Should congress ban drug advertising. POLL

[napi21]

Here's a poll that actually makes sense! I just received notice via email. The Yeses are winning!

http://www.vote.com/health/

They claim they will forward the results to congress.

[theivoryqueen]

1. especially those "male enhancement" drugs

bothersome and freaky. Also - all those ads that only say the name, but not what the drug does. WTCheney?

[Sugarbleus]

2. Dang, I forgot..you're right...all those

'guess what this is for' drugs on TV.

[BOHICA06]

3. Exactly, on the guess

what I'm for advertisements!!

[depakid]

4. It wouldn't take an act of Congress

All that would be required would be for the FDA to return to its pre-1997 regulations that required all "direct to consumer" to contain what's called a "brief summary," which contains accurate scientific information regarding the drugs useage and potential side effects. Like many things in science, "brief summaries," aren't all that brief and their requiring their inclusion made TV advertising impractical.

Even requiring the addition of the information required in FDA-approved Patient Package Insert (PPI's) would be a deterrant to expensive TV advertising- and although it wouldn't completely solve the problem, it would at least ensure that people got somewhat accurate information in a format that they can understand. This latter point is important, as the FDA has in all but the most egregious cases stopped enforcing regulations requiring that pharmaceutical companies not engage in "puffing" and distortions about their products.

See, e.g. http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1019-03.htm

As it stands, Americans (unlike citizens in other countries) end up paying much higher prices for the privilege of being bombarded misleading ads about prescription drugs.

Something needs to be done- and there's no way Congress will buck PhRMa. Let's hope Kerry shows more sense and has more integrity on this issue than Bill Clinton did.

[napi21]

5. Wasn't it Congress that made the change in 1997?

I'm not sure, but I thought it was a Congressional vote that permitted the drug Co's to advertise restriction drugs. If so, I would think it would take Congress to change it back.

It's not only Viagra, it's all the damn drugs. I laughed last night when I paid partial attention to so drug ad. The side effects were worse than the problem they were trying to cure. No I don't even remember what the thing was, but I did remark to my family "Here's another reason to make thins shit go away.

The drug Co's keep saying the ads are for education of the public. but that's BS. I want my Doctor to tell me about possible new treatments...that's his job! I don't need someone who's beem trained for a few weeks to make the decision/

[depakid]

6. It was FDA regs

Actually, the process began back in the 80's with an arthritis drug, prompting the FDA to request a voluntary moratorium. In 1997, they announced "clarifications" to the direct to consumer rules- these took full effect in 1999.

The next version of the rules have been under review for some time- there were public hearings last fall- and of course the FDA's position is that the genie is now out of the bottle.

That could change, of course- provided that a Kerry administration has the political courage to stand up to PhRMa- who as you mention, claims that their television ads are "one of the largest and most successful public health information campaigns in U.S. history."

That's a crock, of course- laypersons are being marketed the newest most expensive drugs in the hopes that they will bug their physicians for them- often when generics or even over the counters are just as efficacious. People don't realize that, though, They just want the newest thing- and most people aren't paying attention to the quick, voice over about possible side effects.

[napi21]

7. I guess I should start bugging Kerry about this.

I have NEVER met ANYONE who likes, wants, or enjoys the drug ads. No one even thinks that they are informative!

Maybe a lot of letters toyour congressmen and the FDA can make this nonsense go away!

[rocktivity]

8. If this is about perscription drugs, I vote yes

It defeats the entire purpose of requiring a perscripton. Even worse, people who do "ask their doctor" and don't get the answer they want either seek doctors who will perscribe the drugs, or buy them off the black market that's developed. I'd like to think that any doctor of mine is capbable of staying informed about the latest in perscripton drugs, and of telling me if they're appropriate.

:headbang:
rocknation

[depakid]

11. Even the prescribing process is corrupted in America

In addition to the 3 billion dollars they spend on direct marketing to consumers, drug companies are spending about 15 billion dollars per year on marketing to doctors. That's the equivalent of about $10,000 per year per physician.

Moreover, due to suppressing research and potential side effects, some of the newer drugs that have entered the market since the FDA "streamlined" the approval process in 1992 have ended up causing thousands of "unanticipated" adverse events, including many fatalities.

If anyone's interested, there's a good, short and easily readable article that outlines the extent of the problem here:

http://www.healingdaily.com/conditions/pharmaceutical-companies-2.htm

[Walt Starr]

9. Vote.com is a right wing shill site

I NEVER vote at vote.com. Toe Sucker is an email address harvester.

[eleny]

10. But today I voted in 5 of the polls...

...and the results all went my way. Liberals must be participating more these days. Poor Dicky Boy.