The statement wasn't about whether the product is actually good or not, though in extreme cases, yes, the product is worthless while the marketing is all rainbows and sunshine. But relying on marketing is bad for the user in nearly every case, even if the product is good.
And even if you are "one of the good guys", your users won't know that. That's why you should verify from independent sources, or do your own research.
If marketing was really a reliable source of information, reviews, samples, product trials etc. wouldn't be a thing.
People should assume all marketing is incomplete or untrustworthy information at best.
In as big a font / for as long and loudly as the supposed benefits? As prominently towards the top of the page / the beginning of the clip?
Let me guess: Hardly, right?
> What market are you seeing unregulated drug marketing in?
It's not a matter of regulated vs unregulated, it's a matter of how close to ignoring the regulations one can skate. And of lobbying the regulators enough to get very-skatable regulations... In what market are you seeing marketing regulations (for drugs or any other product / service) that cover length and prominence as per my first paragraph above?
> Ads Are Impersonating Government Websites in Google Results, Despite Ban
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27150407
https://themarkup.org/google-the-giant/2021/05/13/ads-are-im...
Yet another example.
Absolutely not, unless your business model relies on single sales.
In functioning organizations with actual products, marketing and sales are advocacy functions for the customer as much as they are revenue functions for the business. They're how you know what to make and who to target.