How Does the Drug Industry Get Away with Broadcasting Those Deceptive Ads?

[Donnachaidh]

http://www.alternet.org/media/149909/how_does_the_drug_industry_get_away_with_broadcasting_those_deceptive_ads/

We’ve all seen them in newspapers and magazines, on TV and the Internet -- cheerful people in glossy, picturesque ads claiming that by taking a little magic prescription pill their lives were immeasurably improved.

As the TV ad fades, a cautionary voice quietly recites a host of “risk factors,” potentially catastrophic consequences that could result from taking the magical pill. One can’t but wonder if the cure is worse than the ailment.

A well-known ad features Dr. Robert Jarvik, a pioneer in the development of the artificial heart, pitching Pfizer’s cholesterol drug Lipitor. He comes across as a trusted expert with your best interest at heart, but viewers would not know that he is neither a cardiologist, nor licensed to practice medicine. (Lipitor’s 2009 sales were $5.4 billion.)

Another ad features Dorothy Hamill, the Olympic skating champion, skating effortlessly while promoting Merck's arthritis drug, Vioxx. The viewer would not know that Merck had for years knowingly withheld incriminating research from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The data would have barred the drug’s commercial release and may have saved the lives of an estimated 27,000 people who suffered heart attacks and sudden cardiac deaths after taking it. After Merck made billions, the drug was taken off the market.

More at the link --

[hobbit709]

1. Money-the regulatory agencies are pretty much owned

[Tippy]

Money talks....

[Warren Stupidity]

2. The plutocracy captured all the regulatory agencies.

The corruption is complete. It became official with the Big Short of 2008.

[Atman]

3. In reality, the ads are no more deceptive than shampoo or car ads.

Of course the people are always cheerful and smiling...it's advertising. You don't sell something by showing dour, depressed people just muddling through life. In short, there is big money at stake. I'm personally opposed to prescription drug advertising in principle; you should get your drug advice from your physician, not a celebrity pitchman. But then, by that measure, you should only buy a car on the advice of a trusted mechanic, not based on the computer-generated image of the sleek, sexy sled that attracts the opposite sex and can outrun a rocketship.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

4. Vioxx has competition

http://www.hchs.edu/files/HerbalCox_2_HSR.pdf

Tumeric, Bromelain, Boswellia Serrata, Hops, Ginger, Salicin,

[XOKCowboy]

5. If I'm not mistaken the US is one of only a few countries that allow drug advertising...

I heard that somewhere and hope that someone can confirm? With the cost of pharmaceuticals skyrocketing why add on more costs by spending millions of dollars telling people to "Ask your doctor if __________ is right for you".

[jody]

6. Same way political parties and candidates "Get Away with Broadcasting Those Deceptive Ads". nt

[begin_within]

7. The ads for Humira, Remicade and Embel even state they can cause cancer.

They might as well just say, "Hey take this drug for arthritis or Crohn's... don't mind that you might get lymphoma 2 years from now from taking it, just enjoy the pain relief today."