AMA Wants Halt on Drug Ads Aimed at Consumers <article>
Question:
AMA Wants Halt on Drug Ads Aimed at Consumers Group says doctors need to learn more about pros and cons of prescription medicines By Steven Reinberg THURSDAY, June 15 (HealthDay News) — In an effort to make prescription-drug ads aimed at consumers more understandable and informative, the American Medical Association is calling for a temporary halt on advertising for newly approved drugs. The AMA is also calling for guidelines for future ads, which would be subject to approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration before they appeared. At its just-concluded annual House of Delegates meeting in Chicago, the AMA endorsed a policy asking for a temporary moratorium on so-called direct-to-consumer (DTC) advertising of new prescription drugs and implantable medical devices. "A temporary moratorium on DTC advertising of prescribed drugs and medical devices will benefit both the patient and physician," AMA President-elect Dr. Ronald M. Davis said in a prepared statement. "Physicians will have the opportunity to become better educated on the pros and cons of prescription drug uses before prescribing them, and will be better able to determine when they are best suited for their patients’ medical needs." Medical devices were added to the proposal because many doctors who spoke at the AMA meeting said direct-to-consumer ads for medical devices were already appearing, Davis told HealthDay. "This is happening in such fields as orthopedics," he said. The association plans to ask the FDA to enact the policy, so the length of any moratorium would be determined by the drug agency. "If you have a drug which is critical to the treatment of a particular disease for which alternate treatments are not available, that would push to limiting the length of the moratorium," Davis said. The AMA also endorsed new guidelines for advertising prescription drugs to consumers. The guidelines call for providing objective information about the benefits and risks of a drug as determined in clinical trials. They also urge more research into the effects of direct-to-consumer advertising on "the patient-physician relationship, overall health outcomes and health-care costs." The doctors’ group also wants the FDA to approve all direct-to-consumer ads before they appear. "We crafted our proposal to provide for very tight FDA authority over DTC ads," Davis said. In addition, ads should allow enough time or space for consumers to understand all the warnings, precautions and potential side effects, without being distracted by other content in the advertisement, the doctors’ group said. The ads should also refer patients to their doctors for a full explanation of a drug and its use, and be targeted to age-appropriate audiences, the guidelines state. The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America said it generally supports the AMA’s position. But the drug industry group believes its own voluntary monitoring program is sufficient to deal with the content of direct-to-consumer ads. "PhRMA appreciates and supports the American Medical Association’s continuing efforts to improve patient education and to provide quality information on health conditions and the treatment options available to conquer disease," Dr. Paul Antony, chief medical officer for the group, said in a prepared statement. "Informed patients are better patients and DTC advertising provides doctors and patients with accurate, educational information about disease and treatment options." "PhRMA and its member companies announced last year its voluntary Guiding Principles on Direct-to-Consumer Advertisements About Prescription Medicines in an effort to further enhance the educational value of prescription drug advertising," Antony added. "While there are subtle differences between the Guiding Principles and the AMA’s report, both emphasize the critical need to educate physicians and other health-care providers about a new medicine before it is advertised to the public." Dr. Peter Lurie, deputy director of consumer advocacy group Public Citizen’s Health Research Group, thinks the AMA proposal doesn’t go far enough to guarantee complete information on prescription drugs to the public. "The AMA suggestion is fine but it is nonspecific," said Lurie, adding there’s no mention of how many years the moratorium would be in effect. "All that is up in the air, and there is no reason why that can’t be made more specific," he said. The most important part of the proposal calls for the FDA to prescreening ads, Lurie said. "If prescreening really happened that would be a big help," he said. "The real solution to the problem of lack of patient information is not to leave it to the market, where self-interested people advertise only those products on which they can make a buck," Lurie said. "The real solution is to provide patients with government-sanctioned information on each and every drug." Another consumer advocate doesn’t think the AMA proposal would do anything to protect the public. "Direct-to-consumer drug ads are dangerous and should be illegal," said Gary Ruskin, executive director of the consumer watchdog group Commercial Alert. "The AMA’s policy is so weak that it will do little, if anything, to protect public health. It won’t make much of a difference at all." The AMA’s Davis said his group considered a ban on direct-to-consumer ads but opted for FDA oversight instead. "There are some potential benefits from DTC advertising," he said. "In particular, educating the public about the availably of new medications and prompting discussions between patients and physicians about new medications." But there are some risks, Davis added. "Such as building up false expectations among patients about what these drugs may or may not do, or whether they are appropriate for the disease or condition that a patient has," he said. "Laying out the advantages and disadvantages of DTC ads and the benefits and harms, we came down on the side of tight FDA oversight over DTC ads as opposed to a total ban," he said. More information To learn more about direct-to-consumer ads, visit the U.S. Federal Trade Commission. SOURCES: Ronald M. Davis, M.D., president-elect, American Medical Association, Chicago; Peter Lurie, M.D., M.P.H., deputy director, Public Citizen’s Health Research Group, Washington, D.C; Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, Washington, D.C.; Gary Ruskin, executive director, Commercial Alert, Portland, Ore; June 14, 2006, American Medical Association’s annual House of Delegates Meeting, Chicago This is a story from HealthDay, a service of ScoutNews, LLC. http://health.ivillage.com/othernews/0,,wbnews_99f3b9fp,00.html?dst=rss ~*~Would you respect my mind more if it bounced gently when I walked?~*~ — The charter is available at: http://readystump.algebra.com/~asapm
Response:
Is RLS listed in the DSM IV? I know AD and depression are. — Doug
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I’ve got to agree with this. After seeing a ridiculous ad for "restless leg syndrome" and a corresponding drug to "treat" it I can’t say I put much faith in pharmaceutical companies anymore. I’m not sure what you mean? I can tell you that RLS (restless leg syndrome) does exist and it really sucks! Try to imagine a bunch of your muscles and joints feeling like there are little worms crawling through them. It bothers you so much that you have to constantly stretch and move about, but that feeling still doesn’t go away. Imagine it feeling that way in your shoulder and you stretch and move it so much that you pull your shoulder joint out of place so the bones are grinding together where they shouldn’t be. You cause yourself intense pain trying to get rid of that damn feeling but it just won’t go away. You continue to do damage to your joints and the pain gets worse and worse as you develop arthritis. Still the damn "creepy crawly" feeling persists. It’s sort of like the old joke "It hurts when I move like this"…. "Well don’t move like that!" Problem is that you can’t stop. Tony — The charter is available at: http://readystump.algebra.com/~asapm
– The charter is available at: http://readystump.algebra.com/~asapm
Response:
::Is RLS listed in the DSM IV? I know AD and depression are. It is not. It is considered a sleep disorder, not a mental one. Jackie ~*~Would you respect my mind more if it bounced gently when I walked?~*~ — The charter is available at: http://readystump.algebra.com/~asapm
Response:
Is RLS listed in the DSM IV? I know AD and depression are.
I’m sure there are a few more illness’ that have been added since the first DSM. Does that mean those illness’ are all new to the human race? Or maybe, just maybe they weren’t always recognized for a long time? Tony — The charter is available at: http://readystump.algebra.com/~asapm
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I don’t know what insurance you have, or exactly what condition you have Medicaid/Medicare, and schizoaffective. They’ve tried down at the doctor’s office to get Prevacid for people. My nurse has been jumping through hoops, and my new private Medicare company won’t provide anything for stomachs other than Zantac, which is incredibly cheaper than Prevacid. And they won’t even pay for benzos period. BTW, I just wondered whether or not I could make money as a clown that visits psych wards. I could be "Benzo the Clown", and honk my horn and generally make everyone nervous and crazy. Aside from the two facts that 1) it’s a horrible idea, and 2) I’d never do it, it sounds like a plan. Ian
LOL! I like that, "Benzo the Clown"! I might be able to do something like that. The only reason I like Halloween is because if I’m all dressed up as something/someone, and you can’t see my face, then I have already danced in public, which is normally something I’d never ever be able to do. Maybe if I get a full face transplant I’ll be cured? ;-) Tony — The charter is available at: http://readystump.algebra.com/~asapm
Response:
I’ve got to agree with this. After seeing a ridiculous ad for "restless leg syndrome" and a corresponding drug to "treat" it I can’t say I put much faith in pharmaceutical companies anymore. I have heard from various people and on some public radio shows that the pharmaceutical companies don’t want to cure AIDS. The only reason I’ve heard that seemed somewhat legitimate was that they don’t want to cure it because then they’ll lose their long-term customer base of people who have to take their maintenance drugs for the rest of their lives just to stay alive. I’m so cynical these days I’m inclined to beleive it. — Doug
A doctor told my mother – back in the ’60’s – that they would never find a cure for cancer because it was too lucrative not to. However – I take that with one huge grain of salt. My mother had Paranoid Personality Disorder, and I’m sure the doctor DID say that, my mother didn’t lie about things, but I don’t believe what he said, even one tenth as much as she did – that’s exactly the sort of thing she would have suspected, anyway. There could be a bit of truth in it, but I’m just not quite that paranoid about them being that greedy. Maybe I’m gullible, I have no clue.. I do think that the price of meds is ridiculous. Some meds – if you weighed them and compared them to gold at the same weight, are more expensive than gold – many of them are the only thing sustaining someone’s life. I don’t think it’s right to charge that amount of money, I don’t care how difficult the process is to manufacture the stuff. I think they take advantage of people who are in a position to not be able to say, "No thanks." Sally — The charter is available at: http://readystump.algebra.com/~asapm
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – to get their way, a doctor has to jump through hoops and go through channels to convince the insurance companies that the patient really DOES need ..whatever… Yeah, I got taken off Prevacid and put on Zantac for my stomach ills. Even two of those Zantac a day doesn’t always help, and I can feel my esophagus (sp) getting more ulcerated by the day. One day the ulcers will really be there, and I’ll have to have all sorts of horrible surgeries and leech bleedings, or whatever it is they do to people in the hospital, and Medicare will have to pay for that. They also don’t cover Klonopin, or *any* benzos, for that matter, as the Derider had to find out as well. Luckily my *Medicaid* pays for my benzo, so that’s good, but I got real lucky with disability, and almost everyone else who gets a benzo is screwed. Ian — http://sundry.ws/
Ian, I don’t know what insurance you have, or exactly what condition you have – I will tell you that I had both a gastroenterologist as well as my internal medicine doc tell me that I NEEDED to take 2 Prilosec per day. My insurance company would only cover 1 per day. It took a call from my doctor to get them to approve 2, but they did, and my Prilosec is covered. If you really NEED Prevacid, then have your doctor’s office call the insurance company. If they still say no, you contact them. You tell them that you have about a million choices of private insurance companies to choose to cover your medicine (and they know that is true) – tell them to get the lead out, or you will switch companies. Do not be nice about it. Don’t know if that will work, but that is what I was fully prepared to do if they didn’t cover the Prilosec. Do not fool around with a bad stomach problem.. not getting the proper treatment for it can lead to trouble later. Benzo’s – I know so many people are on Klonopin, and it IS a YMMV thing.. but Xanax works well for me, and it is cheap as it can be. It’s so cheap, I have not even bothered to see if my insurance will cover it with a pdoc call. I get 90 of them for about $8 and having Triple A knocks a couple of dollars off of that. You may NEED Klonopin, but it’s more expensive than Xanax (NOT Xanax XR, that stuff is too expensive for anyone to take)… You could discuss with your doctor and give it a trial run – Xanax duration is shorter than Klonopin but I think it knocks out my panic better. Depends on your own needs and whether Xanax would fit those needs or not. Just my 2 cents. Sally — The charter is available at: http://readystump.algebra.com/~asapm
Response:
I haven’t worked in the medical field for awhile, but I bet the doctors *really appreciate* it (not) when a layman comes in and asks for Helpor to live a full life. I can see that now. Yep. Some docs might perscribe the stuff, if it does no harm,
<snip Think of how many Drs. give patients an Rx for an antibiotic when they have a common cold. It’s useless, but it keeps the patient happy because they think it makes them well. The same is sure to be happening with all the new drug commercials. Pass me the purple pills please. Tony — The charter is available at: http://readystump.algebra.com/~asapm
Response:
I don’t know what insurance you have, or exactly what condition you have
Medicaid/Medicare, and schizoaffective. They’ve tried down at the doctor’s office to get Prevacid for people. My nurse has been jumping through hoops, and my new private Medicare company won’t provide anything for stomachs other than Zantac, which is incredibly cheaper than Prevacid. And they won’t even pay for benzos period. BTW, I just wondered whether or not I could make money as a clown that visits psych wards. I could be "Benzo the Clown", and honk my horn and generally make everyone nervous and crazy. Aside from the two facts that 1) it’s a horrible idea, and 2) I’d never do it, it sounds like a plan. Ian — http://sundry.ws/ — The charter is available at: http://readystump.algebra.com/~asapm
Response:
I’ve got to agree with this. After seeing a ridiculous ad for "restless leg syndrome" and a corresponding drug to "treat" it I can’t say I put much faith in pharmaceutical companies anymore.
I’m not sure what you mean? I can tell you that RLS (restless leg syndrome) does exist and it really sucks! Try to imagine a bunch of your muscles and joints feeling like there are little worms crawling through them. It bothers you so much that you have to constantly stretch and move about, but that feeling still doesn’t go away. Imagine it feeling that way in your shoulder and you stretch and move it so much that you pull your shoulder joint out of place so the bones are grinding together where they shouldn’t be. You cause yourself intense pain trying to get rid of that damn feeling but it just won’t go away. You continue to do damage to your joints and the pain gets worse and worse as you develop arthritis. Still the damn "creepy crawly" feeling persists. It’s sort of like the old joke "It hurts when I move like this"…. "Well don’t move like that!" Problem is that you can’t stop. Tony — The charter is available at: http://readystump.algebra.com/~asapm
Response:
I’ve got to agree with this. After seeing a ridiculous ad for "restless leg syndrome" and a corresponding drug to "treat" it I can’t say I put much faith in pharmaceutical companies anymore. I have heard from various people and on some public radio shows that the pharmaceutical companies don’t want to cure AIDS. The only reason I’ve heard that seemed somewhat legitimate was that they don’t want to cure it because then they’ll lose their long-term customer base of people who have to take their maintenance drugs for the rest of their lives just to stay alive. I’m so cynical these days I’m inclined to beleive it. — Doug
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – AMA Wants Halt on Drug Ads Aimed at Consumers Group says doctors need to learn more about pros and cons of prescription medicines By Steven Reinberg THURSDAY, June 15 (HealthDay News) — In an effort to make prescription-drug ads aimed at consumers more understandable and informative, the American Medical Association is calling for a temporary halt on advertising for newly approved drugs. The AMA is also calling for guidelines for future ads, which would be subject to approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration before they appeared. At its just-concluded annual House of Delegates meeting in Chicago, the AMA endorsed a policy asking for a temporary moratorium on so-called direct-to-consumer (DTC) advertising of new prescription drugs and implantable medical devices. "A temporary moratorium on DTC advertising of prescribed drugs and medical devices will benefit both the patient and physician," AMA President-elect Dr. Ronald M. Davis said in a prepared statement. "Physicians will have the opportunity to become better educated on the pros and cons of prescription drug uses before prescribing them, and will be better able to determine when they are best suited for their patients’ medical needs." Medical devices were added to the proposal because many doctors who spoke at the AMA meeting said direct-to-consumer ads for medical devices were already appearing, Davis told HealthDay. "This is happening in such fields as orthopedics," he said. The association plans to ask the FDA to enact the policy, so the length of any moratorium would be determined by the drug agency. "If you have a drug which is critical to the treatment of a particular disease for which alternate treatments are not available, that would push to limiting the length of the moratorium," Davis said. The AMA also endorsed new guidelines for advertising prescription drugs to consumers. The guidelines call for providing objective information about the benefits and risks of a drug as determined in clinical trials. They also urge more research into the effects of direct-to-consumer advertising on "the patient-physician relationship, overall health outcomes and health-care costs." The doctors’ group also wants the FDA to approve all direct-to-consumer ads before they appear. "We crafted our proposal to provide for very tight FDA authority over DTC ads," Davis said. In addition, ads should allow enough time or space for consumers to understand all the warnings, precautions and potential side effects, without being distracted by other content in the advertisement, the doctors’ group said. The ads should also refer patients to their doctors for a full explanation of a drug and its use, and be targeted to age-appropriate audiences, the guidelines state. The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America said it generally supports the AMA’s position. But the drug industry group believes its own voluntary monitoring program is sufficient to deal with the content of direct-to-consumer ads. "PhRMA appreciates and supports the American Medical Association’s continuing efforts to improve patient education and to provide quality information on health conditions and the treatment options available to conquer disease," Dr. Paul Antony, chief medical officer for the group, said in a prepared statement. "Informed patients are better patients and DTC advertising provides doctors and patients with accurate, educational information about disease and treatment options." "PhRMA and its member companies announced last year its voluntary Guiding Principles on Direct-to-Consumer Advertisements About Prescription Medicines in an effort to further enhance the educational value of prescription drug advertising," Antony added. "While there are subtle differences between the Guiding Principles and the AMA’s report, both emphasize the critical need to educate physicians and other health-care providers about a new medicine before it is advertised to the public." Dr. Peter Lurie, deputy director of consumer advocacy group Public Citizen’s Health Research Group, thinks the AMA proposal doesn’t go far enough to guarantee complete information on prescription drugs to the public. "The AMA suggestion is fine but it is nonspecific," said Lurie, adding there’s no mention of how many years the moratorium would be in effect. "All that is up in the air, and there is no reason why that can’t be made more specific," he said. The most important part of the proposal calls for the FDA to prescreening ads, Lurie said. "If prescreening really happened that would be a big help," he said. "The real solution to the problem of lack of patient information is not to leave it to the market, where self-interested people advertise only those products on which they can make a buck," Lurie said. "The real solution is to provide patients with government-sanctioned information on each and every drug." Another consumer advocate doesn’t think the AMA proposal would do anything to protect the public. "Direct-to-consumer drug ads are dangerous and should be illegal," said Gary Ruskin, executive director of the consumer watchdog group Commercial Alert. "The AMA’s policy is so weak that it will do little, if anything, to protect public health. It won’t make much of a difference at all." The AMA’s Davis said his group considered a ban on direct-to-consumer ads but opted for FDA oversight instead. "There are some potential benefits from DTC advertising," he said. "In particular, educating the public about the availably of new medications and prompting discussions between patients and physicians about new medications." But there are some risks, Davis added. "Such as building up false expectations among patients about what these drugs may or may not do, or whether they are appropriate for the disease or condition that a patient has," he said. "Laying out the advantages and disadvantages of DTC ads and the benefits and harms, we came down on the side of tight FDA oversight over DTC ads as opposed to a total ban," he said. More information To learn more about direct-to-consumer ads, visit the U.S. Federal Trade Commission. SOURCES: Ronald M. Davis, M.D., president-elect, American Medical Association, Chicago; Peter Lurie, M.D., M.P.H., deputy director, Public Citizen’s Health Research Group, Washington, D.C; Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, Washington, D.C.; Gary Ruskin, executive director, Commercial Alert, Portland, Ore; June 14, 2006, American Medical Association’s annual House of Delegates Meeting, Chicago This is a story from HealthDay, a service of ScoutNews, LLC. http://health.ivillage.com/othernews/0,,wbnews_99f3b9fp,00.html?dst=rss ~*~Would you respect my mind more if it bounced gently when I walked?~*~ — The charter is available at: http://readystump.algebra.com/~asapm
– The charter is available at: http://readystump.algebra.com/~asapm
Response:
Purple pill, my aunt Fanny.
I was just thinking about the purple pill. They got around the whole problem of explaining the side effects by *not telling you what the purple pill was*. You had to go to your doctor. "Doc, can I have the purple pill?" "Are you sure you *really* want the purple pill?" "Yes, doc, I’m dyin’ for it. I just know it’s what I need." "Why not this nice pink pill?" "No, doc, I need the purple!" I think it was Prilosec. Ha. I take Zantac.
Ian — http://sundry.ws/ — The charter is available at: http://readystump.algebra.com/~asapm
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – "Direct-to-consumer drug ads are dangerous and should be illegal," said Gary Ruskin, executive director of the consumer watchdog group Commercial Alert. He doesn’t say why, though. One has to guess at what he means, or ask the person who wrote the article and neglected to give his reasons. Certainly I can’t see any benefit to these drug ads, as it’s the doctors who should be learning about the medication, not the patients. They’re the prescribers.
I can’t recall ever having a discussion with my doctor about some new drug I saw on TV. I do agree, though, that those warnings in the commercials are just plain silly, speeding past you like bad ending credits on a B-grade movie. <cut to shot of people playing tennis "Ask your doctor about Helpor! It can lower your bad cholesterol by up to 40 points!" <cut to shot of people eating at a fancy restaurant <man speaking quietly, at double speed "May cause temporary blindness, extreme reaction to sunlight, shortness of breath, uncontrollable flatulence, and hives. Do not take Helpor if you are allergic to anything organic. Do not take Helpor if you have high-blood pressure, diabetes, liver disease, or hemmorhoids." <cut to shot of people laughing in a convertible "So ask your doctor about Helpor! And live life to the fullest." etc. etc. What a bunch of crap. Where do you think the money comes to pay for these commercials anyway? Why not start a new ad campaign? No more commercials, and the price of the drugs is cut in half. Everyone wins.
Ian — http://sundry.ws/
LOL Ian, You are hysterical. Those ads always say something about living life to the fullest, whatever the hell that means. Last time I lived my life to the fullest, I didn’t remember what happened the next day. I had to cut that out. I haven’t worked in the medical field for awhile, but I bet the doctors *really appreciate* it (not) when a layman comes in and asks for Helpor to live a full life. I can see that now. Yep. Some docs might perscribe the stuff, if it does no harm, but most are not going to apprieciate being told how to practice medicine. They only went to school for a million years so they might learn a thing or two. Those ads on TV are for new meds.. they may be better. They may not. Maybe an older, cheaper one would do as well or better. I say.. let the drug companies run their ads, but put that on as a disclaimer. In big bold letters. They’d never run another ad. That ought to fall under the truth in advertising law somewhere. The ads aren’t the half of it. The real culprits are the insurance companies. They are your health care providers, people. They tie the hands of doctors – at sometimes very crucial times – and dictate what can and can’t be done – and to get their way, a doctor has to jump through hoops and go through channels to convince the insurance companies that the patient really DOES need ..whatever… between the those idiotic ads, the insurance companies.. the doctors are put in one difficult place. Something needs to be done so that physicians are the ones who are handling the patients’ care . Seems like it gets less that way everyday. I didn’t even touch the topic of malpractice insurance.. Sally — The charter is available at: http://readystump.algebra.com/~asapm
Response:
to get their way, a doctor has to jump through hoops and go through channels to convince the insurance companies that the patient really DOES need ..whatever…
Yeah, I got taken off Prevacid and put on Zantac for my stomach ills. Even two of those Zantac a day doesn’t always help, and I can feel my esophagus (sp) getting more ulcerated by the day. One day the ulcers will really be there, and I’ll have to have all sorts of horrible surgeries and leech bleedings, or whatever it is they do to people in the hospital, and Medicare will have to pay for that. They also don’t cover Klonopin, or *any* benzos, for that matter, as the Derider had to find out as well. Luckily my *Medicaid* pays for my benzo, so that’s good, but I got real lucky with disability, and almost everyone else who gets a benzo is screwed. Ian — http://sundry.ws/ — The charter is available at: http://readystump.algebra.com/~asapm
Response:
AMA Wants Halt on Drug Ads Aimed at Consumers Group says doctors need to learn more about pros and cons of prescription medicines By Steven Reinberg THURSDAY, June 15 (HealthDay News) — In an effort to make prescription-drug ads aimed at consumers more understandable and informative, the American Medical Association is calling for a temporary halt on advertising for newly approved drugs. The AMA is also calling for guidelines for future ads, which would be subject to approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration before they appeared.
<snip Well it’s about damn time! Might be too little too late, but it’s an improvement. Purple pill, my aunt Fanny. Deirdre the Derider — The charter is available at: http://readystump.algebra.com/~asapm
Response:
"Direct-to-consumer drug ads are dangerous and should be illegal," said Gary Ruskin, executive director of the consumer watchdog group Commercial Alert.
He doesn’t say why, though. One has to guess at what he means, or ask the person who wrote the article and neglected to give his reasons. Certainly I can’t see any benefit to these drug ads, as it’s the doctors who should be learning about the medication, not the patients. They’re the prescribers.
I can’t recall ever having a discussion with my doctor about some new drug I saw on TV. I do agree, though, that those warnings in the commercials are just plain silly, speeding past you like bad ending credits on a B-grade movie. <cut to shot of people playing tennis "Ask your doctor about Helpor! It can lower your bad cholesterol by up to 40 points!" <cut to shot of people eating at a fancy restaurant <man speaking quietly, at double speed "May cause temporary blindness, extreme reaction to sunlight, shortness of breath, uncontrollable flatulence, and hives. Do not take Helpor if you are allergic to anything organic. Do not take Helpor if you have high-blood pressure, diabetes, liver disease, or hemmorhoids." <cut to shot of people laughing in a convertible "So ask your doctor about Helpor! And live life to the fullest." etc. etc. What a bunch of crap. Where do you think the money comes to pay for these commercials anyway? Why not start a new ad campaign? No more commercials, and the price of the drugs is cut in half. Everyone wins.
Ian — http://sundry.ws/ — The charter is available at: http://readystump.algebra.com/~asapm
Categories: