[rozalinasi]

I love the soothing, friendly, offhand tone they use as they inform you that this medicine may induce suicidal thoughts, damage your fetus, cause liver damage, dissolve your bones and/or cause a virgin mary-shaped growth on your nose.

Then say you should ask your doctor to prescribe it.

What really bothers me is that they are often very stealthy on the topic of exactly what medical problems this miracle drug fixes. They don't want to tell you you're depressed, or should stop eating red meat, or need help to pee, or can't get it up, or whatever. Let's just focus on these lovely images of attractive people looking smugly satisfied.

The side effects cautions are required by law when advertising prescription drugs (which used to be illegal, back when we actually paid for the cost of medicine and not the marketing campaign). The production elements you mention (haven't noticed since I mute most commercials) are AFAIK totally legal. But I would consider it borderline unethical if they really make it hard to hear the required side effects announcment.

[Cinzomzm]

The masking effect is a new one on me. The use of production tricks like ducking and compression are usually designed to do the opposite -- to make the commercial sound louder than the other program material, especially at lower volume settings.

FWIW, this issue of uneven loudness across various program sources (read: obnoxiously loud ads) is being addressed within the broadcast industry. Slowly, unevenly, and with limited effectiveness.

[WFSdZuP3]

Well, duh. But the pharma firms have turned these meds into consumer products. And they are not.

These are, by and large, dangerous drugs. That's why you need a prescription. That marketing money should be spent on educating doctors, not drumming up demand among the public.

MHO

[piramirra]

Prescription medicine advertising is banned in Australia

[Hdzcxqoi]

Great Southern Land

[GooogleGuy]

My observation was factually correct and, literally, a parenthetical comment. It said nothing about marketing dollars vs. research dollars. That was you, making assumptions and refuting them by stating the obvious. Do you think that makes you appear smart?

[Enladalusange]

I'd love to see it banned in the US as well. Time and time again I have people come in asking for a drug that has utterly no pertenance whatsoever to their problem. If you examine those commercials closely they often also suggest that if you have symptom "A" you have disease "B" and so you need drug "X". many people don't understand that if you have symptom "X" you might have disease "B", or disease "C", or disease "D" or even no disease at all. After having watched the commercial though they're convinced they absolutely need drug "X", and if you disagree you must be some quack.

It's also generally true that the drugs being advertised are usually new and expensive. Most new drugs being introduced today are derivatives of pre-existing drugs and often no more effective than the other, older, cheaper drugs in their class. Of course, you're not going to here that in a commercial.

Even more worrisome than commercial advertising by drug companies is the degree of influence over medical research they're acquiring. There is probably not one medical academic department conducting research atany American medical school or medical research institute that doesn't receive income from the companies.

[DoctorTOneery]

Crapski. My truck battery went out and I spent all afternoon jacking with getting it replaced, so I saw no daytime television. I don't have examples, still.

[Numbiydq]

Back to the thread topic

The litany of side effects in these commercials is deceptive since the frequency with which they occur is not stated. My guess is that the companies are required by the FDA to mention even the rare adverse events that occured during drug testing. OTOH, even serious side effects may be less problematic than their disease for some patients. The arthritis NSAIDs are a good example of this.

[97dYA9L3]

I believe if they say what the drug is for they're required to list the side effects.
Hence why you see some viagra commercials that don't tell you what it's for (since everybody already knows) so they don't have to list the side effects.

While I'm generally against advertising for drugs I will admit that there might be a touch of good from these. Some people may have a condition that they're not aware that there is a drug for and might not think to talk to there doctor about it. Yes, a possible small benefit that I'm not sure outweighs the negatives.

But I will admit that I always get a laugh listening to the side effects they're required to state. You can almost see the executives wince thinking about those they have to disclose. Especially when they include things like death, low sperm count, ED, insomnia (for sleeping pills) etc.

[TamreuddyRada]

Baby No and Preg Not are better than Babystopper.

[blohannaserri]

While I'm generally against advertising for drugs I will admit that there might be a touch of good from these. Some people may have a condition that they're not aware that there is a drug for and might not think to talk to there doctor about it. Yes, a possible small benefit that I'm not sure outweighs the negatives.

I'm sure that the negatives of drug advertising far outweigh the benefits to the one person out there who doesnt know about the available drugs for erectile disfunction, male incontinece, and (horror of horrors) acid reflux disease.

[Annevecenqp]

Hmmm, mea culpa, not male incontinence. Enlarged prostate resulting in frequent urination and urgency (which, strangely enough, is a technical term BTW).

[exsmoker]

One saving grace about being a pediatrician--they haven't started advertising for common pediatric medications. Yet. (With the exception of a couple of immunizations.)

Viagra Jr. is still in phase II testing.

[Niobaralegra]

Some singer here in Dallas went apeshit from taking that stuff and the police had to shoot him.
Hold on, let me look for this online. BRB. Yeah, here it is.

Chantix Wrongful Death Lawsuit Filed by Family of Dallas Musician


September 2nd, 2009 • Filed Under: News • One Comment Full article: http://www.aboutlawsuits.com/chantix...musician-5763/




And another reference. Same family.
Family of Texas Musician Who Died On Stop-Smoking Drug Chantix Sues Maker http://www.attorneyatlaw.com/2009/09...ix-sues-maker/

[chuecafressds]

I don't know for sure, but I'm thinking he was actively taking it, and I don't know for how long. It is something to be aware of at least.




Now this is really weird. I just checked my mostly junk email account at Yahoo. This message arrived early this morning, (Tuesday, September 8, 2009 6:26 AM)

Chantix Smoking Cessation Pills

In May of 2006, Pfizer received approval from the FDA to release a drug called Chantix, which was designed to chemically ‘trick’
the nicotine receptor cells in the brain to think that it was getting its ‘fix’ when in fact it was receiving a medication designed to prevent
nicotine from binding with those same cells in the future. People who took Chantix were supposed to get the same temporary feeling
of pleasure that they got from ingesting nicotine.

Find out more facts: http://www.dgjunbiao.com/chantixll/

[TyncTyncSah]

Take a few million people and have them quite smoking, and regardless what they used to stop there are going to be a few suicidal or wack jobs. Consider that quiting has always been associated with people getting a bit mean and irritable.

I was thinking the same. Deprive me of smokes for any length of time and I'll become homicidal.

[sat23neus2]

... quit my 40 year habit without it. (16 months and counting)

11 months for me after 25 years of smoking.