Are Pharma Stocks Harmful To Your Financial Health ?
Image Source: Pexels
In the 1960s, regulators determined that cigarettes were harmful to smokers’ health and a warning label was required to be on all cigarette packages. Later, cigarette makers were banned from advertising on television and in magazines.
Now there is a proliferation of glitzy ads for risky biotechnology stocks on CNBC and other financial television programs. These stocks include Nutriband (NTRB), which markets an abuse-deterrent fentanyl product, bioAffinity (BIAF) tests for early-stage cancer, and Creative Medical (CELZ), identifies novel biological therapeutics.
While these companies may offer some worthwhile products, many such companies have crashed and burned, leaving investors holding the bag.
Until recently, financial news networks did not permit advertising of individual company stories. Advertising on CNBC and other financial networks can give the imprimatur of legitimacy to untested and risky companies and give investors a false sense of security in the value of these risky and speculative stocks.
It seems time for the Securities and Exchange Commission to oversee stock advertising and consider a ban, or at least a danger warning label.
More By This Author:
Is Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) A One-Off or The Canary In the Coal Mine?
"Bond Fund Prison"
Structured Note Investors Face Large Losses
Disclaimer:This article does not contain investment, tax or legal advice.
The article mentions several biotech companies, including Nutriband, attempting to draw a parallel with the tobacco industry of the 1960s. This comparison seems inaccurate. Cigarettes, which were proven to be harmful to health, are fundamentally different from the innovative solutions offered by biotech companies. For instance, Nutriband is developing products that can prevent opioid abuse — an issue that threatens the lives of millions of people. This is an important and valuable medical solution that should be taken seriously.
Additionally, it raises concerns that several companies working in completely different niches, such as cancer diagnostics and fentanyl protection systems, are mentioned in one sentence. This grouping creates the impression of bias and a deliberate attempt to discredit the companies without considering their unique contributions to medical developments. Companies operating in such diverse fields deserve independent consideration.
The argument that some biotech companies have failed is not a strong reason to speak against specific companies. This is typical for any industry, where there are both successful and less successful companies. However, this does not mean the entire industry is unreliable. For example, Nutriband has a unique technology that could be highly beneficial in combating opioid addiction, a significant global issue.
Overall, it is important to remember that every investment requires individual analysis and evaluation based on data and facts, not on impressions from advertisements or general conclusions. A critical approach to information is the best way for investors to make informed decisions.