Homeopathy

Bigger companies with bigger PR/advertising budgets, but with a poorer product would gain more public exposure. More exposure = more sales (generalisation).

The difference in efficacy between two competing products (one getting much more in the way of public exposure) would have to be relatively small in order for the more promoted product to maintain it's market lead.

Don't get me wrong, what you say makes perfect sense, but I suspect that if product A (the heavily promoted product) has 62% efficacy and product B (the much lesser promoted product from it's competitor) has 94% efficacy - then over time the better product would win over, even though the lesser product might still - through marketing - hold on to a undeservedly high position in the market.

(A lot of guess work there on my part - - - - ? ? ? ?)

But I agree that promotion in general will increase sales regardless of other factors, but unless the drug failed to meet MHRA standards (in which case it would not be able to be marketed) I still can't see any real concern ?

What we keep coming back to (I could be wrong here, and am picking up something that people are not intending to highlight) is an underlying sentiment that the problem (with advertising to the public / the pharmaceutical industry in general) is not poor clinical efficacy or a poor safety profile but the profits the big pharmaceutical companies make.

I am getting hints (like I say, I might be misreading this) that the problem some people have is less practical concerns and more ideological concerns. (??)