BAN ALL prescription med ADS NOW. except. . . .

[ChairmanAgnostic]

the honey and I were sipping some wine, and watching house, and waiting for the latest new diagnosis of some non-disease ready to be treated with some scary new set of meds.

she and i started reciting, ahead of time, the warnings and contra-indications and side-effects.
And after listing a dozen complaints between the two of us, the conversation went like this:

Spousette: Wait for the diarrhea problem

Mois: No shit

TV: Constipation can also occur

Spousette: I guess that qualifies

Mois: No shit

Spousette: they just said that

(insert laugh track)

- -

I SERIOUSLY think that it is time to ban ALL MED ADS on ALL STATIONS. Big Pharma is concocting diseases just to sell its poisons.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

1. They need to advertise for medical marijuana.

Right after those commercials about how pot makes you run over little girls in the drive thru.

Side effects may include: bloodshot eyes, increased appetite, mild euphoria.

[0007]

5. Rather be around a group of dope smokers than a bar full of drunks

any day.

[BrownOak]

35. Does this have to be an either / or question**

[elehhhhna]

40. marinol is boring

dont ask me how I know

[HysteryDiagnosis]

2. Big Pharma and the FDA (Fatal Drugs Allowed) are possibly the

single largest cause of much of the degenerative conditions in the U.S.

CoxII inhibitors are a classic example of a med that over time exacerbates the very problems they are supposed to treat.

[goclark]

19. What are CoxII inhibitors?

Interesting thread

[Liberal Veteran]

20. A class of meds used to treat arthritis (Vioxx being the most well known)

[goclark]

21. Oh my

so many folks really need help for the constant pain.

I do understand what long term use can do to you, I had severe Sinus Problems and they gave me Steroids.

It took me 6 years for that stuff to get out of my body.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

27. Something for you......

http://www.lef.org/protocols/respiratory/sinusitis_01.htm


Sinusitis
Updated: 02/13/2006

The sinuses are air-filled sacs in the facial bones of the head. They have several functions, including warming incoming air and helping to form certain sounds. When the sinuses become infected and inflamed, the condition is known as sinusitis. Sinusitis ranges from a minor annoyance to a serious condition that might require surgery.

The four pairs of sinuses are listed below, in order from highest frequency of infection to least:

* Maxillary sinuses, located in the cheekbone, right below the eye sockets
* Ethmoid sinuses, located behind the bridge of the nose
* Frontal sinuses, located in the lower forehead, in the middle of the head just above the eye sockets
* Sphenoid sinuses, located behind the eyes

The sinuses are lined with cells covered with small, hair-like projections called cilia, which help clear mucus from the chambers and keep them bacteria free (Rubin BK et al 2004). When the ability to clear the passageways is blocked, however, the sinuses may become infected. Sinusitis is classified by duration of illness (acute or chronic), by cause (infectious or other), and by the type of infectious agent involved (bacterial, fungal, or viral). According to the National Institutes for Health, approximately 37 million Americans are affected by sinusitis every year. Health care providers report nearly 32 million cases of chronic sinusitis every year (National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases 2005).

Even if it is not considered serious, sinusitis can have a major impact on quality of life (Bhattacharyya N 2003; Chester AC 2003; Linder JA et al 2003). In rare cases, sinusitis can cause infections of the brain and other complications (National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases 2005).

[SmokingJacket]

29. I don't know if you're talking about sinus *headaches* or not...

but I recently found this...

http://www.headachecare.com/treatment.htm#Sinus

It says that 97% of self-described sinus headaches are actually migraines, not related to sinus infection at all! Makes so much sense to me... no wonder antibiotics never did a thing for me...

Sorry if this is off-topic --

[elehhhhna]

41. I believe that. My Mom still doesn't understand why her "sinus" headaches

went away after menopause. duh mom.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

44. which did worse or at least, no better than the drugs they replaced.

Vioxx advertising costs ran $1.4 BILLION a year. Yet it still created more than a billion in profit each year it was marketted.
A BILLION + in advertising? rather than R&D, safety trials, testing and the like?

That is absolutely criminal.

[Poiuyt]

23. Does Viagra help that?

[W_HAMILTON]

3. I agree...

...a decade or so ago, I couldn't remember seeing any of these types of ads. Now, you see at least one during every commercial break. Why the hell are they marketing prescription drugs to everyday people? That's for your doctor to decide. Of course the answer is, it's all about the money.

[Dogmudgeon]

6. " ... for your doctor to decide ..."

With all due respect, this is one of the attitudes that needs to be fought, as well -- the idea that we're all just children and need physicians to act as our surrogate fathers. (Sexism intentional -- the same way it is on TV.)

The marketing is similar to the way they market to kids. They're telling us to bug our parental units in the medical field to let us have candy. For those of us who are of a more independent mind, there are the ads telling us that "diet and exercise alone" won't help us -- we need to take our medicine, or that cholesterol number will rise in the place of our weight.

One hundred thousand people die in the USA each year from "medication errors" alone, but no matter what happens, "we" are disobedient fat children, and the medical cartel contains no end of kindly, peer-reviewed lab-coat-wearing Doctors who Know Best. The idea that public health concerns don't model parent-child interactions never occurs to them. Of course, if they got away from the parent-child model, it would be tougher to sell drugs.

--p!

[ChairmanAgnostic]

11. ah, the magic of the AMA and big Pharma!

[elehhhhna]

42. Did y'all now they market & give freebies to med students, too?

[Torn_Scorned_Ignored]

15. A decade?

I think it mostly happened after January of 2001. I'm glad to see this as a post, I didn't realize other people even noticed what I've found extremely irritating.

[brmdp3123]

4. Uh--you don't have to buy it, you know.

[A Simple Game]

7. You don't have to buy it,

but if you pay medicaid/medicare taxes or buy health insurance, you do have to pay for it.

Plus the advertising dollars allow the companies to influence the way the news is reported, same as some of the other companies that don't sell directly to the public do. For example whatever company says "We don't make the products you buy, we make the products you buy better". Why do you think they spend money on advertising?

[jody]

8. The saddest scam was Big Pharma's drive to lower high blood pressure from

the old standards.

[givemebackmycountry]

9. Please

Tell me more.
I never heard that one before.
As someone with borderline HBP, I'd like to hear more about this.

Thanks!


:hi: :hi: :hi:

[unblock]

13. used to be that you had to have 150 systolic. now it's 120

basically, old school is that over 150 systolic is high blood pressure and 120-150 was "borderline".

big pharma commissioned some studies that showed that "borderline" high blood pressure was highly correlated with later ACTUAL high blood pressure, and that early treatment was most effective.

consequently, they now call 120-150 "PRE-hypertension", which implies that you ARE GOING to get actual hypertension if left untreated.

the result is that they now treat 120+ systolic essentially the same as they treat 150+. i.e., it's ALL high blood pressure now.

[goclark]

18. That means more people will need to take the Meds ,right?

[unblock]

22. that's the general idea, yes

i have a cynical view toward big pharma and commissioned studies in particular, but my intuition tells me that in this particular case, they might actually be right.

i'm hardly an expert, but i haven't seen too many people stay in the 120-150 range for too many years without going over 150.

[Liberal Veteran]

24. Sadly, where money is involved...

...it is probably a good idea to by cynical. They don't say the love of money is the root of all evil for nothing.

I think cynicism can be taken to the extreme however and brushing all pharmaceutical companies with the same brush would be an unfortunate mistake.

[Mel]

10. jody I'm interested in that

high blood pressure from the old standard information do you have any quick links? If not I'll do my homework.
I also think I heard about them changing the cholesterol ratings too?

[jody]

26. One of many "New High Blood Pressure Standards"

New High Blood Pressure Standards

Note drop in systolic from 129 to 119 and diastolic from 84 to 79.

Result is more profits for pharmaceutical companies because more patients fall in that category.

[YouthInAsia]

12. Im a pharmacist and I've been saying that from the get go.

Its ridiculous. All it does is send ppl scurrying to their doctors to demand medication. And notice that the cant tell you what the drug is for unless the ALSO tell you the side effects. Thats why some drug commercials dont tell you what the drug is used to "treat" but hint about it.

[goclark]

17. Thanks for your input

I've always wondered what the Pharmacists felt about television Ads.

[tyedyeto]

30. You are so right about the hinting...

I wondered for a long time what the 'little purple pill' was for when none of the ads would tell you. Those ads can drive one a bit crazy with the mute button.

[Liberal Veteran]

14. I agree that DTC ads should stop...HOWEVER...

...I am not going to jump on the "drug companies are evil" bandwagon.

Direct to consumer advertising and the massive increase in the cost of medications are came at approximately the same time and I think that it is a major factor in the double digit inflation of drug prices.

I think it needs to stop.

On the issue of drug companies selling poisons. Give me a fucking break already. With literally thousands of medications on the markets for various illnesses, there are only a handful that might be linked to some kind of fraud on behalf of a pharmaceutical companies. When that does happen, the company needs to be punished.

But.....

There is NO SUCH THING as a perfect drug that doesn't have some side-effects in a percentage of the population. All pharmaceuticals are a risk/benefit scenario. (Do the benefits of taking this drug outweigh the potential problems that it might cause?) Even aspirin has risks.

Take antivirals. (I do...three different ones every single day for the last 6 years). Not a single one of these drugs I take is without a list of potential adverse effects from increased risk of heart disease due to the drugs causing an increase in my cholesterol to metabolic changes like abnormal fat distribution and insulin resistance.

With 22 t-cells at the initiation of therapy and 30 pounds underweight, the alternative for me was death. I got lucky and while I have experienced some MODEST increases in my cholesterol, I have been relatively illness free and able to work full time and am back up to my normal weight.

A year from now, maybe two years from now, maybe ten years from now, I may find out that one of the antivirals I am taking had an incredibly horrible side effect that comes from long term usage of the drug. It's a risk that I HAVE to take.

I have to say I get a little bit tired of people talking about how "evil" pharmaceutical companies are. I'm the first one to say that medications are overpriced and we need universal health care, but for every story about the people who took Fen-Phen, there are thousands of stories of people whose lives have been made comfortable and healthier due to the so-called "poisons" peddled by the pharmaceutical companies.

I knew people who took Vioxx and were sad when the drug was taken off the market because it really worked for them and they preferred the risk to the constant pain that left them unable to function well. While I'll be the first to agree that full disclosure of risks are necessary (although to be honest, doctors often don't do enough educating their patients about risks for fear of scaring the patient away from a drug that may help them because the patient hears 1 person in 500000 might have side effect x from the particular drug that might actually help the patient), people should keep in mind that every chemical you take for an illness poses SOME level of risk.

We always have to have that balance between the people who are on the extremes of either end (the darwinists who think companies can do whatever they like even hiding risks and the people who think that everyone is going to get every side effect that was observed during clinical trials and thus the drug is poison).

And remember what you hear on tv is required by law and based on observations during clinical trials. If one person has a symptom during the clinical trial that cannot be proven to NOT be caused by the drug, it is listed as a POTENTIAL side-effect. And the worse the side-effect is, the more likely it is you WON'T have that side effect.

For example (back to antivirals), the class of antivirals I take is associated with a risk of a potentially fatal side-effect known as Steven-Johnsons Syndrome where your skin blisters, tears and literally sloughs off. It is a very very rare chemical reaction to antivirals (and many other drugs including COX-2 inhibitors), but it HAS to be listed.

So when you hear on tv that Whizinol has generally mild side-effects including dry mouth and constipation or diarrhea...that is already a small minority of people anyway for whom the benefits of the drug is worth the occassional dry mouth or upset stomach. When they list the REALLY bad things, it's a MUCH MUCH smaller percentage of people who experienced that.

Which means in laymans terms that no drug is perfect and you should watch out for serious side effects with ANYTHING you take to treat a condition.

I'll get off my soap box now, but suffice it to say that I'd have died a horrible death 6 years ago without the awful "poisons" that are peddled by the drug companies.

[napi21]

25. Of course you're right that there are few if any "safe" drugs.

Even asprin has side effects in some people. My objection is that they have a damn drug for EVERYTHING, real or imagined! Doctors go to many years of med school for a reason! I expect THEM to know what drugs are the best to take for what problem I might have. I am NOT capable of making that decision because I have no training, and I hate it that some people actually demand the crap being promoted on their TV! I can see saying, I saw this ad, what do you think? But that's not what I keep hearing is happening.

I say take 'em all OFF THE TV!

Drs have a professional job to do, one that they are trained to do...LET THEM DO IT!!!!

[goclark]

28. Amen to that ~ take um off the television

[goclark]

16. Yes! There should be a class action suit

against advertising Meds on television!

As we watch some 80 year old man dancing through the cornfields because he took his Lipitor and

THEN

the announcer's voice lowers and in a whisper we hear "don't take this med if you have liver problems!
Or (softer now) if you have muscle problems Shhhhh...

That is not right!

I took three different kinds of Cholesterol Meds and had severe cramps and muscle problems with every one of them!

Only ONE of my doctors believed that the muscle problems were from the HOLY, HOLY, HOLY Medicines.

As I was leaving the offices of the disbelievers, cute blond Pharmaceutical Reps were delivering lunch to the doctors and their nurses from a fancy upscale restaurant while 5 -6 patients sat waiting.

The Pharmaceutical companies own the television stations and they own the doctors too!

Note: My Angel Neurologist took me off of all the Meds and I got my Cholesterol down to normal by reading and following a book called " Cut Your Cholesterol ~ Lose 30 Points in 12 weeks" by Dr. David Katz and EXERCISE!

I have never felt better (knock on wood)in my life.

* I am not saying that Medicines are not a blessing. I am saying that it is dangerous for Joe and goclark Average citizen to listen to television and let it become the doctor.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

31. I have to admit I have problems with liver. Even with onions.

don't like the taste at all.

My spousette forces these vitamins and herbals thingies down me throat and frankly, I don't plan on seeing a doctor. Feel pretty good. But I do get upset at these TV ads.

[mtnester]

32. The one warning I never understood was that a medicine could possibly

give you the flu.

WTF? Isn't that a damn contagion? How the HELL does it get into something like Claritan? (or some other drug, pick a name)

[Avalux]

36. Here's what that means -

I assume you're speaking of Claritin. If you're using an antihistamine such as Claritin or a steroid (like flonase) that inhibits or blocks the immune function of your mucous membrane cells, it will leave you more SUSCEPTIBLE to the flu or other contagious diseases that target that part of the body. They way it's explained in a 60 second ad is misleading.

[mtnester]

37. I hear you, it sounds like the stuff will GIVE you the flu

pretty bad when the warning portion of the advert is longer than the actual commercial

[Avalux]

38. lol, yep. Personally, I hate the ads; consider them unethical.

It's a sneaky way for the pharma cos. to get patients to put a bug in their doc's ear and demand the drug. A lot of docs will cave and give it to them, whether they really need it or not. Especially if they've got samples sitting in a cabinet.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

33. I Really Have No Problem With Them

For the most part medications help millions of people. Advertising in a free market society to reach out to consumers who may not otherwise know a medication exists is fine. I just think there needs to be continued regulation of the ads' content to ensure they are not misleading or giving an impression that is far beyond the medication's capability.

[BrownOak]

34. Wait, don't ban the boner ads

they're too funny, especially those Cialas ads.

But if we're ranting against pharmaceutical companies, I say get rid of all the blown dry, overly polished, "hey I brought lunch for the office and some neat pens, have you qualified for our doctor's trip to Cancun" drug reps. My wife used to work in a medical office and she said that it got so bad they would have several different reps bringing in lunch every day. Not that the people in the office didn't eat them mind you...

And while I'm at it, get rid of every PPO network in America. Make every medical provider charge the same amount to anyone who comes in for treatment regardless of what kind of, if any, insurance they have. Let the providers determine how much they want to charge and let the free market take over. The reason our health care is so expensive is the amount of profit that large insurance companies are able to suck in by leveraging the size of their client base to drive costs down from providers. The problem is that the providers get squeezed and can't provide quality care because they have to see so many belly buttons per day to meet their overhead. But the consumer doesn't see any of that reduced cost because the insurance industry sucks it up in administrative services.

But I digress....

[elehhhhna]

39. Can we keep the Man peeing trouble commercials?

I'm glad the guys can finally understand how gross & embarassing those personal-product ads can get

[ChairmanAgnostic]

43. vaginal itch? jockey itch? athlete's feet? Hemerrhoids?

Play it again, sam, just right after dinner.