TV Ads for Rx Drugs

[Lookin]

More like the FDA and our tort system at work. Drug companies that want their products approved, and don't want to get sued, will make sure to warn you about every possible side effect. Unlike the old days.

 

http://www.madametalbot.com/pix/vintage/vin09/strychbella1.jpg http://www.drugstoremuseum.com/images/level_imgs/9668797654658934-002.jpg

[Guest msclonly]

CHEMICAL COMPANIES!

 

Until the early 1900's the chemical companies marketed simple medicinal extracts and chemicals. Then they started to produce more complicated knock offs of the extracts and became phamaceutical companies. Now almost 100 years later only new PATENTABLE DRUGS are produced for the great profits, if they find a lucky 'cure'! Unfortunately, they have MANY side-effects and do not CURE disease. Only symptoms are treated and often produce serious side-effects unkown till after marketing. Cures are found in nature, drugs treat symptoms called symptomic treatment.

Now we can be marketed via TV and Magazine ads to encourage Drs to use new drugs, if the Drug company didn't convince them with their 'research' from CO-OPERATIVE leading learning institutions.

Buyer beware!

[Guest Merlin]

RE: CHEMICAL COMPANIES!

 

The more volumn of a drug that is sold, the more the cost of research and development can be spread out and the price lowered. The sooner costs are recovered, the more money is available for additional research. The FDA requires drug companies which advertise, to tell about side effects. They also inform the public that a remedy for various conditions is available. For example, if you had "restless leg sydrome" would you know the name of it? Would you feel foolish asking the Dr why your legs move etc. The Ads give you a name so you can discuss it and they tell you that there is something that can be done.

[Samai139]

RE: CHEMICAL COMPANIES!

 

To answer your original question: YES!! Very, very annoyed by all the adverts for prescription drugs, whether they rapid-fire through the side-effects or not. I wish, oh how I wish, we could go back to the "good old days" when no prescription drugs were advertised. If cigarette ads can be banned, why can't the powers that be, ban ALL presdcription drug ads? I suspect it was the pharmaceutical companies and their lobbyists who eased the legislation and open the floodgates for the barrage we now see. I believe in a previous thread on this topic, that it was during the Clinton administration that many restrictions were lifted. True?? Hate to blame "Bubba" for something he DIDN'T do ))

How many physicians are continually badgered to write prescriptions for some medication that their patients have seen on tv, or in magazines or newspapers? Come on, how many Americans are really suffering Nervous Leg Syndrome? I may get blasted for this, but Viagra ads were some of the worse---both unnecesary and offensive in family time tv time.

To expand my complaint----way, way too many Americans are taking way, way too many prescription medications---especially senior citizens. And btw, I'm in the senior category and take NO prescription medications, period. I honestly believe that many physicans write prescriptions to lower blood pressure, lower cholesterol levels, etc., when blunt honesty about life-style issues---weight, smoking, drinking, would better serve their patients. Perhaps it's easier and less time consuming to write a script????

Thanks for giving me the opportunity to vent.

[Guest Jocoluver]

yeah, the good ole days

 

Well, according to you we should return to leeches & purging!

 

As for life-style changes controlling high blood pressure, enjoy your stroke.

 

and Happy New Year!

 

Yes, all the ads are annoying!

[+ Lucky]

RE: CHEMICAL COMPANIES!

 

A year or so ago a friend and I had this same discussion, and he too, brought up restless leg syndrome. He was sure it was some made-up illness just so the drug companies could make money. When I told him that not only did I have it, but that the drugs were among the most useful ones I had, he was surprised. Trust me, you don't want restless leg syndrome. That isn't to say it's not over advertised, but it may be that many people wouldn't know their symptoms could be treated.

[Guest Merlin]

RE: CHEMICAL COMPANIES!

 

Of course, it would be nice if TV had no ads. But they do pay for the entertainment. That being so, I do not see why prescription ads would be more annoying than others.

[JamesK840]

I'll really miss Boston Legal. It was truly great how they went after 'big pharma' even though their older demographic made them one of their largest advertisers!

 

I despise the ads too. Demand a 'script from your doctor so we can make money *does not* seem like how the system is supposed to work to me! Ideally the doctor isn't burnt out and is up on the pros and cons of the latest stuff, and it'd be great if they also took into account the price.

 

But so many doctors have been turned into perscription factories by the HMOs. See a patient--any patient, make $50, try to see at least 2 more in the hour to cover expenses, and if a company is offering free office stuff or even kickbacks so be it.

 

I don't even bother with a general practitioner because I can't find one in my area under 60 without a lobby full of screaming brats.

[+ deej]

>I don't even bother with a general practitioner because I

>can't find one in my area under 60 without a lobby full of screaming brats.

 

That's sad. I love my GP. He's younger than I am, and he's genuinely caring. He actually listens to what I say and HEARS what I say. (It doesn't hurt that he's quite tall and attractive.)

 

The thing I hate about the drug commercial disclaimers is that they're nothing but a catalog of ALL effects that happened during trials, with no effort whatsoever to make sure the drug was the cause.

 

If a pregnant woman participates in a trial and reports having heartburn, the add will read "may cause heartburn in women who are pregnant" when the actual cause of the heartburn was the mexican food she had for dinner.

 

Bleh.

[Guest]

>The thing I hate about the drug commercial disclaimers is that

>they're nothing but a catalog of ALL effects that happened

>during trials, with no effort whatsoever to make sure the drug

>was the cause.

>

If it makes you feel better, I'll inform you that all of these studies are placebo-controlled, meaning that both positive and negative effects are compared with dummy pills. Pharmaceutical companies only have to report side-effects in addition to the placebo effect. I'm no fan of direct-to-consumer marketing, but if you hear the pharmaceutical company listing medication side-effects, you can feel fairly comfortable assuming it's due to the drug.

That being said, only a fool would think he knows what a doctor should be prescribing after watching a 60-second commercial. There are some advertised medications even I don't feel comfortable prescribing, with the very potentially dangerous medication Enbrel being a prime example. I don't object, however, to ads which merely state: "If you are suffering from XYZ symptoms, you may have ABC disease. See your doctor because treatment is available." (i.e. an ad which doesn't mention a specific medication name, even though the pharmaceutical sponsor may make one of the best treatments available for this condition)

[Guest ncm2169]

Is anyone else really annoyed by those TV ads where they say, "Ask your doctor to consider 'blah blah' drug. Make sure he tells you about, 'side effects which can kill you.'"

 

Humeira, for example. The health warnings could kill an entire wing of a hospital.

 

Our medical/pharmaceutical dollars at work. x(