.

In fact, the only health site more popular than WebMD is

the National Institutes of Health (NIH). You also might not

realize that earlier this year Mercola.com, moved up to the

third most visited health site on the internet. Mercola.com

has been the most visited natural health site in

the world for the last five years.

You can see a complete listing of the top 20 most visited

health and natural health sites below.

But as far as being geared for the average person, WebMD is

clearly the number one source of health information for a

large number of people, which makes the following

information all the more disturbing.

If You Weren't Depressed Before, WebMD's Test

Guarantees You Will Be

Chances are you've seen WebMD's ad on TV

recommending you take their free online depression

screening test.

But did you know the test was rigged so that no

matter how you responded, the answer was always the

same: You may be at risk for major

depression, and it would probably

do you well to discuss it with your doctor…

As it turns out, the test is sponsored by drug

giant Eli Lilly, the maker of Cymbalta, and

apparently there's no room for mentally healthy

individuals in this scheme.

This is a sad commentary on the current disease

paradigm we live in…

Although the test states that it's sponsored by Eli

Lilly, how many people would automatically assume

that this

publicized test, offered on one of the most

visited health sites on the web, would give them an

entirely false result, perhaps designed to

push even the most well-balanced individual into

considering taking an antidepressant?

I'm willing to bet quite a few people have taken

WebMD's test, and based on the result started

thinking that perhaps they're a candidate for a

'happy pill' after all…

Senator Grassley believed this was a very

real possibility, and demanded

the link between WebMD and Eli Lilly be

investigated. As a result, minor changes to

the test were implemented. However, the WebMD

depression screening test still offers NO objective

information whatsoever. Writing for BNET, Jim

posted the following update:

"WebMD has changed its Eli

Lilly-sponsored depression test so that not

every answer results in a diagnosis of potential

major depression. BNET noted on Feb. 22 that if

you checked the "no" box to all 10 symptoms in

the online quiz, the results page said, "You

may be at risk for major depression," and

urged users to call a doctor "right away" if

they were feeling suicidal.

Now, the

result for someone indicating no symptoms of

depression says:

Lower Risk

You replied that you are feeling four or

fewer of the common symptoms of depression. In

general, people experiencing depression have

five or more common symptoms of the condition.

But every individual is unique. If you are

concerned about depression, talk with your

doctor.

While "lower risk" is certainly an

improvement for someone indicating no symptoms

of depression, WebMD is still gilding the

Lilly."

I agree. This "screening" test is just a cleverly

disguised form of direct-to-consumer marketing.

Selling, or Selling Out?

Sure, WebMD needs to make money just like any other

major web site, including mine. They don't sell

products, so therefore they rely on advertising.

In reality WebMD is a marvelous example of the

brilliant marketing the drug companies 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

for your health issues.

But when you draw back the curtains you will find

it is the drug companies themselves that are

crafting the message and not an independent entity.

They invest hundreds of millions of dollars each

year on WebMD alone, in my opinion to distort

reality so they can convince you that it's perfectly

rational to choose their expensive and, in my

opinion, sometimes toxic solutions for your health

care challenges.

I've chosen the opposite path – selling a limited

number of well-researched and independently tested

products that I personally believe in, in order to

remain independent and unbiased; free from the

spoken or unspoken demands of advertisers.

However, WebMD does not appear to be particularly

objective in the types of advertisers they allow on

their site. Prescription drugs for every imaginable

problem are listed on virtually every page. Along

with plenty of processed foods and snacks.

The revenue generated from this advertising is

considerable.

According to a recent

WebMD press release, the revenue from

advertising and sponsorship for the months of July

through September, 2010, topped $113 million, up

from $89 million for the same quarter last year.

Beware of Subliminal Sales Tactics!

OpEdNews.com

also points out the site's habit of offering unmarked

product placement to various pharmaceutical

companies, which is an insidious, sneaky, subliminal

sales tactic:

"Lilly is not the only pharma company

receiving unmarked product placement on WebMD,"

Martha

Rosenberg writes for OpEdNews.

"Last summer, a video featured a woman

patient confessing she was fearful of life while

a voice-over said she needed treatment for

"general anxiety disorder" and the camera showed

bottles of Forest Pharmaceuticals'

antidepressant Lexapro moving down the

manufacturer's assembly line.

Get it? No disclaimer on the video or

"sponsored content" appeared.

Another unsponsored WebMD video last summer

urged people on antidepressants to remain on

their therapy "despite side effects" and a third

suggested women concerned about cancer, heart

attack and stroke risks of postmenopausal

hormone therapy should continue their treatment

at lowered doses. 'Hang in there, valued

customers'..."

The Subsidiaries of WebMD

Furthermore, their partnerships and subsidiaries

suggest that WebMD is anything but an independent

consumer website offering accurate and independent

health advice. (WebMD owns four of the top ten most

visited health sites on the web, further extending

Big Pharma's influence.)

The WebMD

Health empire includes the following subsidiaries:

Drugs.com

Medscape

MedicineNet

eMedicine / eMedicine Health

RxList

theHeart.org

According

to Rosenberg, drug giant Eli Lilly was

actually one of WebMD's original partners and

investors, along with:

Microsoft

DuPont

Rupert Murdoch's News Corp (including his Fox TV

networks)

Silicon Graphics

Netscape founder Jim

Eli Lilly

EDS (computer services company founded by H.

Ross Perot)

Just how independent and objective can you be in

your health recommendations when one of your

investors is a major drug company?

WebMD and most, if not all, of its subsidiaries

claim to be "independent." For example, drugs.com

has the following statement at the bottom of every

web page:

"Drugs.com provides free, accurate and

independent advice on more than 24,000

prescription drugs, over-the-counter medicines

& natural products."

And yet drugs.com is owned by WebMD, which has

close ties to Big Pharma, and recommends drugs for

their advertisers and pharmaceutical partners…

WebMD is Partnered with the US FDA – What Does that

Mean for Impartial Health Advice?

Even more interesting: The first-ever partnership

between the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)

and a private company is with, you guessed it,

WebMD!

The two partnered up two years ago.

Why?

Well, according to WebMD's

own announcement:

"The partnership will enhance the

FDA's ability to get crucial information to the

American public, FDA Commissioner von

Eschenbach, MD, said in a news conference.

… "WebMD has been a leader with regard to

innovation in the use of the web as a form of

communication and service to the public," von

Eschenbach said.

"What we will do by virtue of this

partnership ... is to really be able to present

online ... content material we at FDA feel is

extremely important for consumers to be aware of

as they are making critically important

decisions for themselves and for their families

about their health and the products that they

use to ensure their health."

This completes the circle of full-on conflicts of

interest.

Never-mind the fact that there might be any number

of inexpensive, safe alternatives out there for each

and every ailment WebMD presents, what you will

learn is what the FDA has approved for your

condition. And by default, you will be kept in the

dark about the strategies that can make a real and

lasting difference, courtesy of WebMD's financial

ties to the drug- and processed food industries.

WebMD and its subsidiary sites are disguised as

"independent consumer sites," when in truth they're

paid by the pharmaceutical industry and exclusively

and uniquely partnered with the FDA.

These sites contain mainly Big Pharma and

advertising, they recommend specific drugs created

by their advertisers, and offer questionnaires and

medical screening tests created by pharmaceutical

companies to create a false "need" for those drugs…

How can this type of government/big industry

conflict of interest lead to "independent and

objective" reporting and advice?

And how can this create fair competition?

Personally, I think it's a pretty deceitful

practice to snooker consumers into taking expensive

pharmaceutical drugs for every possible ailment!

According

to Boston.com:

"A WebMD spokeswoman… [said] the company

believes "our internal process ensures our

editorial independence in our programs."

Sure. That process worked so well when devising

that depression screening test, which was apparently

so good they also spent big money to promote it on

TV…

Good for Eli Lilly and their antidepressant

Cymbalta, that is. Not for you, the health-conscious

consumer. All you got was a sly marketing shtick for

the time you invested in answering those questions.

However, that spokeswoman's statement brings up yet

another point to remember when you're browsing

through the content on WebMD, and that is paying

close attention to WHO authored the message.

Financial Backers Include Not Just Drug Companies,

but Processed Food Industry Too

In various areas you'll find a small link that

says: "From our sponsor." If you click on that link,

it will tell you that:

"Content under this heading is from

or created on behalf of the named sponsor. This

content is not subject to the WebMD Editorial

Policy and is not reviewed by the WebMD

Editorial department for accuracy, objectivity

or balance."

The heading I'm looking at right now, at the time

of this writing, is for "snacking smarter without

the guilt." So… whatever the sponsor wants to say

about "healthful snacking," that's the message

you'll get. Obviously.

In this particular case, the sponsor wants you to

know that baked potato chips are indeed healthier

for you than regular potato chips. Isn't that

great news!

The sponsor of this message is General Mills' Fiber

One cereal – a breakfast cereal that, aside from

being loaded with grain carbohydrates, also contains

added sugar, corn syrup, brown sugar, AND sucralose.

Folks, in my opinion, this is about the worst

breakfast you could possibly eat, unless you're

hell-bent on developing diabetes. And don't get me

started on the potato chips…

Again, WebMD is the second most visited health

site on the web and if you add in all their other

sites, collectively they are easily number one in

the world. They attract tens of millions of readers

every day looking for accurate and dependable health

advice, but what advice can be trusted?

More Conflict of Interest: Medscape's Continuing

Medical Education Courses

But the pharmaceutical industry doesn't just target

you, they also target your doctor.

Medscape, which is one of WebMD's subsidiaries,

administers highly lucrative continuing medical

education courses (CME's), which doctors must

complete to retain their state licenses. And these

courses are, of course, ALSO sponsored by drug

companies.

Medical students

may have attempted to quench Big Pharma's

influence over their medical education, but

pharmaceutical companies could easily be considered

the number one educators of doctors, in and out of

school. Their influence is so significant, broad in

scope, persistent, and oftentimes 'hidden' from

clear view that many physicians don't even realize

where the information is coming from.

And even when they do realize the source, they

still oftentimes believe they're getting

accurate and truthful information.

Final Thoughts

The WebMD matrix is a maddening, vicious circle of

conflicts of interest that creates all manner of

deceit and deception. But these shenanigans are

still easy to identify and avoid.

Just Follow the Money.

It is an easy trap to fall in. Over 50 years ago JI

Rodale founded Prevention Magazine and it was one of

the top ten most read magazines in the country.

Rodale was a leader in promoting natural medicine, a

true pioneer and defender of health truth.

Unfortunately he made the typical mistake of

leaving the business to his children. I learned from

someone who was their health editor at one time,

that his children actually shifted the ads from

natural medicine to drugs and processed foods

because they could earn substantially more profit.

Had JI Rodale left his business to a foundation,

natural medicine would be much further ahead today.

Instead Prevention Magazine is now just another

mouthpiece for the drug and food industry and

virtually everyone who understands natural medicine

ignores it.

Similarly, with WebMD in my opinion, if you follow

the money behind much of its advice (and definitely

all of its subliminal marketing messages), it leads

right back to the coffers of the processed food

industry and the pharmaceutical cartel, which also,

incidentally, pays WebMD's government partner, the

FDA, to hurry up and approve their poorly tested

drugs – so they can advertise them on WebMD, and so

on and so forth.

I'm sure by now you can follow the dots and can

draw your own circular maps with arrows marking the

many conflicts of interest that exist between this

unholy alliance of so-called independent health

advisors, pharmaceutical companies, processed food

companies, and the regulatory agency, the FDA.

Remember, You Can Take Control of Your Health

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.