Re: Drug Ads

[Guest guest]

This post has so many subtopics that deserve a response. First, the article you present is a perfect example of facile thinking on the part of a journalist. (Journalists, of course, are usually college " educated " individuals whose " education " has taught them little or nothing about the world but who presume to write and " inform " us as if they actually know something with any kind of intellectual depth.) Of course, advertising (whether for prescription drugs, over-the-counter drugs, political candidates, the latest movie release, mayonnaise or nearly any other thing) uses appeals to emotion as well as to facts. In 30 to 60 seconds it's impossible to review the extant scientific literature and narrate the monograph. The goal of any drug marketing aimed at the general public is to inform the potential consumer of the existence of a pharmaceutical which might be of value to them or someone they care about and to get them to ask their physician about it. Is it your position that patients should never hear about the existence of possible treatments OTHER than from their physician? Should physicians (or the FDA) decide what we are permitted to know about pharmaceuticals, how much and when? Perhaps the reporter who wrote the article you cited should decide what we are to hear? Do you feel that people are too stupid to be able to ask a question of their physician or do you feel that physicians are too pliable to their patients' demands for a prescription? I'd be interested in knowing why you feel that an industry should be unable to communicate to the ultimate consumer of its products.

Do you feel that the First Amendment only applies to what YOU think people should hear? Setting aside for the moment that the Supreme Court has ruled (in error I believe) that commercial speech isn't protected by the First Amendment, what limits would you propose be placed on pharmaceutical companies advertising to the general public? No general media advertising at all? No sponsored presentations at medical conventions? No sponsored research at all by medical schools or hospitals? No sales representatives calling on physicians? Precisely what IS your proposal?

Yes, drugs are about health and treating disease. On that we can agree. Where does a company earning a profit in meeting the need to maintain, improve or restore health or to treat disease conflict with that premise? Do you believe that people and companies which provide such a valuable service should not be compensated for their efforts?

You have made several assertions that the profit motive has destroyed research integrity as well as many millions of lives and reduced discovery drastically. Please present your evidence to support these contentions. I would be interested in reading it. I am interested in understanding what you mean by " research integrity " and would like to know whose lives have been destroyed and how that has occurred. I would also like to understand what metrics you have used to measure the drastic reduction in discovery which you have posited. Are you aware of discoveries which haven't been made? If so, then you've posited a logical fallacy since it's impossible to know what has NOT been discovered unless you're somehow (perhaps by supernatural means) aware of things the rest of the world doesn't know. On 2/1/07, M. <fiar@...> wrote:

They should be illegal and removed. Drugs are about health and treating

disease.

Drugs being about profits has destroyed research integrity, many millions

of lives and reduced discovery drastically.

M.

***

TV Drug Ads Play on Emotions, U.S. Study Says

By Heavey

WASHINGTON (Reuters) Jan 30 - Television drug advertisements rely

heavily on emotional appeals rather than comprehensive disease

information to attract consumers' attention, according to one of the

first studies to analyze such commercials.

The study, published in the ls of Family Medicine Monday,

investigated dozens of TV drug ads for some of the nation's top-

selling drugs at those times when most viewers tune in.

Researchers analyzed the ads based on how they portrayed the

medication and disease, emotions and lifestyles changes. They found

companies used various tactics to appeal to viewers with limited facts

that could oversimplify their decisions.

" The benefits of prescription drugs are rarely that black and white, "

lead author Dominick Frosch, an assistant professor of medicine at the

University of California in Los Angeles, told Reuters.

" Choosing the wrong prescription drug can cause serious health

problems and it can also be very costly to the larger society, " he

added.

While such strategies are frequently used for other consumer products,

they raise questions when it comes to pharmaceuticals, Frosch and

other researchers wrote.

" Our findings suggest the need to reconsider the distinction between

selling soap or other consumer products and selling prescription

drugs, " they said.

In their review, researchers analyzed 38 commercials that aired over

the course of four weeks of prime-time television in mid-2004. They

coded ads for common themes such as humor or product information, then

rated how often each was used.

While all the ads met regulations, they often made vague claims, the

researchers said. About one-quarter offered details on the cause of a

disease or who was at risk.

They also found that nearly all ads relied on characters who seemed

happy after taking a drug or otherwise showed positive emotions. Some

mentioned changing habits in addition to medication, but none offered

such change as an alternative.

Print drug ads have been analyzed before, but this study is one of the

first aimed at televised versions and comes as Congress prepares to

consider allowing drugmakers to pay U.S. regulators to have their

commercials screened before airing.

Prescription drug ads have raised concerns since the Food and Drug

Administration loosened restrictions on them in 1997.

Since then critics have charged both TV and print ads are misleading

and encourage consumers to seek drugs they don't need. Companies and

other supporters have said they can educate consumers about possible

treatments.

Industry lobbying group the Pharmaceutical Researchers and

Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) released voluntary guidelines in 2005

to address the concerns, but some say they fall short.

PhRMA criticized the study for using ads that aired before its

guidelines were implemented. Early indications show " that

advertisements airing since the Principles took effect have tended to

be more educational and informative, " said the group's senior vice

president, Ken .

Still, Frosch said the guidelines don't offer specifics and avoid the

issue of emotional appeals. " I don't think prescription drug

advertising needs to be banned, but it does need to be more

responsible, " he told Reuters.

This spring Frosch will launch a related study on consumers' reaction

to TV drug ads, with results expected next year.

© 1994-2007 by Medscape

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/551501

[Guest guest]

This post has so many subtopics that deserve a response. First, the article you present is a perfect example of facile thinking on the part of a journalist. (Journalists, of course, are usually college " educated " individuals whose " education " has taught them little or nothing about the world but who presume to write and " inform " us as if they actually know something with any kind of intellectual depth.) Of course, advertising (whether for prescription drugs, over-the-counter drugs, political candidates, the latest movie release, mayonnaise or nearly any other thing) uses appeals to emotion as well as to facts. In 30 to 60 seconds it's impossible to review the extant scientific literature and narrate the monograph. The goal of any drug marketing aimed at the general public is to inform the potential consumer of the existence of a pharmaceutical which might be of value to them or someone they care about and to get them to ask their physician about it. Is it your position that patients should never hear about the existence of possible treatments OTHER than from their physician? Should physicians (or the FDA) decide what we are permitted to know about pharmaceuticals, how much and when? Perhaps the reporter who wrote the article you cited should decide what we are to hear? Do you feel that people are too stupid to be able to ask a question of their physician or do you feel that physicians are too pliable to their patients' demands for a prescription? I'd be interested in knowing why you feel that an industry should be unable to communicate to the ultimate consumer of its products.

Do you feel that the First Amendment only applies to what YOU think people should hear? Setting aside for the moment that the Supreme Court has ruled (in error I believe) that commercial speech isn't protected by the First Amendment, what limits would you propose be placed on pharmaceutical companies advertising to the general public? No general media advertising at all? No sponsored presentations at medical conventions? No sponsored research at all by medical schools or hospitals? No sales representatives calling on physicians? Precisely what IS your proposal?

Yes, drugs are about health and treating disease. On that we can agree. Where does a company earning a profit in meeting the need to maintain, improve or restore health or to treat disease conflict with that premise? Do you believe that people and companies which provide such a valuable service should not be compensated for their efforts?

You have made several assertions that the profit motive has destroyed research integrity as well as many millions of lives and reduced discovery drastically. Please present your evidence to support these contentions. I would be interested in reading it. I am interested in understanding what you mean by " research integrity " and would like to know whose lives have been destroyed and how that has occurred. I would also like to understand what metrics you have used to measure the drastic reduction in discovery which you have posited. Are you aware of discoveries which haven't been made? If so, then you've posited a logical fallacy since it's impossible to know what has NOT been discovered unless you're somehow (perhaps by supernatural means) aware of things the rest of the world doesn't know. On 2/1/07, M. <fiar@...> wrote:

They should be illegal and removed. Drugs are about health and treating

disease.

Drugs being about profits has destroyed research integrity, many millions

of lives and reduced discovery drastically.

M.

***

TV Drug Ads Play on Emotions, U.S. Study Says

By Heavey

WASHINGTON (Reuters) Jan 30 - Television drug advertisements rely

heavily on emotional appeals rather than comprehensive disease

information to attract consumers' attention, according to one of the

first studies to analyze such commercials.

The study, published in the ls of Family Medicine Monday,

investigated dozens of TV drug ads for some of the nation's top-

selling drugs at those times when most viewers tune in.

Researchers analyzed the ads based on how they portrayed the

medication and disease, emotions and lifestyles changes. They found

companies used various tactics to appeal to viewers with limited facts

that could oversimplify their decisions.

" The benefits of prescription drugs are rarely that black and white, "

lead author Dominick Frosch, an assistant professor of medicine at the

University of California in Los Angeles, told Reuters.

" Choosing the wrong prescription drug can cause serious health

problems and it can also be very costly to the larger society, " he

added.

While such strategies are frequently used for other consumer products,

they raise questions when it comes to pharmaceuticals, Frosch and

other researchers wrote.

" Our findings suggest the need to reconsider the distinction between

selling soap or other consumer products and selling prescription

drugs, " they said.

In their review, researchers analyzed 38 commercials that aired over

the course of four weeks of prime-time television in mid-2004. They

coded ads for common themes such as humor or product information, then

rated how often each was used.

While all the ads met regulations, they often made vague claims, the

researchers said. About one-quarter offered details on the cause of a

disease or who was at risk.

They also found that nearly all ads relied on characters who seemed

happy after taking a drug or otherwise showed positive emotions. Some

mentioned changing habits in addition to medication, but none offered

such change as an alternative.

Print drug ads have been analyzed before, but this study is one of the

first aimed at televised versions and comes as Congress prepares to

consider allowing drugmakers to pay U.S. regulators to have their

commercials screened before airing.

Prescription drug ads have raised concerns since the Food and Drug

Administration loosened restrictions on them in 1997.

Since then critics have charged both TV and print ads are misleading

and encourage consumers to seek drugs they don't need. Companies and

other supporters have said they can educate consumers about possible

treatments.

Industry lobbying group the Pharmaceutical Researchers and

Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) released voluntary guidelines in 2005

to address the concerns, but some say they fall short.

PhRMA criticized the study for using ads that aired before its

guidelines were implemented. Early indications show " that

advertisements airing since the Principles took effect have tended to

be more educational and informative, " said the group's senior vice

president, Ken .

Still, Frosch said the guidelines don't offer specifics and avoid the

issue of emotional appeals. " I don't think prescription drug

advertising needs to be banned, but it does need to be more

responsible, " he told Reuters.

This spring Frosch will launch a related study on consumers' reaction

to TV drug ads, with results expected next year.

© 1994-2007 by Medscape

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/551501

[Guest guest]

At 02:35 PM 2/1/2007, Randy Mangham wrote:

This post has so many subtopics

that deserve a response. First, the article you present is a perfect

example of facile thinking on the part of a journalist. (Journalists, of

course, are usually college " educated " individuals whose

" education " has taught them little or nothing about the world

but who presume to write and " inform " us as if they actually

know something with any kind of intellectual depth.)

Of course, advertising (whether for prescription drugs, over-the-counter

drugs, political candidates, the latest movie release, mayonnaise or

nearly any other thing) uses appeals to emotion as well as to

facts.

The old " everyone does it so it's OK " argument? I heard some

oil industry exec make that whine to justify outrageous CEO incomes. It's

a lousy argument (and 400 times the lowest paid wage earner is NOT

capitalism).

In 30 to 60

seconds it's impossible to review the extant scientific literature and

narrate the monograph.

Precisely why a physician should make the decision.

As to private access to data about a drug, I believe that is DEFINITELY a

right we all have. It should come in the form of propaganda. It's bad

enough pharma has debased science into a marketing tool, publishing at

whim and where necessary, folding, spindling and mutilating the data til

a profitable item appears.

>Do you feel that the First Amendment only applies to

what YOU think people should hear?

I think the First Amendment applies to individuals, NOT to

corporations.

>No general media advertising at all? No sponsored presentations at

medical conventions? No sponsored research at all by medical schools or

hospitals? No sales representatives calling on physicians? Precisely what

IS your proposal?

I think all of those are an excellent start! Those sales reps usually are

dumber than a bag of hammers.

snip...

You have made several assertions

that the profit motive has destroyed research integrity as well as many

millions of lives and reduced discovery drastically. Please present your

evidence to support these contentions. I would be interested in reading

it.

There's plenty out there. Next post.

M.

[Guest guest]

At 02:35 PM 2/1/2007, Randy Mangham wrote:

This post has so many subtopics

that deserve a response. First, the article you present is a perfect

example of facile thinking on the part of a journalist. (Journalists, of

course, are usually college " educated " individuals whose

" education " has taught them little or nothing about the world

but who presume to write and " inform " us as if they actually

know something with any kind of intellectual depth.)

Of course, advertising (whether for prescription drugs, over-the-counter

drugs, political candidates, the latest movie release, mayonnaise or

nearly any other thing) uses appeals to emotion as well as to

facts.

The old " everyone does it so it's OK " argument? I heard some

oil industry exec make that whine to justify outrageous CEO incomes. It's

a lousy argument (and 400 times the lowest paid wage earner is NOT

capitalism).

In 30 to 60

seconds it's impossible to review the extant scientific literature and

narrate the monograph.

Precisely why a physician should make the decision.

As to private access to data about a drug, I believe that is DEFINITELY a

right we all have. It should come in the form of propaganda. It's bad

enough pharma has debased science into a marketing tool, publishing at

whim and where necessary, folding, spindling and mutilating the data til

a profitable item appears.

>Do you feel that the First Amendment only applies to

what YOU think people should hear?

I think the First Amendment applies to individuals, NOT to

corporations.

>No general media advertising at all? No sponsored presentations at

medical conventions? No sponsored research at all by medical schools or

hospitals? No sales representatives calling on physicians? Precisely what

IS your proposal?

I think all of those are an excellent start! Those sales reps usually are

dumber than a bag of hammers.

snip...

You have made several assertions

that the profit motive has destroyed research integrity as well as many

millions of lives and reduced discovery drastically. Please present your

evidence to support these contentions. I would be interested in reading

it.

There's plenty out there. Next post.

M.

[Guest guest]

"Of course, advertising (whether for prescription drugs, over-the-counterdrugs, political candidates, the latest movie release, mayonnaise or nearlyany other thing) uses appeals to emotion as well as to facts. In 30 to 60seconds it's impossible to review the extant scientific literature andnarrate the monograph. The goal of any drug marketing aimed at the generalpublic is to inform the potential consumer of the existence of apharmaceutical which might be of value to them or someone they care aboutand to get them to ask their physician about it. "I don't think that's true.  I think it's to get patients to buy the newest, most expensive drug, which is not necessarily better than an older, cheaper equivalent.  Patients then go to their doctor, and if they don't get the latest drug they've seen on TV, they think their doctor is depriving them.  This is a lousy way to run medical care.While I've heard drug companies argue "patient education" as a goal, Viagra® adds have totally debunked that myth.The purpose of advertising is to stimulate sales, period.I think only the US and New Zealand permit these ads, correct me if I'm wrong.  I don't see any role in good medicine for them. Barrowpozbod@...

[Guest guest]

Hello Bob In a way I agree with you but the other day it occurred to me that maybe all these ads are what they will use to inadvertently shoot themselves in the foot and when they do I hope it will blow both their legs off. I am more angry with the drug companies than ever when I found out about CODEX and all their dirty tricks. They are actually trying to make it so we will not be able to buy any worthwhile supplements when they are finished doing their dirty work. Many of the supplements that

we now use just will not be available. They also have plans for our foodstuffs, etc. Request Dr Rima's newsletters (see below) The news media goes on and on about 2 people killed on the highways over a long weekend but they say nothing about the 160,000 killed by legally prescribed drugs every Year in the US alone and some say it is far more than that. Of course these news medias will not be talking about that because they are filling their pockets with money from the drug companies who buy time on their programs.

So, yes, you are right. Drug companies should not be allowed to advertise. Many other companies cannot afford to advertise on CNN but I am sure you have noticed how many drug companies can. Where do they get the money? I am all for less interference by government in the market place but when they bully everyone and try to monopolize an entire industry, it should end free enterprise for them. On the other hand, if the drug companies played

fairly, I would fight to their right to exist freely in the market place even though I would avoid buying their product. But they do not play fair. They only know how to bully their way into every nook and cranny of the health care system. If the government were to give free medications to some of the people who do you think would be clapping their hands the loudest and longest. That's right! It would be the drug companies. I get a letter from a Dr Rima Laibow who is working tirelessly in her efforts

to save our health freedoms. This woman and her husband need our help. The work they are doing is for ALL OF US. If you are interested in preserving our supplements and health freedoms, please send me an email through this group or privately and I will send you a copy of one of her letters so you can subscribe to them yourselves. I will send it to your private e-address or I can simply send you the web address. I would be willing to post Dr Rima's newsletter on this message board if I get an ok from the

moderator. Helen Bob <winestien@...> wrote: Thought I would pass this along to those that are interested.Tell the FDA what you think about drug ads.Goal: 50,000 signatures!https://secure.consumersunion.org/site/SPageServer?pagename=Rx_Drug_Ads_Petition & JServSessionIdr004=t6pnu6fct2.app45a Acid Reflux? Constipation? Belly Fat? Edema? More Energy..Look younger..ImproveLungs/Brain Make

$$$$s! www.holyteaclub.com/zhebee Helen, Ind Rep for HTC 604-420-1544

[Guest guest]

>Sure Helen send it to me, My e-mail should appear at the top of this

post. These are small steps, But it is hard to sit and watch these

drug pushers dominate our airwaves. I always laugh when I see an

episode of Cops, When they are slamming some guy down on the pavement,

Standing on the side of his face, Because they found a pot seed in his

car, And then I think of all the zombies out there that are drugged

daily by our so called " Health Care Professionals " and " That's legal " .

Or watching some idiot on TV injecting mercury laced vaccine's into

our babies bloodstream. Tis a strange world we live in indeed!!!!

Bob.

> Thought I would pass this along to those that are interested.

>

> Tell the FDA what you think about drug ads.

> Goal: 50,000 signatures!

>

>

https://secure.consumersunion.org/site/SPageServer?pagename=Rx_Drug_Ads_Petition\

& JServSessionIdr004=t6pnu6fct2.app45a

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Acid Reflux? Constipation? Belly Fat? Edema?

> More Energy..Look younger..ImproveLungs/Brain

> Make $$$$s! www.holyteaclub.com/zhebee

> Helen, Ind Rep for HTC 604-420-1544

>