Tell the FDA to stop prescription drug ads

[OneBlueSky]

http://www.democracyinaction.org/dia/organizations/commercialalert/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=2391&t=stop_drug_ads_home.dwt

Each year, drug executives spend $4 billion on prescription drug ads for pills they say will make you feel happier, sleep better and improve your sex life.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is collecting public comment on these ads.

The evidence is clear that the ads are not educational, do not promote public health, and can be extremely dangerous, as the Vioxx tragedy shows.

More than 200 medical school professors have endorsed our statement opposing drug ads. Now we need your support. Please write to the FDA today.

http://www.democracyinaction.org/dia/organizations/commercialalert/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=2391&t=stop_drug_ads_home.dwt

[Wordie]

1. Done! Thanks for this, OneBlueSky. Recommended!

I've never understood how those ads can be effective anyway, with all the possible side effects they include. They make me feel less interested in taking the drugs they advertise. Nonetheless, I think the ads should not be shown.

The petition is really quick to fill out. I hope that the campaign is successful.

[seabeyond]

2. superbowl takes out viagra ad. too tough for all those men, but

women being sluts is just fine and we are suppose to suck it up. just an ironic, and superbowl day and all. i hate those commercials for my kids sake. at such a young age they are bombarded with death on all channels, day in and day out all day long. it is not healthy. and especially those dick ads. with two young boys. i really dont want them to learn that 4 hour hard dick is the only way to keep a woman and feel good about themselves. started yelling to hubby to be outraged with those ads day one. but i dont like any of them. though they do bring comedy too.... get skinny, lose 100 pounds in three days..... claimers.... death

[HysteryDiagnosis]

3. This confirms some of my suspicions regarding the direct to

consumer marketing of oftentimes unnecessary medications/drugs.

http://www.drugawareness.org/Ribbon/Alternatives.html
VITAMIN/MINERAL PRODUCTS:

When SSRIs impair one's ability to metabolize serotonin I find that they also generally deplete vitamin and minerals from the body by interfering with metabolism. Nurses have also voiced their concern to me about this aspect of the drugs - especially when they are being taken by pregnant women who so desperately need all the nutrition they can get.

I always recommend taking a good, easy to assimilate vitamin/mineral supplement after using mind altering medications. The following has information on one of the vitamin/mineral supplements I have found to be very helpful. Our director in Arizona overcame 22 years of anorexia using these products - something doctors told her could never happen.

[ClintonTyree]

4. Dream on.......

The Republicans (some Democrats as well) are so awash in BigPharm money they'd never pass a law to rein them in. BIG cash-cow!

I signed the petition, but I'm not going to hold my breath for any reform.

[eggman67]

5. Completely agree. K&R

I don't do canned messages, but I support the cause and have written to the FDA, Sens. & Rep about it independently.

[AndyA]

6. More ads, less research and development

My pharmacist told me the drug companies are spending so much money on advertising, that research and development are taking a back seat. Doesn't sound right to me.

And so many ads make you fearful of the side effects. For instance, a new drug for dry skin* that can cause "sudden death, heart failure, lung collapse, and prevent the ability to fight infections" sure doesn't sound so great by me. Why would anyone take it? The side effects are worse than the condition being treated!

I'll take the dry skin, and smear some Gold Bond** on it!

*Not based on any actual or real drug, just made this up. Any resemblance to a real drug is purely coincidental.

**Not an endorsement, just the first one that came to mind.

[Solon]

7. Actually, that sounds similar to the warning for Advair...

an asthma medication, I believe they call it sudden death as well. I think that was the right commercial. Also, when Big Pharma talks about R&D costs, what they really mean is using government research using government labs, and taxpayers money, to do the heavy lifting, then they step in, make a modification or two, agree to get the bribes...ahem...certification past the FDA, then they are awarded a patent for having deep pockets.

[Telly Savalas]

9. That's not entirely the case.

While Big Pharma does harvest the results of publicly funded research for ridiculous bargains, they also commit large sums of their own to R&D. Just look at their financials.

[Telly Savalas]

8. The two things operate independently

More advertising means more revenue, otherwise they wouldn't be doing it. So it's not like that ad money is being diverted from the R&D budget.

The side effect disclosure is required by the FDA, I believe.

In addition to banning consumer advertising for prescription drugs, I'm of the opinion that the more traditional marketing to doctors should be reined in as well.

[Wordie]

10. I agree that marketing to doctors should be reined in too.

New and expensive drugs that are essentially the same drugs whose patents have expired are frequently marketed to doctors as being far more effective, even when that's not the case (the pharmas don't make as much money on a drug once its patent expires).

Further, many doctors themselves tend to think that the side effects information provided for most drugs means that problems with the drugs are rarer than they really are. Many of the studies that the pharmas conduct are not based on sound research design. When a subject has a problem or side effect, they are often dropped from the study and the results therefore don't reflect the actual rate of problems with the drug. And if the drug company does a study that shows problems with a particular drug, nowadays they are not required to publish it or inform anyone of the results they obtained. If only those studies showing postitive outcomes are published, how can anyone accurately evaluate their effectiveness and potential dangers? These are relatively little-known problems with drug studies, but ones that should recieve far more attention, imho.

[Wordie]

11. And the problem isn't just the ads, its the studies themselves.

November 23, 2005
Although it appears that JAMA is taking steps to address this problem, finally:

Industry-Funded Drug Studies Once Again Under the Microscope

...Last July, JAMA adopted new author guidelines that made it more difficult for industry to exert control over research and publication. The key new elements required the principal investigator in a clinical trial to certify the accuracy of the data in the study and insure he or she had access to all of it. The guidelines also distinguished between purely academic and industry funded studies. In the latter case, JAMA added a requirement that the certification of data come from someone not employed by the company sponsoring the study.

The new guidelines drew a heated response from the drug industry, which appeared in this week's Journal. Dr. Caroline Loew, science and regulatory affairs vice president at the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, claimed drawing a distinction between academic and industry studies “has no basis in experience.” The group resented the implication that industry-sponsored studies were somehow “at higher risk of bias and fraud than other types of studies and thus require special scrutiny.” Peer review would ferret out any flaws, she claimed.

...A few years ago, then editor of the New England Journal of Medicine Marcia Angell decided to stop publishing editorials, reviews and commentaries from authors with financial ties to companies whose products were under discussion. She was roundly criticized within the medical profession. Shortly after assuming the reins in 2002, new editor Jeffrey Drazen repealed the rule. He thought merely disclosing those ties would be enough.

...Editors and regulators need to recognize that the best way to eliminate bias from interpreting clinical trial results is to put the conduct of those trials into the hands of an entirely independent body, perhaps a new institute at the National Institutes of Health. The entire purpose and ethic of this new institute would be to generate validated medical evidence -- not sales for a sponsor's product.

Posted by gooznews at November 23, 2005 11:11 AM

http://www.gooznews.com/archives/000228.html

This appears to be a great site, btw.

[SoCalDem]

12. The ads are STUPID and contribute NOTHING

The companies would be better served by creating CDs with the real medical scoop on them and sending them to DOCTORS who could find out about new drugs and find out the real side effects..and we would not be pestered by them

[proud2BlibKansan]

13. My sister is a top level executive with a pharma company

and even she thinks these ads need to be taken off the airwaves.

Thanks for this link!

[Wordie]

14. You could also post this in the ActivistHQ, OneBlueSky.

You'd probably get additional people to respond over there.

btw, I took Vioxx.