Whence this argument?

Say a pharma company is trying to sell some pill; the ads that they run don't automatically mean the drug is bad. And certainly doesn't mean it's good. Sometimes they make reasonable drugs that work on 40% of people with acceptable side effect, sometimes they inexplicably push aducanumab through the FDA and you start hearing Latin chanting to the tune of "delenda est".

The takeaway isn't that we can't push back against marketing. Just that it's devoid of information. If you look at clinical studies and Cochrane reviews, you will learn something about the drug on its own merits. If you react negatively to the hype, you're following a rule of thumb that overhyped things tend to suck. That happens to be true most of the time, but at the end of the day you're still reacting to the random fluctuations of the advertising department, instead of the truth on its own merits.