No.

These obesity ads are clear examples of why drug companies should not be allowed to run disease-awareness ads. Even if they don't name the drug, this is still product promotion, pure and simple. Disease-awareness ads stimulate sales. In one long-term analysis from the United States they had stronger effects than ads with product names.

Unlike public health messages, these latest obesity ads say diet and exercise are ineffective. Dieting isn't perfect: people often gain weight afterwards. Then again, people gain weight after stopping obesity drugs. The drugs aren't perfect either, but that message is nowhere to be seen.

Disease-awareness advertising also distorts how the "disease" or health condition is presented – by framing the condition in terms of the product it aims to sell.

For obesity drugs, this means calling obesity a chronic disease. This shifts attention away from social causes and solutions, such as curbing advertising of unhealthy foods.

Public health messages need to be truly independent of commercial interests.

No.

The reason laws exist to ban companies marketing prescription medicines directly to consumers is to uphold the public's trust.

When you go to the doctor you want to be sure you’re receiving evidence-based, unbiased advice. Australians already receive trustworthy health and wellbeing advice from their GP and allied health professionals, including accredited practising dietitians.

Allowing drug companies to rebrand the term "obesity" and overtly medicalise body size, exploit societal fears, dismiss size inclusivity and market their "solutions" via "awareness" ads undermines the integrity of these relationships.

We need public health information – on a whole range of conditions and diseases – to be run by public health authorities, and void of any real or perceived conflicts of interest.

We don't need drug companies inserting their agendas into the very private conversations we have with our health-care providers.

Yes.

But only when awareness raising is clearly in the public interest and supports a broad approach to health promotion.

For health issues that carry a high level of stigma, such as HIV, shame and embarrassment can be major barriers to people engaging with prevention, testing or treatment. When done well, awareness campaigns can help overcome this.

For example, in Australia, multiple social media campaigns have helped promote and normalise uptake of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) medication as a valid option to prevent HIV.

These campaigns, which were not run by pharmaceutical companies, were sex-positive and avoided negative or fear-based messaging which heightens stigma.

Pharmaceutical companies have the resources to run large campaigns that raise awareness of new treatments and prevention options for HIV and other stigmatised conditions.

This could be effective if regulations are in place to ensure these campaigns align with health-promotion priorities and community interests, rather than being solely designed to increase sales.

No.

In essence, this boils down to a marketing strategy to promote sales of usually new, expensive drugs.

Why is this a problem? Most wealthy countries, including Australia, prohibit marketing prescription medicines directly to consumers due to concerns about costly and unnecessary treatment, drug-related harms, and distortion of the doctor-patient relationship.

"Awareness" advertising skirts this restriction by omitting mention of specific products. These ads shouldn’t be allowed because, as wolves in sheep's clothing, they pose essentially the same risks as "full" direct-to-consumer advertising, where drug names are mentioned.

Controversially, New Zealand and the US continue to allow marketing of named prescription drugs directly to consumers. NZ practitioner and consumer groups have tried to ban the practice, but have encountered fierce pushback from the pharmaceutical industry. This is unsurprising given its effectiveness in prompting patients to seek prescriptions.

Disease awareness, like pharmaceutical information, should be regarded as a public good, free from the bias of corporate marketing.

Drug companies have a duty to their shareholders to maximise markets for their medicines. Company-sponsored "disease awareness" campaigns are designed to expand sales of the newest, most profitable products, by turning people into patients.

For decades, these marketing campaigns have been transforming the common experiences of human life into signs and symptoms of diseases and conditions. Shyness becomes social anxiety disorder, sexual difficulties become dysfunctions, and higher weight is framed as a disease called obesity.

The obvious problem is overdiagnosis, when too many people end up with diagnoses and treatments that can cause them more harm than good.

Unnecessary care is now recognised as a major threat to both human health and the sustainability of health systems, taking precious resources from those who need them most.

Industry's promotion, including their "disease awareness" campaigns, is an important driver.

Banning drug company-funded "disease awareness" campaigns would be an extremely healthy step forward.