Slashdot Mirror
Are TV Pharmaceutical Ads Damaging?
trivialscene asks: "ABC News is carrying an article about a recently published study in the medical research journal Annals of Family Medicine which examined prime time television ads run by pharmaceutical companies. The researchers concluded that the generally ambiguous ads, which appeal almost entirely to emotion rather than fact, tend to confuse viewers. They also suggest that the ads may be creating problems at the doctor's office, as some people might become convinced they need a particular medication and insist on getting it, rather than leaving the decision to trained medical professionals. What do you think about the presence of drug advertisements on television?"
I dunno. I'm still trying to convince my doctor that Levitra helps you levitate.
This guy's the limit!
All that matters is that there are pills that give me erections for hours on end. Balanced against that, who cares about the dumb viewing public?
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
I think the big wake up call should be the fact that Big Pharma is spending more on marketing their drugs than on developing them in the first place.
Why, oh why, do drug makers not realize that if you don't TELL PEOPLE WHAT YOUR DRUG IS FOR that they may not know if they really should "Ask you doctor about X"? How many doctors have to explain what all the new drugs are for to people who can't figure it out from the ads? An extra 5 seconds of ad time used to clarify what the drugs does doesn't sound like a waste of air time to me.
Every time I see one of those ads I can't help but think that it isn't my job to try and convicen my doctor to prescribe some drug, it is the doctor's job to know what drugs are available and prescribe them to me.
If the drug companies want me to sell my doctor on their particlar product, I should get a commission every time they write me the prescription.
I've done the math, I know the odds, but I'm still disappointed when I don't win the lottery.
Marketing to Doctors? They get crap like staplers, paper holders, pens, etc. Next time you're there, take a look at the clerical staff's desk.
Marketing to Consumers? I never understood this one.
Patient: ZOMG I NEED XYZCAL now!
Doctor: What for?
Patient: To live a happier life.
Doctor: Ok, well, here's the generic form. Placebo.
Patient: Oooh...
Doctor: That'll be $125.
YES.
My mom's an MA (medical assistant) and my wife is a medical student (M2), and both tell me that those ads are a problem.
I hate hearing about people demanding drugs after seeming them on TV, thinking they know better than a professional with 4+ years of training. I watched my wife study for her pharm course, and all the interactions, contraindications, etc is enough to make her head spin a little bit (and mine a lot). Also, most of the time an off-patent generic drug that's been around for years is more beneficial than those new drugs being advertised.
It's the like the old joke about the old lady who wants that new arthritis drug: Viagra.
Accentuate the positive, don't waste your mod points on the negative.
I think they tell me what drugs to avoid.
Seriously, if they want untrained lemming to make the decision on use, rather than trained professionals, then I suspect the product is not good quality. And the commercials, as stated, target the untrained and unknowing, not the doctors and professionals
34486853790
Connection too slow for X forwarding? Try "ssh -CX user@host"
Short answer: Yes. Long Answer: Your doctor is the one who should know about medicine. If he finds out about medication from advertisements on TV, it is time to choose a new doctor. If he finds out about medication from patients who saw advertisements on TV, it is time to choose a doctor. If he will prescribe medication to you based solely upon your request because you saw an advertisement on TV, it is time to choose a new doctor. His knowledge of medication should be completely restricted to facts, such as effects and clinical studies. Any time a doctor is being influenced by an advertisement, whether it be from television or the frequent free catered meals and trips with which pharmaceutical companies bribe doctors, your health is being put in jeapordy.
Dear diary: Today I stuffed some dolls full of dead rats I put in the blender.
I've tried non-trivial medications three times in the last decade. One I asked my doctor about in a general fashion, "are there any new asthma medications I might want to try". Another I learned about in the newspaper. The last I saw on TV.
Your doctor doesn't know what you're interested unless you ask. And unless you see an ad you might not know something even exists to ask about. Sure, some people might ask about things they don't need, but that's a lot less troubling than people not asking for something they do.
From the 'Duhhhhh' department:
They also suggest that the ads may be creating problems at the doctor's office, as some people might become convinced they need a particular medication and insist on getting it, rather than leaving the decision to trained medical professionals
Breaking News! The earth has a rich supply of dummies! Most people's so-called thought processes are made up of a patchwork of what their dysfunctional parents thought, what their nee'r do well friends think, what the TV shows thrust upon their half-baked intellects, and whatever bumpersticker philosophies they have managed to absorb while listening slack-jawed to the ones who speak loudest.
There's More! These dummies tend to make dumb decisions about their lives. What to eat, what to smoke, what to drink, how to behave, and, yes, what drugs to ask of their doctors !
Film at 11!
Mod down people who tell people how to mod in their sigs
Raise your hand if you've tried to talk yourself into thinking you have restless leg syndrome. It seems the ads are geared towards making you consider medication you might not need.
In a world of acronyms, the words are the real victims.
Creating confusion and spurring consumption is the whole point of television drug ads.
I wouldn't support the government banning them, because they are ultimately not much different than advertising many other products, especially since they are already required to read off the list of side effects. Free speech is important.
But I would support a social movement to make them socially unacceptable. In general, I don't see ads for products that you are literally incapable of safely determining if you need them as a good thing in a world where half the population has below-median IQ.
Ultimately, the harm of these ads is limited as long as doctors correctly do their jobs. To the extent that doctors are not correctly doing their jobs, ah, now there is a place for the government to step in. A social campaign to encourage doctors to use generics as applicable would also be good on many levels, and you might actually be able to get somewhere with this with a reasonable amount of effort, by targetting the insurance companies.
My wife and father are both doctors, so I'm probably biased, But I's say the answer is unambiguiously YES. Drug adds are an attempt to get the patient to sway the doctor from doing what's best for the patient.
."
I mean, let's think about this for a moment:
Patient: "Have you considered Sucrosa(tm)? Isn't that sopposed to help me?"
MD: "Damn, you are GOOD! Shoot, I went through 4 years of college, 4 more years of med school, and 3 years of residency, but I never quite got the hang of that diagnosis thing. Thanks, you saved my butt today"
MD: "Oh, BTW, a swift kick to the groin wil probably help you out. .
Like I said, I'm a bit biased. . .
Lets start refering to The War Against Terror by it's initials. . .
I identified so much with the little unhappy blob thing on the Zoloft ads, that I finally sought treatment. I am finally free of 20+ years of clinical depression thanks to that ad.
We're not doctors. We don't know what is wrong with us. We don't know what we need. We shouldn't be going in and requesting specific drugs. The bad thing is that doctors are only getting so much money to see us because of the HMO system, so they get us in and out as fast as possible. If I ask for a certain drug, more than likely I'm going to get it, regardless of whether or not it is beneficial or harmful to my health.
I also thing as a society we are treating symptoms by developing dependencies on medication rather than fixing problems.
If drug companies can afford every other Super Bowl commercial, and drug reps can throw money at every doctor and pharmacist in the country, maybe they can afford to sell drugs at reasonable prices to third world countries.
George W. Bush (love him or hate him, who am I kidding, everyone hates him) maybe did one thing right. He found American drug companies were charging five times as much for AIDS medications in Africa as they charged here. They openly profitted from people's deaths, and played upon their fears.
And yes, I believe their ads play upon emotions. I'd like to see a ban on drug ads on TV. They can spend the money in better places, like further drug research or third world countries.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
A friend of mine is a GP, and he is pretty sick and tired of his patients asking him about whatever drug was last advertised while they were watching Oprah and therefore extra suggestible. His standard response is something like "If you want the professional medical opinion of your television, visit it instead of me. You're not buying dishwashing liquid here."
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
"...as some people might become convinced they need a particular medication and insist on getting it..."
Of course that's why they're advertising the medication! We can't honestly believe that those ads are only for doctors when they air to a national audience. I really disagree with the viagra/etc ads because they glamorize being on a prescription drug for pleasure and not to cure some disease (i.e. ED).
stuff |
Seriously, who goes to the doctor's office and tell him/her what medication MUST be prescribed? Unless you've been to medical school, tell the nice doctor your symptoms and then shut the hell up!
You can ask the doctor WHY this particular medicine is good for you (knowing what is going on is always a good idea), but do NOT presume to know more than the doctor about medicine! Geez.
TV adverts for drugs are so lightly legislated over here that they are effectively banned (as are all drug adverts). The only one I can remember was a Pfizer advert that was so vague it only really seemed to be about Pele's inability to keep it (presumably a soccer ball) up.
Our medical system is based on the principle that if for have something wrong with you, you see a doctor, and the doctor prescribes the right drug for it if one exists. Therefore, drug companies market to doctors, not to patients, which seems the most sensible way to do it - after all a drug company's spend on advertising is spread a lot less thinly if they only advertise to doctors.
A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
I'm all for the line of thinking that you should leave the decisions up to the doctors? But what happens when the doctors start prescribing medications based not on what is best for you, but which drug company gave them enough free crap to convince them to start recommending the drug? And if you think this doesn't happen, you're sorely mistaken.
About 5 years back I was in for a regular checkup and asked the doc to write me a prescription for a drug I didn't need because it was sold in two versions - one brand name for an 8mg dose for one symptom and a different brand name for 2mg dose for another symptom. The kick was that the 8mg dose and the 2mg dose cost the same, so I wanted a script for the 8mg version and a pill cutter to cut them into quarters, for 75% savings on a per dose basis.
He was very happy to do it because he was sick of the drug marketing bullshit that is aimed at him and his fellow doctors. The kind of marketing that convinces the docs to prescribe the expensive but only equal or somtimes even less effective drugs rather than the tried and true and cheap ones. He was of the opinion that doctors are just as much a victim of misleading marketing as patients, it just came to them in a different form (office visits from drug marketers and ads in various journals).
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Since when did slashdot care so much about the pharmaceutical industry? I rarely, if ever see any articles on slashdot related the the drugmakers.
Or is this story just an opportunity for the lefty crowd to bash Big Pharma?
http://www.panexa.com/
"Panexa: ask your doctor for a reason to take it"
Yes - proper diagnosis and selection of appropriate treatment is best left to doctors. In an ideal world, this would be a flawless and quick process. But doctors are human too. You only get one life, one body - it's best to be an informed and an active participant in your own health care.
Doctors hate self-diagnosers (sometimes with good reason). However, for every 10 patients who insist that they have a certain condition and that they absolutely need Brand Name Drug X, there is a bad doctor who doesn't listen to what his patients tell him and prescribes the latest drug-du-jour that is being pushed by his sexy pharmaseutical rep.
We've all heard stories or had family members who've been to a doctor with a particular complaint and have been given the run-around for months: "Try this pill." "Ok, that didn't work, try this ointment." "I don't care what you read, you don't have [medical condition]." When they finally reach the end of their rope, they go find another doctor who actually listens to all the complaints, runs the appropriate tests, takes time to correctly diagnose the issue, and then treats the root cause - and (will wonders never cease!) the issue goes away.
So even though the doctor is the "expert", in the end it is your body and your health. Find a good doctor that will listen to you and don't be afraid to do research on your own. If your doctor can't handle you taking an active role in your own health care and can't or won't take the time to discuss the hows/whys with you, then FIND ONE WHO CAN AND WILL.
Insisting on "correct" English is like saying that there is only one, definitive recipe for chili.
Make all the available information public, and let us decide. If we want your opinion, o great and revered medical professional, we'll ask. But we don't need or want this profession's nanny-style tactics to dictate--against our better judgment--what we can and can't use in an attempt to make and/or keep ourselves healthy.
If I want to act a certain way in a business dealing, I may ask a lawyer for advice. That lawyer is obligated to give me the best possible legal advice, but I'm not obligated to follow it, and I'm certainly not forced to do so. Consider an analogy between computer professionals and medical professionals for a moment. There certainly exist such professionals in both fields that are ignorant, incompetent, insensitive, immoral, etc. Now if any computer professionals refuse to, say, reformat my hard drive because they feel it is not in my best interest, well, screw them--give me all the relevant information about the risks and let me decide--I may still want it reformatted. If any medical professionals refuse to, say, perform a procedure or give me some medication because they feel it is not in my best interest, well, screw them--give me all the relevant information about the risks and let me decide--I may still want the medicine/procedure.
We express outrage routinely here, if anybody dares dictate how and when we're allowed to use digital content, for crying out loud. I'd say that deciding where I can play a song is far less important than deciding how I'm allowed to care for my health and well being.
I see these heartburn ads on TV and think to myself: These people on the screen are actors, in good health and probably don't get heartburn. The target audience gets heartburn because they eat too much and are overweight.
I know this because I am friends with a general practitioner (been an MD for about 15 years now) and he tells me that people in shape, like the actors in the commercials - in general - don't get heartburn.
I also know this because I was one of those people that got heartburn regularly. Once I started eating properly and getting back in shape, my heartburn disappeared.
Bear in mind that many doctors prescribe from the free samples they have laying about. 'Hmm... got condition X? Try this', hands sample pack. This is especially prevalent for antidepressants-- admitably, the choice of which anti-d to take is pretty much a russian roulette until you find one that works for your particular neurochemistry.
:)
Doctors are often overwhelmed by the huge number of potential drugs. Most tend to settle into the 1 or 2 they typically prescribe for a given condition, rather than knowing every drug for every condition.
So the real conflict is not advertising, it's whether advertising to patients is better than sending samples and literature to doctors. Neither is necessarily good for the patient.
A PharmD once told me that doctors believe PharmDs should not prescribe because they don't know the full patient case history, and PharmDs believe doctors should not prescribe because they don't know fully about the drugs.
While doctors hate patients who make recommendations on treatment, these days it makes sense for patients to research their own condition in depth. Unless you're seeing a specialist who keeps up to date on that field, self-research can be necessary because doctors don't have the time nor, all too often, the inclination.
That said, seeing an ad on TV is so far from 'research in depth' that it shouldn't even be mentioned in the same sentence
A.
Plavix says, "No matter how formidable you are, you're no match for a dangerous clot."
This is incredibly damaging. You know there's going to be some dock worker in New Jersey who desperately needs Plavix who's going to say "Oh yeah? Some fuckin' clot gets in my body I'll whoop its ass!" It's like a dare.
I wonder how many badasses are going to have to die before they pull this campaign.
Game... blouses.
My brother and his wife completed medical school over a year ago and are both Doctors now (still in residency). This is actually a major concern that has come up both during their time in medical school and now in their work at the hospital. My brother has related how numerous times people come in and try to self-diagnose their issues and suggest treatments even though they are almost always wrong about what they have!
If you've ever watched "House" when Dr. House is in the clinic and people are always telling him what they have, it may be done in an over the top humorous way but that sort of thing actually happens on a daily basis. Places like WebMD may be great for regular people to find out information about things, but its a real pain to the Doctors when people come in and say "Well I have some stomach pain and my head hurts so I must have appendicitis according to the symptoms I saw on WebMD!" or some other crazy diagnosis based on a few random symptoms (that could belong to any number of other more benign problems).
So yes, I think this is a huge issue and that the Pharmacy companies are really doing a dis-service to people when they convince them that this medicine is the next best thing and to "ask your Doctor about it!" because when they go in and want that medicine but are denied it because it is not appropriate for them or has too many negative interactions with existing medicines they are angry with the Doctor and think that they are "incompetent" somehow. Instead, they need to trust the fact that Doctors go through years of rigorous training followed by extensive exams to make sure they know what they are doing. I've watched as they both went through medical school and it is a LOT of work, they are extremely knowledgeable and there is no way I would try to tell doctors what I have since i'm not qualified to offer an opinion on it.
"To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield." - Tennyson
But I'm pretty certain the US is the only country in the world where prescription drugs are marketed directly to the public.
I love it how most of the drugs I see on TV, most of the rare side effects include severe heart attack requiring hospitalization.
That's why you find a good doctor to consult, isn't it? As a corollary, it behooves you to read the fine print and ask your pharmacist for their opinion. They may be better educated about side effects and ultimate results. Anecdotal reports are important in this case! As a third step, you should be careful to note how the medicine affects you. Any points of concern should be addressed with your primary care physician and/or pharmacist.
I reserve the right to think for myself. Others' opinions are optional. Puppy on lap = typos...not illiteracy.
I personally ignore them. I'll trust my doctor over a TV commercial any day. If he thinks I need some drug, he'll suggest or prescribe it.
Check out the cave on the east side of lake Hylia. Strange and wonderful things live in it.
One, new drugs come out ALL of the time. It is impossible for a doctor to know every new drug out there, even with continuing education. These commercials, along with the "pharmaceutical companies bribes" and "pharm babes"(cute drug reps), serve a purpose in educating doctors as well as consumers.
Two, doctors don't know all of the existing drugs before they graduated from medical school, did their residency, etc. They don't have full knowledge of the thousands of drugs that were out there, they were too busy studying where things are in the body, and accepted ways to fix them.
Three, NEVER count on a M.D. for drug information. They have VERY little pharmacology training, and almost no knowledge on drug interactions. That is what pharmacists are for. Doctors prescribe drugs to keep you alive, pharmacists stop them from killing you.
What exactly does a "pharmaceutical consulting group" do, anyway? Something good, like "Facilitate open communication between drug companies and doctors?" Or something bad like "Figure out how to push more drugs whether people need them or not?"
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Those ads triggered Bush's Medicare prescription plan, which is a significant portion of the $50 trillion overhang of unfunded future liabilities of the U.S. government. We Gen X'ers don't owe the baby boomers patented drugs. If they want to be drugged off the public dole, they should be happy with ten-year-old drugs (first ten years of patented medicine is with the FDA).
I'm not sure ignoring patients' comments necessarily makes a good doctor. I'm sure there are a lot of idiots saying dumb shit to their doctors. And I don't blame doctors for just gradually filtering out that stuff and ignoring what the patients have to say. But I don't know if it's good.
In the times I've dealt with doctors I've come to realize that the vast majority of them are not interested in listening to your self-diagnosis. And we probably have idiotic patients brainwashed by advertising to thank for that. Doctors just want to perform tests or give you some medicine to experiment with and see if it makes a difference. And that's great, it works well for colds and flus and simple ailments. But for more complex things, they can make mistakes, or have a bias for expensive surgical procedures. You can go in there with allergy symptoms and end up under the knife, just because your doctor has grown accustomed to working in his own insular little world. And I don't know if that's better.
Either way, I think you have to view your doctor as very skilled resource, but ultimately it's yourself who is responsible for your own well-being.
Yes because it convinced many that they had "Adult Attention Deficit Disorder" which isn't real or whatnot but rakes in big bucks (ritalin ftw)
No, because hospitals are more dangerous to your health than any drug ad. So what if people think they need something, if they don't trust their doctor they should get a new one.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
I find these kind of ads to be downright scarry.
Joe Public does not have the training to understand what he has, or what he needs to cure it. Half of the medications they market like this solve issues that shouldn't be an issue to begin with, but are becasue of bad health choices. Overall, it seems like they go out of their way to not state anything of any importance in these ads.
Its always some older, fit guy walking through a forest, or up a mountian, or over a desert. Its always some beautiful vista with chirping birds and sunsets. Ocean waves and soft rain.
It never says anything about the damn drug, it wont advise you of the side effects in a way that you'd actually grasp what it could do, it never identifies how to diagnose whatever it is it is supposed to cure other then some really vague term "Do you wake up at night? Do your legs feel weird, like they need to move? Does your wife seem unhappy?"
Price is never in a commercial of this sort, they dont present other options, they only tell you to ask your doctor about their product. thats it. Ask about viagra, cialis, caduet, whatever. Bug him with 10,000 drugs you dont want or need, in the hopes a few are sold.
Reasonable people will disagree over whether these commercials are good or bad, but banning this type of commercial speech can have unintended consequences. Maybe all commercials are bad. There are all kinds of speech that cause problems in one way or another. There are all kinds of speech that society would be much better off without. But free speech is so valuable that it is worth it to suffer the ill effects of bad speech. Bad speech should be countered with good speech, not censorship.
There is a huge ethical debate within the Healthcare community on Medication Advertising. On one hand, some people might not know that options beyond what the doctor is suggesting exists. This fact makes Medication Advertising an additional component to Informed Consent, an important concept within Healthcare in the USA. On the other hand, every female hypochondriac might be going, "I think I am suffering from ED."
It does cause Patients to push doctors into subscribing medicine. I am not sure that is any better or worse then vendor reps pushing doctors into subscribing medicine.
In God we trust, all others require data.
You can't link a prescription drug with the disease/condition it treats in advertising. So you can have the following ads: -Couple living a happy life... "Talk to your doctor about X" -"Condition Y could be serious, talk to your doctor today about treatments available" So companies produce vague commercials where you have no idea what the drug does, just so they can get the name out there, and commercials hyping up a certain condition just to get people pestering their doctor about possible treatments. This is usually coupled with pestering doctors about their product.
Magic doesn't work in my presence. My power of disbelief is too strong.
This is partly why in Canada commercials for pharmaceuticals are restricted to one of the following:
1. Explain what the drug does, WITHOUT saying its name.
2. Say the drugs name, but don't explain what it does.
Hence the reason why our Viagra ads have some guy bouncing (jumping) in a very stiff standing position down a street with a huge smile on his face, then it says: "VIAGRA" at the end.
Open Source Time and Attendance, Job Costing a
When I moved to the US from Europe I was amazed to see a really terrible pill-popping culture here, where you can (and most people do) get a pill for almost anything, even though adverts on TV make it clear most drugs side-effects are way more serious than the symptom they are attempting to address.
In the US it seems pefectly acceptable that normal people are on at least one presription at any one time, which is ridiculous. I'm amazed by the amount of perscriptions the average person (i.e. my frinds) have in their bathroom cabinets here. Its a massive marketing scam by the drug companies.
I'm sure this has a direct correlation to very low average age of natural death in the US comapared to most other countries.
I'm the ex-wife of a doctor, and I can tell you the inside story about this.
The truth value of the above quote depends very much on what is meant by 'trained'. If your doctor's training occurred thirty years ago, and if he or she doesn't keep up with the latest research, then there could be great benefit from patient knowledge... even if that knowledge is only scant or one-sided.
Very many -- perhaps even most -- senior doctors don't bother to keep abreast of the state of the art. You know how most peoples' minds congeal at around age thirty, because they've "thought enough" and now have it All Figured Out? The same phenomenon occurs with doctors too, of course, but much worse because they already have a deity complex. So, it could well be the case that new research information is flowing like this:
TV commercial -> patient -> doctor
The doctor would then be prompted to read up on some new drug which his or her patients are requesting.
Good-quality doctors are already doing their homework, and I'm sure they're tired of the deluge that washes into their office each time a new drug hits the airwaves during Wheel of Fortune. But we aren't hearing the other half of the story -- about all the doctors who (would never admit that they) hear about new drugs through their patients.
FATMOUSE + YOU = FATMOUSE
The REAL reason this works for the drug companies is the patients don't have to pay for the drugs, or only pay a small portion of the cost. Their insurance company hides the real cost of the drug from the patient.
If patients are spending their own money on drugs they don't need, no biggie. But when they use their insurance to pay for drugs they don't need, everyone ends up paying more for insurance.
This doesn't need to be solved by the government. Insurance companies just need to reduce or eliminate their reimbursements for drugs that are advertised. Put an ad for your drug on television? Fine - but my insurance company won't cover it anymore.
paintball
I left pharmaceutical sales because, quite frankly, I was tired of being nothing more than an interruption in a doctor's day. In fact, I left sales entirely as a result of that experience.
The entire purpose of pharmaceutical sales at the doctor, clinic and hospital administration level is this: To abnormally influence the prescribing of drugs beyond what information is public by way of peer-reviewed scientific research. The drugs your doctors prescribe are sometimes influenced by how many pens, pads, lunches, dinners and other free crap are given to the physician and/or his staff. The drugs your insurance company covers are most influenced by what pharmaceutical company wines and dines the formulary administrators the most.
Physicians and administrators who participate in golf junkets, etc., are just as much to blame, but that doesn't remove the culpability of the pharmaceutical companies who know exactly what they're doing and are constantly pushing to be able to intrude even more in the treatment of a patient by way of these methods.
There are examples of egregious behavior at various levels of the pharmaceutical business ranging from minor nuisances to egregious breaches of ethics. One competing company's rep, while I was covering Mayo Clinic, got his company kicked out for six months by following a physician into his office WHILE the physician was seeing a patient... What was the rep's urgent matter? To deliver his canned sales pitch for his product. There have been pharmaceutical companies nailed for including large gifts in honorariums given to physicians for speaking on behalf of their products.
Mayo Clinic is one of the few institutions that has extremely strict rules... No pens, no pads, no papers, samples are signed in through a controlled process giving the rep very limited access to physicians. At the same time, they'll gladly throw up a banner for your product if you'll give them a huge research grant... While that's no guarantee that they'll bias the research in the pharma company's favor, human nature is such that money tends to drive a sense of obligation to the benefactor.
The advertisements have taken the Creationist approach to marketing... by appealing to the opinions and attitudes of the average, uninformed layperson. In doing so, they are still interfering in the process without really contributing anything of value that cannot be obtained by a physician who keeps up by reading the peer-reviewed journals on his or her own time... as a good physician will want to do. Physicians already have a motivation to do this research... it's called avoiding malpractice lawsuits.
Previously reputable pharmaceutical companies have stepped up and started direct advertising to consumers on television... It's getting worse and the cacophony of products being advertised by these companies creates a confusing atmosphere of insufficient information that does what exactly? The commercials don't begin by encouraging patients experiencing certain symptoms to go see their doctor and let them do their educated diagnoses. The ads begin by summarizing symptoms in a manner that creates a sort of confirmation bias, i.e. rattling off a barrage of symptoms, one of which might lead the viewer to suspect they need the drug... while ignoring the specific COMBINATION of symptoms that preclude a specific diagnosis. Then the ads encourage the patient who SUSPECTS they might have this problem not to go to the doctor and find out the proper course of treatment... but to "ask your doctor for".
They know what they're doing and even though I agree, simultaneously, in the principle of customer awareness... The ignorance of the average customer does not change the fact that it was the intention of the company to defraud and profit on the basis of that ignorance and therefore does not make the company any less responsible for doing so.
While I agree that medical science is a luxury and not a public utility, the health of a country's citizens does directly impact the nation's
I can see the need for pharma companies to advertise their OTC drugs, but the prescription ones are the ones i seem to see the most. Why do they advertise something that needs a doctors permission in the end anyway? It seems they're blowing millions if not billions on these adds which they must make back by overpricing their already overpriced products. IMHO there should be a ban on adds for prescription drugs. It seems they could do much more productive things with the $ they waste on them. Like lower MSRPs or provide discounts to third world patients since they are essentially killing many of them by not allowing immediate generics.
One, because I resent the pharmaceutical companies trying to attack the subconscious mind of the consumer to pressure doctors, but mostly because no matter what they tell you about the drugs, they do not know the long-term effects of these drugs.
They've run experiments and computer models, but the only way to learn the true extent of the drugs is experience. The risks cannot be ignored. I mean, the tell you about the risks of heart-attack, stroke, and liver failure on these commercials - can you imagine the potential effects they aren't aware of, or aren't telling the public?
This article points out that even doctors are susceptible to drug company advertising:
"...according to a review published in the Jan. 19, 2000, Journal of the American Medical Association. Ashley Wazana, M.D., of McGill University, analyzed 29 studies of relations between doctors and the pharmaceutical industry and found that the industry's marketing efforts clearly influence doctors' prescribing habits, although most doctors do not believe this to be true."
Before posting, replace "doctor" with "IT guy" or "Linux expert" and "patient" with "user" and tell me if you still believe what you're about to write.
Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Fuck yes. Yes, yes, yes, yes, and yes.
Between the television ads and the constant payola the pharmaceutical companies are giving to the doctors, you are lucky to get a perscription drug that has a generic. Too many morons demand what they saw during Oprah, and the crooked doctors are more than happy to assume that you are one of them.
The ads should be banned, but more importantly the pharmaceutical industry needs some good old-fashioned regulation.
If this atttitude comes directly from your wife, I hope her malpractice insurance is paid up.
Yes, because we all know that not prescribing a useless medication is a good sign of malpractice....
I'm not a doctor, but a computer tech. I've had any number of people who insisted the *knew* what was wrong with their computer (relatives are particularly bad), for example insisting that their network card is broken because a particular webpage shows up. How about the masses that install "Toolbar X" because it claims their computer is slow.
Or my grandparents, whom every time their internet has issues, the ISP (Telus) gets them to unplug their damn router and plug their windows box into the internet giving it a live IP and leaving it at the mercy of whatever roaming infection might pass by... they do it every time.
Now I've seen what the power of suggestion can do to people. I've known people who were scared to death imagining that they had all sorts of unpleasant things, oftimes to the point where their mental state has created not only mental (imagined) but in fact real (physical) medical symptoms. One person thought he had been exposed to a particular condition, and stressed about it so much symptoms appeared and it took five months and about four doctors to calm him down enough that they went away (never to come back).
Now, I doubt a doctor is going to act like that if somebody "asks" about a medication. Although being continually asked about "medication X" because it's been recently on the TV 24/7 is probably somewhat irritating. However, when the doctor gets the hypochrindriac symptom-imagining person who insists they have condition Y and demands access to medication X... I can see the point of the parent.
Furthermore, a discussion would likely go like this:
Patient: "Have you considered OverPricedMedication (tm)? Isn't that sopposed to help me?"
Doctor: No, you have condition X and that is for condition Y. In addition, that medication has the symptoms of A, B, and C.
Patient: But I saw it on TV and it's supposed to work great. Plus I heard blah blah blah
Doctor: This medication won't help you etc etc
Patient: I want to try it anyways
Doctor: Writes prescription
(patient stops taking his regular proper medication and switches to just OverPricedMedication)
Patient: Three weeks later. I took OverPricedMedication, which you wrote me a prescription for. It didn't help me and now I'm sicker and also have A, B, and C
Doctor: I told you this...
Patient: I'm gonna sue, SUE, SUE!!!
How else would I learn that it's possible to have an erection for longer than 4 hours?
But back to the subject of this comment: If they're spending more money advertising a pill than developing it, we're paying for them to advertise drugs to us that either we need because a doctor knows we do, or that we want because a commercial told us we do. I mean, what the hell is restless leg syndrome? OH MY GOD! I HAVE A SYNDROME!
Pharmaceutical companies, and medicine in general, have a rather special ability to jack up their prices almost at will. The industry is a complex controlled by a small handful of players who dan defy market economics and hand us a single proposition: "If you don't buy our services, you'll die." This isn't like the food industry, although ADM, "the supermarket to the world," is trying to make it happen. If caviar is through the roof, I'll do without. If the price of asparagus doubles, I'll buy string beans instead. But if my heart medicine is too expensive, I buy it or I fucking die.
And they're engaged in unnecessary activities, that dramatically increase costs, by marketing drugs to unqualified decision makers.
This is not my sandwich.
The FDA wants to control the flow of information to us, because we
cannot be trusted to make decisions for ourselves.
Ban pharma commercials just like they banned tobacco ads on TV. Synthetic drugs are not the way to go. Our bodies are organic! Does anyone wonder why pharmaceuticals compromise the liver and kidneys? Your body can't handle synthetics. Most drugs are derivitives of herbs anyway, so just use the herbs! You'll be much better off. Here's a company whose products can even help the body cure cancer http://www.new-chapter.com/ - check out the report on Zyflamend. Dr. Katz, The Director of Holistic Urology at Columbia University Hospital confirmed this in clinical trials. Are we so dumb as to be duped by Big Pharma?, who by the way published most of the medical textbooks being used by medical schools. Sound like Medical Mafia to anyone?
Jerry Kilmer
Parsippany, New Jersey
http://www.s104307521.onlinehome.us/thai.html
...Avoid all drugs that are currently advertised on TV unless absolutely necessary.
They don't advertise drugs that are old and off patent; they advertise drugs from which they can make a boat-load of dough. So in general the new purple pill for whatever has only been on the market for a few years and thus has only had a few years of post-marketing surveillance which makes them inherently more dangerous.
When a drug comes to market it has usually been tested on only up to 10,000 people through phase 3 trials. After it gets to market, we do what is essentially a 'phase 4 trial' where a drug we think is safe (based on about 10K subjects) now gets tested on a million subjects. So if there is a rare but serious complication that occurs with the drug, often this will only become apparent after the drug is marketed. This is the reason that every so often we hear of new drug X being withdrawn from the market. (For example: Baycol, Vioxx, etc.)
Now, admittedly the hype over such post-marketing withdrawals is generally way overdone. The FDA is a bunch of hacks, the drug companies are poisoning us, and our doctors are part of a communist plot. Whatever.
What really happens is that a drug only tested on 10,000 people may very well kill 1:5,000 people who use it and we may not know that based on statistical vagaries of limited studies.
However, the point is that the newfangled drug that you saw on TV may have a cheaper, safer, and just as effective 20 year old cousin who has withstood 'phase 4 trials' and demonstrated its safety. Being new, fancy, flashy, advertised on TV, or even easier to use, doesn't make a drug better or safer any more than it does an OS.
Nick
If you ask me, the side-effects are worse than the aliment the medicine helps with nine times out of ten. "Do you have trouble sleeping? Side-effects may include headache, vomiting, stomach pain, hot flashes, disorientation, sever bleeding from the eyes, and drowsiness. This medicine is not intended for people who have suffered a heart attack or if you have a history of heart problems. Women who are pregnant or nursing should not handle this medicine due to development issues in children under 24 months. Keep out of the reach of children." I think that people just need to listen to the whole ad before they decide that its something they need.
"I'm not a patient but I play one on TV"
"I'm not a doctor but I play one on TV"
I hated seeing that crap during primetime news, and it is one of the major reasons I threw broadcast TV out the window seven years ago.
Eternity: will that be smoking, or non-smoking? I Corinthians 6:9-10
Lymphoma. What, you mean ***CANCER***?
If they put a drug out that give you back your hair, yet causes you cancer, what's the point? Chemo's gonna take it right back from you.
Just advertisement for the companies.
Maybe I am wishing or dreaming, but at the end of these info-mercials, there's always seems to be to many side-effects mentions.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
"Why, oh why, do drug makers not realize that if you don't TELL PEOPLE WHAT YOUR DRUG IS FOR..."
Those damn spammers are even worse - I've been getting spam for hoodia and cialis for years, and I still have no idea what either one is for. I mean come on, if they're going to bother sending millions of emails you'd think they'd at least try to get me to buy their crap rather than just fill my inbox with cryptic messages about random shit.
Then our new and improved prescription drugs might be right for you! See your doctor today to find out because obviously he wouldn't tell you about the medicines you really need. Side effects include insomnia, diarrhea, ulcers, cramps, and in some rare cases death. If you have a pulse, please notify your doctor of this condition before taking our product.
I think TV itself is harmful with contents full of agitating, manipulating, and seductive messages. These days watching TV means watching ads. Why must I watch ads when I've already paid $50 / month for cable? I find TV programs outside of the US are much better and reasonably priced. I quit watching TV altogether about a year ago, and have been quite happy with the decision.
In the Netherlands(in the rest of Europe as well) it's illegal to advertise prescription drugs. It's also illegal for any food company to put misleading claims on their products like Light Chips that contain 33% less fat while they're still stuffed with fat and sugar. I think that's the only way right way.
Man, that's the greatest disease ever; how do *I* get that?
"Time is an abstract concept devised by carbon-based lifeforms to monitor their ongoing decay." - Thundercleese
The researchers concluded that the generally ambiguous ads, which appeal almost entirely to emotion rather than fact, tend to confuse viewers.
I've concluded that the generally unethical vacation packages and incentive programs, which appeal almost entirely to emotion rather than fact, tend to confuse doctors.
I have found there are just two ways to go.
It all comes down to livin' fast or dyin' slow. -REK, Jr.
I have this discussion with people all the time who seem to think that pharma companies have razor-thin margins and spend all their money on R&D. The truth is that their margins are between 20% and 30% and they spend massive amounts of money on marketing. If you want a company with tiny margins and huge R&D expenses, look at AMD, not Phizer.
But I really don't need to hear about the latest pill to relieve genital herpies outbreaks while I'm trying to eat dinner. Then again, along those same lines, I really don't need to hear about the latest Viagra alternative while I'm eating dessert, either.
Only two countries in the world allow Big Pharma to market D2C (Direct To Consumer): The USA and, stupidly, New Zealand. In most respects we (NZ) have a rational government, but in this one regard our politicians fell asleep at the wheel and let the Pharmas take over.
In my view, there can't be ANY advertising which is less helpful than the pushing of prescription medicines on TV. I'd rather see our local prostitutes get air time.
How many escape pods are there? "NONE,SIR!" You counted them? "TWICE, SIR!"
I think drug ads should be banned, since they encourage people to self-diagnose non-existent ailments and take medications they don't need.
Someone was telling me about a study that looked into why prescription drugs cost more in the United States than anywhere else. The answer, according to the study, was that American drug prices are high in large part because of all the advertising done for the drugs.
Anyone have more details?
Stupid job ads, weird spam, occasional insight at
I've had this continuing problem with my current doctor that he keeps prescribing me these very, very expensive medicines, even though I've told him that I can't afford $50 co-pays on my medicine.
No! It's a *SIG*. Keep the Special Interest Groups away! (Con joke!)
Drug commercials on TV only demostrate that the drug industry is pushing pills we dont really need.
However, the most damage done is that Democrats and the the less intelligent of society now believe the tv and think they need these pills. However, Democrats want to take money from their neighbors to pay for it.
I, for one, welcome our new Pfizer overlords. badumpump
I think most people have known about this for years. It is the primary reason that the cost of drugs is so high in the US. In other countries (like Canada) the same drug manufactured by the same company costs about half as much. This is because the drug companies are not allowed to add advertising costs to the cost of the drug. They will tell the public that it is "development" cost, but they are lying. Constant TV advertising also increases the amount of hypercondriacs that our overstressed health care professionals have to deal with.
Dizziness, nausea, upset stomach, vaginal bleeding, constipation, diahrea, retinal hemorhage, and anal leakage.
Do not handle broken pills. Do not take this medication if you are lactating, on a MAO inhibitor, or sleep at night.
Pregnant women and small children should not look directly at the drug.
Consult your physician if you think this drug is right for you!!
What really bothers me is the pharma commercials that don't even say what the stuff is used for. I understadn there's some rule that in order to say what the drug is for then they also have to list the known side-effects, and in order to not scare people away with the side-effect listing they sometimes just don't tell us what it does and how we might benefit from it. They show some people looking happy because they apparently had some unnamed medical situation and this magic pill was just what they needed for whatever it was they were suffering from. Why get the public all excited about something, sick people run to the doctor and pay for visits only to find out that this thing they want to try is intended to ease the pain of cronic lymphoma cancer and all I have is high cholesterol. It's a dumb idea IMHO.
But sometimes you can see why pharma wouldn't want you or me knowing the side-effects. Some of those sound far worse than what the pill treats. Such as some arthritis pain medication or somesuch causing cancer and things like that, maybe I'll just try and tough it out with ibuprofen instead of going into a new treatment that has a known possibility to make life a lot more miserable.
I find the current crop of pharma ads to be useless. If they aren't willing to tell me what the drug is for, just to save a few seconds of airtime cost, I'm damn sure not going to jump through hoops to send for their DVD, or waste my and my doctor's time asking him about something I may or may not need.
If you had never heard of McDonald's, would you be influenced by an ad showing a woman walking around her house, staring wistfully at pictures of food, followed by the voiceover: "Send for our free DVD explaining the benefits of BigMac, and ask your food service representative if BigMac might be right for you"?
Feh.
that's right. i'll take this opportunity to be the pompous jackass who points out "i don't have a TV," which makes me better.
no i have not shot my gun in the air and gone 'Ahh!'
What bugs me more are the commercials for weight loss, memory enhancing, etc herbal-based drugs that have no FDA approval process like the pharmaceuticals do. As long as they flash the teeny tiny disclamer about not being intended to treat, diagnose, or cure any disease, blah blah, they can make all the claims they want. In the case of Hydroxycut, they have a doctor (really a med student) endorsing the product.
The era of snake oil hasn't left us.
Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?
Is create a drug called something like "SoylenG", "SoylentGre" or something similar that is actually a poison. The ads should say the same as all the others, "Ask you doctor if SoylenG is right for you" without telling what it does or what it is for. Then the doctor could honestly asnwer, YES it is right for you. Sure would weed out the stupid people fast.
I guess you can put me down for a yes on this one. Pharma ads are bad news.
It is irresponsible as a nation to let the vast financial resources of the baby boomer generation sit around unused in bank accounts.
Pharmaceutical companies and other industries that produce "health" ads keep this money flowing. I jump up and shout "Huzzah" everytime I see the restless leg commercial (partly because of my resltess legs but mostly because I'm a fiscal liberal!).
Who knows if you should have a drug? The Doctors. Don't be silly!
Most americans believe in all kinds of crazy^H^H^Heative new treatments. I for one bathe daily in silver colloid while gargling tumeric. I never drink, but I don't see anything wrong with guzzling down homeopathic "medicines" that are 99.99% sugar and ethanol.
Have you ever seen a drug commercial that explains nothing about what the drug is for or who should take it? (No, don't answer out loud, this is a rhetorical question.)
Put that curiosity to the test and go hound your physician for a prescription.
It's not just the drug companies that are tapped into this revenue.
Oh say, have you ever considered scooting around on your own geriatric scooter? Like the ad says "I never expected them to be so nice". When some neglected senior in their 60s-80s whose children refuse to call or visit sees that ad, gee, maybe its worth a few grand in SS checks to hear some nice metrosexual chat with them about their African violets. After all, in only six months they'll be able to afford to eat again.
Faith: Belief in Truth. Superstition: Belief in Falsehood.
Valtrex! I don't know what it does, but some hot chicks take it, so it must be alrighty then!!!1!
I gots to gets mes mines!
This is the NSA, we're gonna geet U h@x0r5! Also, what is a h@x0r5?
and no I don't have VD
So I think they are kinda funny.
But when the ED commercials come on and my 8 yr old daughter asks what is ED it gets a little frustrating to have to explain what a ED is.
I think they should be required to show them after 10pm
-- I am the NRA, enough said...
I do have a problem with drug companies advertizing prescription drugs to the general public. If someone sees the ads and insists that a doctor give him that medication and then develops problems (the advertized drugs are mostly patented and new. The side effects are only poorly understood. Those that are are generally severe), who will take the heat from the inevitable lawsuit? Not the company that created the problem.
That's wrong. I believe that by advertizing, they should be assumed to be liable for all the problems they create. They have bypassed the trained professional to reach the patient, they should be the ones with thier feet to the fire.
Everybody knows 3 people with my name.
the pharmaceutical industry used be banned by law from advertising. (at least on tv). then, thanks to lobbyists, those laws were obliterated. more money is spent on advertising drugs than almost anything else now if i'm not mistaken. we have been and are still being "programmed" to think we NEED drugs of every kind for everything down to a chipped finger nail. natural treatments are often as or more effective than drugs without the side-effects. now combine that with the effect of the different pharmaceutical corporations lawyers' writing the law that became the medicare part d program and you've got a good idea of the recent history of drugs in america. (yes, for a long time, (lobbyists as a middle-man), congress has been allowing major corporations' lawyers to write our laws. quid pro quo: An equal exchange or substitution.[something for something.])
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/ Ron Paul for President 2008 http://www.infowars.com/
I think it's pretty disgusting that, at 22, I still know all the words to the Puppy Surprise jingle from when I was under 10-years-old. Advertising is all crap. All of it (on TV anyway). Either a product is good and doesn't need to be spotlighted because it actually has value that people will search and pay for, or a product is bad and it is necessary to lie (story-tell) extensively in order to create demand that would not otherwise be there.
"Give...Live...Love...Coke" sounds a lot better than "Got Poison?"
Since truth in advertising is (nearly) meaningless, pharmaceutical ads are particularly dangerous. As people have pointed out in comments above, it's quite obviously your doctor's job (and not yours) to diagnose your disease. But what about diseases of a more subjective nature? "If you've been sad for 'six weeks or more,' then you MAY have [unproven disease] ASSOCIATED WITH biochemical changes in the brain." The science of suggestion is very dangerous business. Most people experience emotional times in their lives and if they go to their doctor convinced that they need a certain drug, they may end up getting it...even if they don't need it.
I'll say it again: if a product is good, it shouldn't need to be spoonfed to people in-between clips of entertainment. If it isn't good, then it almost certainly will be. How's that for capitalist "incentive?"
I've had a couple good replies to this post, so I want to clearify my original post
I hate hearing about people demanding drugs after seeming them on TV, thinking they know better than a professional with 4+ years of training.
Hate is a strong word, one I shouldn't have used. I did not mean to say that the physician always knows best. Sometimes the patient is in a better position because they have done some type of research, usually far more than seeing an ad on TV or print. You should ask your doctor question about any treatment they are prescribing. Yes, it can be intimidating, but ultimately, you will be the one undergoing treatment, if your not comfortable with it, there may be problems. If you present what you have been finding out about your medical condition to your doctor, most will listen.
Also, most of the time an off-patent generic drug that's been around for years is more beneficial than those new drugs being advertised.
This is an statement that I have heard one way or another made by some of the health professionals I've had contact with in my life. I'm not a physician, I'm wasn't qualified to make that statement. There are probably many advertised drugs that are significantly better then the generics, but might be overkill for some conditions and people. Only you and your physician will know what will be best.
Accentuate the positive, don't waste your mod points on the negative.
Drug companies pay firms to publish their results in journals. My mom works for for one of these firms. They'll get some information from a drug company, write it up in a paper, then find some doctor to sign his name to the paper. (Occationally the doctor will write the paper (again, based on the drug companies info).) It is then published in a peer reviewed journal. Evidently they are having trouble finding doctors who are willing to sign their name to these things.
From what my mom says, the information won't get out otherwise--the drug companies will just hold on to it if they can't control what the output looks like. It all seems like a pretty sleezy business.
chiefthe
This was a quote of Kurt Vonnegut that didn't fit.
Also, keep in mind that the full list of side effects includes things that don't even necessarily have a causal relationship with the drug. If some guy who was participating in a cholesterol drug trial got mauled by a bear, I would only be half surprised to see "May cause bear maulings" listed.
They are evil. They are annoying. And, I really don't want to hear how I can stop having itchy, watery eyes if I am willing to put up with constapation, erectile disfunction, loss of sex drive, unusal hair growth and anal leakage.
I felt much better when they weren't on TV
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Imagine you have been going to the doctor for treatment for a condition with no success and you are told there are no more options and you have to live with it. So you stop going and decide to live with it. By what mechanism other then marketing are you supposed to know there is a new drug to treat it?
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
I think those ads are insanely stupid and a waste of my time. They're also depressing. Yes, people, leave the prescribing to the pros, thanks.
This is a slight tangent, but I also wanted to point out the pharmaceutical industry on a whole has profit margins in the order of 30%. That's not on a drug, or before nondrug expenses... that's after EVERYTHING. Marketing, HR, salaries, operating expenses.... everything. 30 cents of every dollar that the company makes goes directly into the company's bank account. That's the best margin in any industry in the world.
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
Yeah the TV commercials are not really that damaging to the people who watch them. The key problem is that the companies dump too much $$ into their commercialization of the products that prevents them to offer a cheaper product (or higher profit margins) and more effective products.
I think they're great! I like the one where the guy is riding on the horse, with the voiceover "He lives in rough country... he takes Lipitor!" Something had to fill the hole left by taking the liquor and cigarette ads off the air. I wish I was the guy with the hot wife in bed all wasted on Lunesta. I know what I'd do! I'm gonna talk to my doctor and get me some of that lifestyle, man.
Considering every other ad on TV is for a drug these days, I'm not buying the, "But research is expensive!" crap.
Advertising is expensive; if they have the money to bombard us with LOL ASK YOUR DOCTOR ABOUT PRODUCTOL! every fifteen minutes, I have no pity for them when it comes to their research budgets.
Does anyone know the name of the song on the Flomax commercial? I dig that tune but have no way of finding out what the namer of the song or artist.
It's the one that goes 'na-na-na-na-na-na-na. na-na-na' with a violin and shit....
All your base are belong to us!
I'm a physician in a small latin american country. The amount of phamaceutical ads on TV and in other media has increased dramatically lately. Unfortunately in our countries, there is very little enforcement of prescription regulations to start with. So we end up with a situation where a vast majority of people are self medicating themselves - or even worse - playing doctor and recommending medications to their friends/coworkers/neighbors.
I understand the need for the pharmaceutical industry to generate profit. However I think this practice is very unethical and quite irresponsible. I have seen several cases - one of them resulting in the patient's death - where patients had been self medicating and had only come to visit me in an advanced stage of disease. However considering most pharmacologists also play "doctor" at their pharmacy and prescribe medication based on the patients' symptoms, this is hardly surprising. Pharmacologists are experts in medication - more so even than myself. However they are not physicians, and haven't had the training we have to see the patient in an integrated manner.
After all, historically the pharmaceutical industry has always been interested in profit much more than the actual well being of their patients. Which is why their badge is the Caduceus which is associated with commerce, and not the Rod of Asclepius, associated with healing the sick...
So does this practice do more harm than good? I think so.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
If the decision was up to you, I'd say fine. Unfortunately, as things swing further and further away from any potential liability on the part of the health care system, the decision isn't yours alone.
And, should we in the US get saddled with some government-provided health care system, such decisions will no longer be in the hands of either patients or doctors. Or even insurance company paid people. They will be in the hands of government accountants.
(((Yeah, I know. Insurance company accountants vs. government accountants. Right. Except insurance company accountants don't sign checks for $40,000 toilet seats and $600 hammers.)))
What this means, in a liability-adverse environment, is that if you think you are qualified to make a decision about your health care and guess wrong the taxpayers if the country picking up the bill get to pay to correct your mistake. Because if we don't your next of kin can sue someone, and probably will. Can't have that. So, if you take the wrong pill and end up in a coma, we (taxpayers) get to foot the bill for your mistake.
Now if you took responsibility for your decisions and there was no external liability I guess I'd be all for everyone acting as their own doctor and eliminating the whole medical oversight system that is in place. You could just go and pick up whatever you wanted at probably 1/10th the price.
You know that saying about a man acting as his own lawyer has a fool for a client. Goes double for doctors.
But it would be fine if there was nobody that had to be responsible in the end. The truth of the matter is even today someone else is responsible. Someone who is going to get sued if you guess wrong. So they have to pick up the pieces and take care of any mistakes. Therefore the safest and wisest choice available is you don't get to choose. It isn't just better for you - it is better for all of us. Us that would have to pay for your mistakes.
It's startling to change to a US TV channel (up here in Canada) and get bombarded with medical ads and their (almost 50%?) rapid-fire disclaimers.
I get hypochondriac sensations every time I witness one - having a list of symptoms yelled at me every 7 minutes is seriously weird!.
All we seem to get ads for, on our national channels, is viagra and cialis, disclaimer-speech-free (text at the bottom I think). Generally less-attention snatching volume levels in most commercials, too.
.
. hmmm
I agree. Ads generate mindshare based on emotional responses. People have "heard of" certain drugs and feel that they must be better because it's a "big name" drug; they walk into my office asking for it, and I have to tell them why it's not that great a choice. That precious time could be better spent explaining how to prevent the need for the drug in the first place. Tell a patient that he needs "atorvastatin" or "rosuvastatin", and he'll recoil and exercise his butt off at the gym so he doesn't have to take these horrible meds; but he'll say, "My cousin takes Lipitor and my uncle takes Crestor; why can't I have that?" and I end up running overtime explaining why it's more important to exercise and eat properly instead of getting those big name meds. [1]
A more subtle effect is the idea that patients feel empowered to make decisions because they now have "more information". It's not so much any particular Direct-To-Consumer (DTC) ad as much as the existence of DTC ads themselves. In the US, there is an attitude of "doctors are out to profit at the patients' expense, so we need to mistrust the doctors and take charge", so patients will try to do their own research. Unfortunately, some of them can't tell a HON Certified web site from some circulating email proclaiming that the CA-125 test will save your life or other medical bullsh*t.
The TV ads are designed to give patients an emotional comfort that they have figured out what is the matter, that they are empowered because now there is something they can do about their problem. "Do you sometimes feel tired?" asks the ad. "It could be because of Horrible Disease X!!! But one dose of Placebocillin will cure you!" And the patient feels, "Yes, yes, that's *exactly* what I have! I better demand that drug from my doctor tomorrow!"
I do take the time to explain to my patients, but as a result I'd say that it takes up about 10% of patient time that could be spent on other things. And, yes, I've practiced in a country where there are not DTC ads for prescription medications, and I don't get that sort of questions.
-----
[1]: Lipitor = "atorvastatin"; Crestor = "rosuvastatin"
404555974007725459910684486621289147856453481154 in hex is "You sank my Battleship?"
[GPG key in journal]
Quietus(tm) - You decide when.
Thanks to one of those ads, I put two and two together and came up with "High Blood Pressure." Tested the hypothesis and it was correct. Going to the doctor early next week. While I think the ads probably do more harm than good overall, anything that gets you thinking about your health and talking to a doctor about problems is probably not a bad thing entirely.
In Canadan (Your Northern Cousins) it is illegal to state in an ad both the name of the drug and its intended use. Either or not both. So as a result there is very little drug advertising done on TV. During a typical 1 hour prime time show i might see one (1) viewing of a single drug. Compared to the american channels which will have 2-4 ads per break.
Ride recklessly only when safe to do so.
I don't want to take anything away from the doctors but my wife is a Medical Assistant in a Cardiology office here in WA state and the sales reps pretty much tell the doctors how much these medicines will benefit the patient, it's all hype from my point of view. The doctors do some research but it's predominately from the test results provided by the company that developed the medication.
It's all about making money instead of helping people; The doctors must see a patient every 15 minutes. The HMO's etc are running meat factories designed for optimal throughtput with minimal interaction. Interaction takes up valuable time.
Of course many doctors don't care about the 15 minute thing they are there to help.
that's what I think of the drug ads.
s ong_download
and take this, perferably with a light snack an hour before bedtime....
http://cu.convio.net/site/PageServer?pagename=Rx_
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
Pharmaceutical companies. Once out of med school, its the marketing machine that kindly informs, holding seminars and the like, our doctors of all the latest advances in their drugs. Its no wonder drugs are over-prescribed.
It really bugs me that after nearly every anti-drug, just-say-no, add there are 4 or 5 pharm. ads pushing their drugs at us. What message are we sending our kids?
OK, now that you know you have high blood pressure did your doctor tell you to exercise more and eat right? Or did he offer you a pill? Most people can control their blood pressure without taking any medications. Not all but most. Also there are breathing exercises that can substantially lower your blood pressure if you just do them a couple of times a day for 15 minutes. Now, I ask again, did your doctor go straight to the drug you saw on TV?
My employer recently cut back on the medical plan. Now that I have to pay part of my prescription, I think I was better off in India. In the name of R&D the prices, the Pharmaceutical companies are asking are ridiculous. Give you an example of a generic drug Tylenol sells for 50 cents for a pack of 10 500mg. Here I have paid as high as $8 for the same thing. When you have a system where you are not allowed to buy drugs without prescription, why the hell do they advertise. One extra expense that the consumers have to bear.
...do not taunt Happy Fun Pill.
They should just be banned. Period. They do nothing but confuse and subvert the public.
That's because most prescription drugs advertised on television were invented in the past twenty years (with up to the first half of those twenty years involving the wait for FDA approval). There is no generic PDE5 inhibitor of the -afil family, and there will not be until 2013 when the patent on sildenafil citrate (VIAGRA®) expires.
And this includes the pharmaceutical companies. But the won't stop. Why? Because drug ads are like a weapon the pharma companies use against each other. If the competition has them, you have to have them too to compete. Right now the drug companies spend more on marketing and advertising than they do on actual drug development.
If drug ads were banned again like they used to be, everyone would benefit. The drug companies could all spend more money on drug development, consumers would stop getting misleading information, and Doctors would stop being put in the position of being a high-paid pharmacist.
AccountKiller
Doctor, I get a hard-on every time I see those pharmaceutical commercials.
Is that normal, or do you have a pill to fix that?
If you believe what advertisers tell you instead of what your doctor tells you, you get what you deserve...
The target audience gets heartburn because they eat too much and are overweight.
I know this because I am friends with a general practitioner (been an MD for about 15 years now) and he tells me that people in shape, like the actors in the commercials - in general - don't get heartburn.
I also know this because I was one of those people that got heartburn regularly. Once I started eating properly and getting back in shape, my heartburn disappeared.
For years I suffered what some call "heartburn" but in my case it was my throat. My throat would burn so bad it felt like molten metal was being pored down it. Niether my diet or exercise had anthing to do with it though, when it first appeared I ate mostly health food. My exercise was I rode my bike 100+ miles a week, it was my main transportation, ran several miles a day at least tree days a week for warmups, then after warmup had a class in a martial arts for two hours. I was a busy beaver. Before I took any drug the only way I could get rid of the burning was to either chew and suck on ginger or licorice root. Unfortunately ginger only worked as long as I had a piece to chew on and while licorice worked longer it made me nauseaous. Years later my doc ordered a test wherein a camera is inserted into the throat down to the stomach to take photos. A flap that is supposed to close where the esophagous meets the stomach to prevent the contents of the stomach from going back up the esophagous wasn't properly closing, a condition known as Gastroesophageal reflux disease, or GERD.
FalconShould there be a Law?
We hit the mute button, or better fast forward when those ads come on. I have a young daughter, and those ads do nothing but plant the seed in her mind that all problems can be solved with a pill. Granted, there are some ppl that will truly benefit from taking those medicines, but out of those, how many would not have equally benefited from just going to see their doctor if something was wrong? As an earlier poster noted, most ppl would not have these problems if they would watch their diet and exercise. These ads are bad because they tell ppl that it is not their responsibility, and that they are not accountable for how they treat their body. Everything can be taken care of by taking this pill.
1. New drugs do indeed come out all the time, more than what a doctor can absorb. But most of these drugs are not relevant; they are "me too" drugs that aren't necessary. The classic example is sildenafil (Viagra), which was eventually followed by vardenafil (Levitra) and tadalafil (Cialis). I'm annoyed that I had to study two new drugs that essentially did nothing but make money for their respective manufacturers but were basically the same[1] as sildenafil. If my patients specifically request one or the other, that's what I prescribe; otherwise, I simply use the one that's been around the longest and has the most safety data behind it. So if it weren't for TV ads pushing consumer demand, why is it important for me to learn about Levitra and Cialis? That's like saying that a skilled C++/Java programmer is no good because he doesn't know Visual Smalltalk and Object-Oriented COBOL.
2. Do you seriously consider the TV ads as "educational opportunities"? Perhaps you can learn First Aid and CPR from TV shows? Get a law degree from Law & Order episodes? Enough said about this ridiculous suggestion.
Just for the record: no, drug company dinner presentations are not unbiased. In case you couldn't tell.
Same criticism as before: no, MD's don't know all the drugs, nor do they need to. Do they know all of the *relevant* drugs? Yes, the good doctors do. How could they possibly keep up? They get mandatory Continuing Medical Education (CME) required by the licensing bodies, and attend a certain number of conferences per year where experts discuss peer-reviewed, evidence-based developments in new drugss, new treatments, even new research showing that we no longer need to use certain drugs because they're not found to be of benefit.
Classic recent example: women are no longer prescribed hormone replacement pills(Premarin) when they reach menopause[2]. You think the makers of Premarin were going to tell us that? Perhaps wined and dined by "pharm babes"? Give me a break.
Since you're speaking in absolutes and hyperbole, it's no surprise that you're wrong. Never count on an MD for drug info? So if the doctor says, "This drug can harm your liver," you shouldn't believe him? MD's know the relevant information for drugs they prescribe, and have a better grasp than pharmacists about which side effects to be worried about.
For example, celecoxib (Celebrex, used for arthritis) can cause GI upset. They also cause headache in 15% of people. But guess what? Placebo caused headache in 20% of people. You gonna look up side effects of celecoxib? The list includes things like suicide, overwhelming infection, and perforation of the esophagus. Are you suggesting that your doctor is remiss for not telling you that one patient who committed sui
404555974007725459910684486621289147856453481154 in hex is "You sank my Battleship?"
[GPG key in journal]
Just curious --not trolling or criticising-- I really want to know: You say that the cute little blob commonly seen in the TV ad promoting a certain anti-depressant medication[1] prompted you to seek treatment. Did you end up using that particular medication in your treatment? Or did you end up with a different medication? No medication at all? Did you start with that medication?
-----
[1]: No, I'm not going to use the name of the medication. They don't pay me enough to advertise.
404555974007725459910684486621289147856453481154 in hex is "You sank my Battleship?"
[GPG key in journal]
i mostly ignore ads for pharms, usually they just make me laugh cynically, tossing in the "rare but serious side effects, including sudden death" and the like.
but some drugs, anti-depressants especially shouldnt be advertised ever, everyone feels a little depressed once in a while, and instead of treating the symptom they should treat the cause. your life sucks, change it, dont pop a pill. ssri's and especially maoi's are hard drugs, and the vast number of people taking them dont need them, the same thing with anti-anxiety, should so many people have such horrible anxiety that they cant go about day to day activities without being doped up? i mean life suddenly didnt become more stressful now that these drugs are available, if anything life is for the most part stress-free, and if people survived for 40 thousand years without these drugs, then we dont need em period.
ritalin is prescribed to children for christs sake, because their parents are too lazy to give them adequate attention, they are diagnosed with attention deficit disorder, sometimes adderall, and desoxyn are even prescribed, which are amphetamine, and meth-amphetamine respectively. ritalin is also a cns stimulant, very similar pharmacologically to amphetamines. is this what we want in our children?
then theres the weight loss supplements that masquerade as prescription drugs, with some silly name that to an ignoramus, might appear to be proprietary trademark for a chemical compound.
then they make ridiculous claims on the cause of obesity, such as body fat can increase from having children, getting older, stress at work, lack of exercise. with an animated image of a person getting fat. and since the vast majority of the population are so stupid and lazy that they say, yea your right its not my fault im fat, im just fat because im old and stressed out, and i had too many damn kids. ill gladly spend 100 dollars on a 30 day supply of caffiene and aspirin, i especially trust this product, because its now available without a prescription. which implies it was once only available by a prescription, which it wasnt.
now this product might be infinitely safer than most prescription drugs, but its still misleading, and since its not actually a drug, its considered a supplement they can make claims as outrageous as they want as long as they mention that these statements have not been evaluated by the fda. and also god only knows whats in it, that 250mg of proprietary blend might just be lettuce for all we know.
seriously there is a much more serious problem here, in the past people would drink and smoke pot among other things if they felt they needed a break, now they take hard hard drugs daily. this is a relatively recent change too, the last 50 years, since doctors started prescribing amphetamines to house wives, that was the beginning.
dont do drugs
Instead of ads, perhaps people and doctors should refer to the only site you really ever need: http://dailymed.nlm.nih.gov/dailymed/about.cfm.
At work (a pharma company) today my department (QA) was told we were going to help with Good Promotional Practices for the next year. People have to remember that half the reason that these ads are so oblique lies with government regulations, which make ads both good (ethically) and bad (annoying to watch).
No the real problem with tv pharmaceutical ads are the ads that hawk 'supplements'. It has been proven that the products sold as supplements are a bigger danger than the other FDA-approved drugs. When you sell something as a supplement, you cannot be regulated by the FDA. Instead of going after he major drug companies and their advertisements, why not do something that is actually usful and go after the companies that are sellgin 'supplements' that claim to do everything by make you rich.
Yesterday, while I was watching TV, I saw a ton of commercials that were selling 'supplements' such as, among other things:
1. A glue-stick like product that you roll across your forhead to cure headaches (Head On).
2. An ad for pills that claim to boost your memory (Focus Factor).
3. Ads for CortiSlim and TrimSpa, which claim weight loss (but only when used with a 'sensible' diet. Duh!)
4. Magazine and T.V. ads for a bracelet-like device that claims to fix dozens of bone and joint ailments you have (Q-Ray).
5. A spray-on product that claims to cure bone and joint pain (I forgot the name).
This kind of shameless advertising makes the large drug companies look like saints. It is also known that 'supplements' are usually more dangerous than the-r FDA-approved counterparts. What's more is that it is ILLEGAL for the FDA to even make an attempt to regulate these 'drugs', some of which are contain more potent psychoactive chemicals that vary wildly from batch to batch and even box to box. Just because they contain 'all natural' ingredients is clearly deceptive advertising, as the supplement companies make no mention of the unreliability and saftey issues associated with non-FDA approved supplements.
The drug companies actually disclose what can happen with their product and have FDA-approval, including strict testing and guidelines for their use. Supplements have NO OVERSIGHT as to their chemical content. Is it really worth to be whining about the claimed emotional ploys (yes, some really do abuse emotion, while others don't) when other companies are allowed to hawk untested, unregulated, and sometimes dangerous 'supplements' while enjoying full legal protection from authorities and regulators?
Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
Would you care to share what meds you had been taking, for what length of time, and an example of the diet you've been using. Also, did you stop eating/drinking any of the "no-no's," e.g., caffeinated drinks, vanilla, chocolate, spicy foods(?),...? Were there any other meds (or other things you changed) you started or stopped at about that time? It's not that I doubt the results,... it's that I can't
Me, I had gastroesophageal reflux disease or GERD which at first my doc gave me a prescription of Cimetidine, however because it wasn't that effective, she switched to prevacid which was changed to Omeprazole (Prilosec) after my insurance changed, When that wasn't enough she had me take prevacid/prilosec in the morning and Cimetidine at night. I took them for a few years, however during the last year I took them someone here at slashdot told me yogurt with live acidophilus culture helped him. Not having anything to loose, and liking yogurt, I went ahead and tried it. Prior to trying it I'd occassionally miss taking prevacid/prilosec in the morning, when I did within a few hours my throat woud be burning. However after starting to eat yogurt with acidophilus the tyme it too before the burning started got longer and longer until I was able to stop taking the drugs.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Sure, if there's no generic, then there's no choice but to prescribe the name brand. For something that does have generics, it doesn't make sense for the doc to keep calling for the name brand. It perpetuates the idea that there's something "second class" about generic products.
This is a bad thing all the way around. Not only do we the consumers end up paying for their television advertising, we cannot go down to the drug store and purchase their overpriced drugs. When we ask our doctor about a drug we've seen advertised on television, we have to sit through a sermon about how much training the doctors has been through to know which drugs to prescribe to patients and how television advertising was NOT part of the curriculum, bla, bla, bla. I mean ... DUH!
Heard any good sigs lately?
In Canada ambiguous ads are the law. An ad for a prescription drug may say what the drug is called, or what it does. But not both.
I'm still trying to figure out how Cialis might help me get to the opera late, figure out what to wear, or even fix my leg after I slip on ice. Must be some drug.
...laura
Yes.
-Ted
-=-=- Quantum physics - the dreams stuff are made of.
The ads explain how it really works perfectly! Its all so clear to me now, the little blue circles of healthyness in the medication consume the spikey brown balls of unhealthyness in my bloodstream! Why didnt I think of that? I could have made millions!
Don't forget about the government funded R&D that big pharmaceutical companies often get exclusive rights to.
Like Taxol. The National Institute of Cancer (NCI) spent $183 million developing Taxol for chemotherapy for cancer only to sale exclusive rights to the data the NCI generated to Bristol-Myers Squibb, BMS for $43 million. In 2000 BMS made almost $1 billion in sales of Taxol. Taxol costs less than $1 per dose to make yet treatment cost several thousand dollars.
FalconShould there be a Law?
It's not only problematic but offensive. The idea is to take trained, skilled professionals out of the decision-making process. The good doctor who doesn't prescribe Paxil because the patient doesn't need it gets dropped for the rubber-stamping quack who does anyway.
The intellectual lower class wants to believe that they can and should make the best decisions for themselves and fear the authority of officious experts (with thousands of dollars and years invested in skilled knowledge) over their lives, to the point where doctor's advice can be measured against your own self-diagnosis and thereby assessed as good or bad.
To be fair, if my doctor tells me I need X or Y, or don't, I want him to be damned convincing about it. That's because I want to understand it fully, not because I want to play "who's the better doctor".
It seems like this started in psychology, particularly child psychology, with Ritalin. It still happens now. If I see a psychologist who "specializes in ADHD and ODD", I automatically think "ritalin 'scrip' factory." It moved on to Prozac et. al., and Wenatchee, WA was never the same.
Now it's being done with *physical* medications, some with some pretty scary side effects.
Terrorists can attack freedom, but only Congress can destroy it.
Thats an important one too! It does cure depression trust me.
I'll just use my special getting high powers one more time...
If doctors didn't need marketing, but always prescribed whatever is best supported by the medical literature that they spend hours a day reading, then nobody would waste money on marketing in the first place.
Ah, but marketing doesn't tell, or let, the doctor know what drug is best. The best way for them to know is by reading or attending conferences that aren't drug supported. Though she's only a lab tech in a hospital my mother has to take classes regularly to keep her job. These classes are another method docs learn about new drugs.
you can debate taking one pill vs another, but I'm sure most doctors would steer their patients in the right direction if it made a big difference
I had this happen to me, my doc had me on one drug but changed it to anohter drug when I got a new insurnace policy. I asked her why she switched drugs and she said my new insurance didn't cover the old drug.
FalconShould there be a Law?
By any sensible notion, the drug ads should be banned. However, some time ago, our fearless leaders in the U.S.A. made it legal to advertise almost any medicine (whether or not the medicine has the health properties that are advertised). The drug companies lobbists are very influencial - not to mention the media folks - and both would would lose money if those advertisements for drugs were not allowed.
So the right thing to do will not happen (again).
These adverts don't do a thing to help customers make informed decisions, and they do little more than tell a brief bit about a drug - which doesn't exactly help. ("Feeling blue? Take Placebex! It might inhibit the neurons in your spleen!") Yes, they say ask your doctor, but they go on about how they cure you of what ails you.
This sig no verb.
I keep a list of the names all of the medicines than I'm supposed to ask my physician if they're "right for me" so I can ask him.
The Internet is a hypochondriacs wet dream.....
3 /34968.html
This site is quite a good read if you are sick of seeing commercials for riduculous "Fad Medicine": http://www.quackwatch.org/
It's a really entertaining site! It's scary to know that there are people stupid enough out there to make money for the "doctors" out there that offer such bogus "remedies/treatments/therapies" etc.
A really scary site is Aetna's IntelliHealth section on "Complimentary & Alternative Medicine". I can't belive that a major medical provider is allowed to post/advertise such unbelievably stupid things.
Aetna InteliHealth URL:
http://www.intelihealth.com/IH/ihtIH/WSIHW000/851
Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
Prescription medication advertising has been banned in Australia for decades for exactly the reasons most folk have pointed out in this discussion. Bottom line - your doctor is the best person qualified to make decisions about what medication you need.
And this is certainly not unique to OZ - most western countries (certainly Canada, NZ and Britain (if not most of Europe) have similar systems.
We also have an additional line of defence via our Pharmaceticals Benefit Scheme (PBS) which not only provides Australian's with affordable medication (thanks to bulk buying power and govt subsidy), but an important part of its function is to assess new medication prior to their acceptance on the PBS. Pharmacetical companies must submit new (and revised) drugs for independant review prior to their acceptance on the PBS. This is to ensure that the claims made by the manufacturer stand up to the evidence. Remarkably, hundreds (if not thousands) are turned away each year because the claims made either do not improve on existing (and typically cheaper) medication or do not live up to the claims whatsoever.
Without these sort of protections, I'd hate to see what you folk pay for medication!
And I would consider it a "modern anachronism" that this wasn't computerized, everywhere, a long, long time ago. I shouldn't have to rely solely on a human "remembering" a dangerous combo. That's what databases are for.
Actually there are computerized databases. One such is Physician's Desk Reference, PDR. All doctors' offices should have the book. I myself have gone to the bookstore to lookup every drug I've been given in the PDR.
Why are doctors so resistant to modernization, i.e., accepting that they aren't gods?
Many realize they don't know everything, but like everything else a person buys, they should know what they are buying. Visit several docs until you find the one you like. Of course that cost money many can't afford.
FalconShould there be a Law?
...I've considered those effects ever since these type of ads started running. Glad to see someone is studying them.
The meme police, They live inside of my head
When I was seriously ill a few years back, my doctors (who were outstanding btw) encouraged me to do research on my own. I scoured medical databases and brought that info to my doctors, who helped me sort through it. I think it elevated the quality of my care, and it made me feel like I retained some control over a scary illness.
As I'm a survivor of a Traumatic Brain Injury, TBI, I've been "ill" for more than ten year, and the last doc I saw encouraged me to do some research as well as your's did. Unfortunately because of her schedule she didn't have enough tyme so we could spend tyme talking about health, maybe that's why she wanted me to do research myself.
FalconShould there be a Law?
The real problem is people go to their doctors and say "I have [sickness]. I need [specific drug]," when they have SOME of the symptoms and not severe enough to have the sickness or need the drug. The last thing we need to do is take medicine out of the hands of doctors (who, last time I checked, still go to college/med school for approximately a decade for a reason) and put it in the hands of drug dealers (or pharmaceutical companies, whichever term you prefer).
Doctors (such as my father) abhor these ads because they do not help medicine or the patient, they help drug companies convince people they are sick when they are not.
MEF
Big Pharma's products are the tobacco of the new millennium. People think that putting all these chemicals into their systems is harmless or even beneficial to them, but if the failure of nutrition science should teach us anything, it's that we do *not* understand human biology well enough to arbitrarily tamper with body chemistry.
In the meantime, Big Pharma is making billions by appealing to the psychological needs and desires of a populace made fearful for its health. They have succeeded in convincing the public that the best counter to a cheeseburger is a cholesterol pill -- not healthy eating, not regular exercise, but a pill, one whose effects are probably not fully understood.
Mark my words, 50 years down the line we will be looking at current drug ads the same way we today look at smoking ads of the 1950s. It's marketing at its worst, pushing a deadly product onto consumers out of sheer mutual ignorance.
Loratadine
You can buy it in 1000-count bottles at 10mg each at Costco.
Also, if you need something stronger, combine it with pseudophedrine (sudafed), or look for a fexofenadine generic.
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
Interesting food for thought...
Pharmaceutical Ads have always been banned in Australia for exactly this reason. I couldn't agree more to their decision.
Honestly, I had no idea to the extent of pharmaceutical advertising in the US until I went there on a holiday and saw it for myself, I couldn't believe it.
I work as a pharmacy tech. My experiences so far, as well as the opinions of ALL those involved in the field of patient advocacy healthcare, regarding drug adverts (and the effects thereof on the layman consumer/patient) are strongly viewed in the negative/non-progressive. Personally I feel that having any form of subliminal ambiance [If not intended as such, then the facts {sorry, no references, and I would hope none are needed} of ones opinions changing correlating with ambiance is evidence in retrospect to therefore be a base for a systematic approach to eliminate the evil (I repeat the term, EVIL) practice] (soothing music, utopic-like positive human behavior, etc.) while portraying and informing a public of a factual mechanism that has little (read: approaching zero) to do with previous mentioned ambiance. A response to the obvious (therefore not typed) counter argument: In an "free economy" driven world a company can not survive if it "wastes" money on advertisement (and certainly not an entire industry if the practice has become a standard, as this practice is) simply because it "wants to". It would be bought out, sold, crushed or whatever economic term you wish to use involving market evolution. Therefore the reason to use this practice simply on a whim does not cut the butter, so to speak. A reason MUST (read: probability approaching infinity) exist. Of course its retarded. But who here didn't know that?
Here in .au, consumer-targeted advertising for prescription drugs is completely illegal. The makers of Xenical got in astounding legal trouble here for just hinting too strongly at the identity of the product in question in their "ask your doctor about losing weight" campaign.
/sbin out of $PATH?
And that's as it should be, IMHO.
The general public are not qualified to judge the efficacy, safety or appropriateness of prescription drugs. That's why they're prescription drugs - so people won't fuck themselves up by taking them when they really shouldn't.
If inappropriate consumption of a drug really doesn't matter, then it doesn't require a prescription anyway.
If doctors were immune to manipulation by patients, this wouldn't matter. But that's simply not the case. Patients go 'doctor shopping' until they get what they want, and make no secret of this. They get some damn-fool idea into their heads, and nobody can shake it loose.
The only sane approach is to try and prevent them from getting the damn-fool idea in the first place. While we can't censor what they go looking for, we *can* control what's pushed in their face - and that's a lot better than nothing.
Just imagine you're setting up a computer for "that" kind of user: the kind that have a pathological lack of kloo and responsibility, but are utterly convinced that they know best. Imagine also that their life savings are tied up in the data they have on their system, and that they demand that you give them root access to their machine. Your boss, in other words.
Seriously, wouldn't you want to make damn sure that you keep fdisk, dd, mdadm and mkfs (and any other such tools) far away from the GUI menus, and
I work as a pharmacy tech. My experiences so far, as well as the opinions of ALL those involved in the field of patient advocacy healthcare, regarding drug adverts (and the effects thereof on the layman consumer/patient) are strongly viewed in the negative/non-progressive.
Personally I feel that having any form of subliminal ambiance [If not intended as such, then the facts {sorry, no references, and I would hope none are needed} of ones opinions changing correlating with ambiance is evidence in retrospect to therefore be a base for a systematic approach to eliminate the evil (I repeat the term, EVIL) practice] (soothing music, utopic-like positive human behavior, etc.) while portraying and informing a public of a factual mechanism that has little (read: approaching zero) to do with previous mentioned ambiance.
A response to the obvious (therefore not typed) counter argument: In an "free economy" driven world a company can not survive if it "wastes" money on advertisement (and certainly not an entire industry if the practice has become a standard, as this practice is) simply because it "wants to". It would be bought out, sold, crushed or whatever economic term you wish to use involving market evolution. Therefore the reason to use this practice simply on a whim does not cut the butter, so to speak. A reason MUST (read: probability approaching infinity) exist.
Of course its retarded. But who here didn't know that?
Cut & pasting from my blog since a day-old
The first cite is a review of internal research:
J Psychiatry Neurosci. 2000 November; 25(5): 481-496.
"Neurochemical and metabolic aspects of antidepressants: an overview"
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?a
PLoS Med. 2005 December; 2(12): e392.
"Serotonin and Depression: A Disconnect between the Advertisements and the Scientific Literature"
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fc
PLoS of course is the open access journal, probably even less threshold than http://arxiv.org/help/submit . In response to the PLoS paper, hell if I watched television, I'd need medication too. From the PLoS paper: "the fact that aspirin cures headaches does not prove that headaches are due to low levels of aspirin in the brain." Also:
If you need text styles to communicate then you don't have a message.
pseudoephedrine. A simple enough remedy for priapism, but since it is also used for crystal meth production, it is now highly restricted due to, ya know, the War on Drugs and all...
Set your phasers on "funky"!
Watch an episode of the prime time news offering from ABC (or NBC and CBS)...and find one damned commercial that's not for prescription meds......
...you need to consider that without x amount of advertising, revenue would be decreased by y. if you don't spend on sales and marketing, you get less revenue. less revenue = company has less to spend on R&D. big pharma is *hurting* right now (check Pfizer's decimation of staff last month, AZ's 5% headcount cut announced yesterday, et al) and they're not spending the S&M money for fun...
As an Australian who lived in the US for half of 2005, I was amazed (appalled?) at how much TV advertising was given over to three things: drugs, diets, and lawyers.
Almost the only drug advertising you see here is for common things like headache pills, so the very problem TFA is on about is pretty alien to Australians. I think it's a safe bet that less drug advertising will do you no harm.
(I was also nervously amused by the long listing of side effects by the voiceover. Our headache pill ads just say, 'If pain persists, see a doctor.' A very few more specialised drugs are advertised once in a while, and they usually say something like, 'Ask your pharmacist about possible side effects'. Don't get me wrong, I do think it's good that they tell you, 'May cause rash, vomiting, incontinence, death, growth spurts, Presidential nomination, or severe brain damage.' It's just another alien thing about it.)
As for the diets—with 'diets' I include food ads that boast about how they suit Current Fad Diet X, or just spout buzzwords like 'Low carbs!'. And of course we have a little of that here, but generally our buzzwords haven't advanced past '97% fat free!'. And lawyers? Well, half the lawyer ads were telling people to sue drug companies, so fix one problem and the other might go away...
Yeah, I know. If I watched enough television for long enough, sooner or later I'd encounter a pharma ad that explains exactly what is wrong with me and what drug will cure it, but after viewing that much Oprah and Shipwrecked Celebrity Big Brother I'd probably identify with the Zoloft blob too and of course zoloft would interfere with the drug that cures what I originally suffered from so I'd be back where I started except in poorer shape after sitting on the couch watching TV for so long.
Pharma ads are harmful, no doubt about it!
Zoloft counteracts a physiological problem. I also have genetically high blood pressure that no amount of exercise or stringent diet brings down. I have to take pills for that. Am I "addicted" to those? Seriously, I would exercise regularly and eat right, and still have a reading of 170/100. It's 120/85 now.
A story was told about the anti-cholesterol drug Zocor. The company ran a big campaign, telling viewers to ask their doctor for Zocor. The doctor said "I normally prescribe the opposition product." Result: it was the opposition product whose sales went up. The company should have targeted the doctors, not the patients.