Jump to content
RemedySpot.com

Re:Hyped up claims

Rate this topic


Guest guest

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

In a message dated 05/24/2002 8:44:59 AM Eastern Daylight Time,

rosacea-support writes:

<< I distinguish between marketing

claims, which come from a company -- including studies conducted by a

company -- and independently conducted and funded studies, which do

not make claims, but report findings. >>

Hi Marjorie,

So you are saying that if the hyped up claims come from a company, such as

Galderma, who makes metro-gel and have conducted and funded studies, they are

okay, but if the hyped up claims come from a company's marketing dept.such as

Cutinex they are not okay? ly the hyped up claims from a Metro Gel

bother me a lot more than those of the others we have discussed in this

group. Metro-gel is FDA approved and therefore " claims " should be

thruthful and ethical.

Theoretically there might be a difference, (one has conducted independent

tests and the other hasn't) but in reality there is none. Bottom line is

that while they might have studies that " report findings " most of us, as

consumers, do not have access to or do not read the studies, we only have

access to the hype,and we get a lot of that. I do not mean to be

disagreable and apologize in advance if I offended or annoyed anyone. Have a

nice weekend!!!!

Regards,

Elena

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

> << I distinguish between marketing

> claims, which come from a company -- including studies conducted

by a

> company -- and independently conducted and funded studies, which

do

> not make claims, but report findings. >>

>

> Hi Marjorie,

> So you are saying that if the hyped up claims come from a company,

such as

> Galderma, who makes metro-gel and have conducted and funded

studies, they are

> okay, but if the hyped up claims come from a company's marketing

dept.such as

> Cutinex they are not okay?

No, I never said that.

There are two rosacea studies I discussed in depth early on in this

group. One was independently funded, and the other was supported by

Galderma. The latter study was designed to support the use of

Metrogel only once a day (presumably to compete against Noritate).

I reviewed both studies from the perspective of symptomatic

improvement with antibiotics, which I felt was objective data. I did

not discuss the study from the advisability of frequency of metrogel

usage.

> ly the hyped up claims from a Metro Gel

> bother me a lot more than those of the others we have discussed in

this

> group. Metro-gel is FDA approved and therefore " claims " should

be

> thruthful and ethical.

It sounds like you're confusing information related to FDA approval,

clinical studies, and marketing -- all three fall under different

regulations and professional standards. As you said below, you're

hearing the marketing stuff from all of these companies, which

arguably has little to do with medical truth or ethics.

What a company claims about a study results falls under

marketing/advertising; that's different than what the study results

actually are (for example, a study may have three findings, only the

first of which is supportive of a particular product. A company can

legally chose to present just the first of those three findings in

its marketing; that's not dishonest, but it's not complete

information the patient/doctor/consumer needs.)

> Theoretically there might be a difference, (one has conducted

independent

> tests and the other hasn't) but in reality there is none.

That's not a theoretical difference. It may not mean anything to you,

but recognize that these differences means a great deal to health

practitioners and others who look for good studies to support product

use.

> Bottom line is

> that while they might have studies that " report findings " most of

us, as

> consumers, do not have access to or do not read the studies, we

only have

> access to the hype,and we get a lot of that.

True, but perhaps you now have greater insight that the average

consumer, realizing there are differences among studies and in how

cleverly some products are marketed, other things you might not have

realized or thought about before? Or not. Whatever.

Marjorie

Marjorie Lazoff, MD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

> << I distinguish between marketing

> claims, which come from a company -- including studies conducted

by a

> company -- and independently conducted and funded studies, which

do

> not make claims, but report findings. >>

>

> Hi Marjorie,

> So you are saying that if the hyped up claims come from a company,

such as

> Galderma, who makes metro-gel and have conducted and funded

studies, they are

> okay, but if the hyped up claims come from a company's marketing

dept.such as

> Cutinex they are not okay?

No, I never said that.

There are two rosacea studies I discussed in depth early on in this

group. One was independently funded, and the other was supported by

Galderma. The latter study was designed to support the use of

Metrogel only once a day (presumably to compete against Noritate).

I reviewed both studies from the perspective of symptomatic

improvement with antibiotics, which I felt was objective data. I did

not discuss the study from the advisability of frequency of metrogel

usage.

> ly the hyped up claims from a Metro Gel

> bother me a lot more than those of the others we have discussed in

this

> group. Metro-gel is FDA approved and therefore " claims " should

be

> thruthful and ethical.

It sounds like you're confusing information related to FDA approval,

clinical studies, and marketing -- all three fall under different

regulations and professional standards. As you said below, you're

hearing the marketing stuff from all of these companies, which

arguably has little to do with medical truth or ethics.

What a company claims about a study results falls under

marketing/advertising; that's different than what the study results

actually are (for example, a study may have three findings, only the

first of which is supportive of a particular product. A company can

legally chose to present just the first of those three findings in

its marketing; that's not dishonest, but it's not complete

information the patient/doctor/consumer needs.)

> Theoretically there might be a difference, (one has conducted

independent

> tests and the other hasn't) but in reality there is none.

That's not a theoretical difference. It may not mean anything to you,

but recognize that these differences means a great deal to health

practitioners and others who look for good studies to support product

use.

> Bottom line is

> that while they might have studies that " report findings " most of

us, as

> consumers, do not have access to or do not read the studies, we

only have

> access to the hype,and we get a lot of that.

True, but perhaps you now have greater insight that the average

consumer, realizing there are differences among studies and in how

cleverly some products are marketed, other things you might not have

realized or thought about before? Or not. Whatever.

Marjorie

Marjorie Lazoff, MD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

> << I distinguish between marketing

> claims, which come from a company -- including studies conducted

by a

> company -- and independently conducted and funded studies, which

do

> not make claims, but report findings. >>

>

> Hi Marjorie,

> So you are saying that if the hyped up claims come from a company,

such as

> Galderma, who makes metro-gel and have conducted and funded

studies, they are

> okay, but if the hyped up claims come from a company's marketing

dept.such as

> Cutinex they are not okay?

No, I never said that.

There are two rosacea studies I discussed in depth early on in this

group. One was independently funded, and the other was supported by

Galderma. The latter study was designed to support the use of

Metrogel only once a day (presumably to compete against Noritate).

I reviewed both studies from the perspective of symptomatic

improvement with antibiotics, which I felt was objective data. I did

not discuss the study from the advisability of frequency of metrogel

usage.

> ly the hyped up claims from a Metro Gel

> bother me a lot more than those of the others we have discussed in

this

> group. Metro-gel is FDA approved and therefore " claims " should

be

> thruthful and ethical.

It sounds like you're confusing information related to FDA approval,

clinical studies, and marketing -- all three fall under different

regulations and professional standards. As you said below, you're

hearing the marketing stuff from all of these companies, which

arguably has little to do with medical truth or ethics.

What a company claims about a study results falls under

marketing/advertising; that's different than what the study results

actually are (for example, a study may have three findings, only the

first of which is supportive of a particular product. A company can

legally chose to present just the first of those three findings in

its marketing; that's not dishonest, but it's not complete

information the patient/doctor/consumer needs.)

> Theoretically there might be a difference, (one has conducted

independent

> tests and the other hasn't) but in reality there is none.

That's not a theoretical difference. It may not mean anything to you,

but recognize that these differences means a great deal to health

practitioners and others who look for good studies to support product

use.

> Bottom line is

> that while they might have studies that " report findings " most of

us, as

> consumers, do not have access to or do not read the studies, we

only have

> access to the hype,and we get a lot of that.

True, but perhaps you now have greater insight that the average

consumer, realizing there are differences among studies and in how

cleverly some products are marketed, other things you might not have

realized or thought about before? Or not. Whatever.

Marjorie

Marjorie Lazoff, MD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...