Big Pharma doesn't want to "confuse you with the facts"!

[Breeze54]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/31/AR2006033100899.html

Groups Want Warnings Taken Off Drug Ads

By ANDREW BRIDGES
The Associated Press
Friday, March 31, 2006; 12:45 PM

WASHINGTON -- Saying "less is more," a coalition of advertising and public relations groups
wants to strip most of the warnings from prescription drug ads aimed at consumers.

Current direct-to-consumer advertisements "over warn and under inform," according to a petition submitted Friday by the Coalition for Healthcare Communication to the Food and Drug Administration. "The result is more confusion than communication."

"Our goal is simpler, clearer messages that communicate both the risks and benefits of prescription medicines, more informed doctor-patient dialogue and improved patient compliance," said John Kamp, executive director of the coalition. The organization represents trade associations specialized in medical advertising, communications, marketing and publishing. It also receives some financial support from the drug industry.

A consumer advocate countered that prescription drug ads should contain clearer, not less, language.

"To pull away or remove those fine details, we are against that. I guess we are saying, 'more is better,'" said Bill Vaughan, a senior policy analyst at Consumers Union. "Have the key facts up front, but some of us would like to read to the end to be aware of the consequences and be
sensitive to some of the things we might want to report to our doctors."

The Coalition for Healthcare Communication suggests in its petition that consumers
would be better served by skimpier ads that still relay enough information to prompt them
_ without scaring or confusing them....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Hey? Forget-about-it!! Don't worry your empty little head!!
"The less you know, the better!!" Big Pharma says so!!!
:spank:

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. Will they also make it harder

for people to sue if they have a bad reaction to the drugs that don't have the information labels on them? Or has this already been done? I can't see them wanting to take off these labels if they fear litigation.

[underpants]

4. Size and arbitration

Big Pharma probably feels very comfortable that YOU won't have the money to take litigation all the way through. Just to make sure you do they will (would) drag things out, this also tests your resolve.

Also-I don't know about pharmaceuticals but you probably aren't aware of the number of products that you use that in the warning either state or allude to company policy that states--by using this product you accept that any litigation will be settle through arbitration.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

10. The only drug I use

is thyroid medication. I use herbs and supplements as suggested by my MD.

[Systematic Chaos]

2. So that nail fungus pill that can shut down all your major organs

will now sell like hotcakes? Um, sure.

:sarcasm:

[patdem]

6. Yeah, but who can SEE your liver? When open toed sandals are all the

rage?

[DUHandle]

3. I can’t understand all of the fine print that comes with prescriptions

So, I ask someone who can, my GP if he is giving me sample of the stuff (the free samples are always from out of the country by the way) or the pharmacist.

[MrModerate]

5. Personally, I'm tired of paying for . . .

Direct-to-consumer ads anyway. They provide far too little information, because there's no way an ad can instruct the entire population in the proper prescribing of these drugs for a particular condition. That's why you train doctors for umpty-ump years before you let them start prescribing drugs, because it's a fucking science to do so!

Telling someone to "ask your doctor" about Neonostrum TR or some such is insane. And expensive. And drives up drug costs unecessarily.

I say nationalize all the drug companies. And to those who say you need the entrepreneurial spirit to continuously improve drugs and continue to bring forth miracles, I reply, "do you really need four competing medications for erectile dysfunction when you haven't cured <fill in the blank with your favorite pandemic ailment> yet?"

[Breeze54]

7. I want to be informed not treated like a moron

by these huge pharmaceutical companies!

From the article I posted above in Post #1.
"The agency held two days of hearings in November in response to those other petitions,
which sought, variously, to either ban direct-to-consumer drug ads or exempt them from
federal regulation."

They just don't want you to know AND they don't want federal regulation!
That's what you want?? What if your doctor is being paid to push the drug?
Would you still trust your doctor then? Remember Vioxx? PhenPhen?
Do you want to be experimented on too?
YIKES!!!
:wtf:

[MrModerate]

11. Ads are not education . . .

They don't provide the type of information that prepares you make an informed choice about a course of therapy. And <of course> doctors are influenced by Big Pharma -- free samples alone have the tendency to put specific (nongeneric) drugs in the hands of patients, and doctors actually get many more perks from the drug companies than just samples.

The ads as they stand now are both useless and dangerous, encouraging patients to treat a course of therapy like a consumer purchase. Not incidentally, that's one of the fatal flaws in the Bush administration's drive to "consumer-driven health care": Buying therapy is not like buying a breakfast cereal or a CD, and shouldn't be marketed the same way. Probably shouldn't be "marketed" at all.

The only way to make these direct-to-consumer ads worse would be to relieve them of the responsibilty for reporting deletarious effects from the products they're hawking. I.e., exempt them from federal regulation. Which is what Big Pharma wants to do. They want to eliminate the deletarious-effects (known as "side effects" only if you're not the one experiencing them) warnings, be able to market their newest, shiniest, and most expensive concoctions (frequently no more effective than what's on the market in generic form).

If you want to be able to make an informed choice about drug therapies, you're going to have to study the literature broadly and continuously; have a pretty solid grounding in medicine and biochemistry; and be able to monitor your own response with a high degree of precision and timeliness. Ultimately you're going to have to trust a doctor.

The Gummint could insist on much more technical information being made available, but most patients would have difficulties wading through it, assessing its relevance to their condition, and wisely applying what they learn to their case.

For me, I've found a doctor that I can trust and I rely heavily on his professional judgement. God knows I'm paying enough for that (training and) judgement!

[Breeze54]

12. Hey? I said

I don't want to be treated like a moron. I want the alerts!
I never said that the long list of possible side effects was an education BUT
they sure as hell serve as an alert!!I don't take any drugs except Acetaminophen,
on occasion. Hope I never have to, either.
I like that they have to "inform" the public! And cutting the information part
of the advertising isn't going to lower the costs!
They will STILL advertise except people will NOT know what to be wary of,IMHO!
My doctor gave me free samples of Vioxx at one point BUT he didn't warn me
about ANY side effects and YES! I read what info came with the samples.
I threw the freebies away when I heard about the lawsuits and gratefully,
I hadn't used the drug except once or twice over a period of months.

[jwirr]

8. But they sure do not mind confusing us with 72 idiot drug programs.

[Breeze54]

9. No kidding!! And time's ticking to make that decision too! n/t